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. | |
|---|---|
| Graham and Olga Alvord | 2/21/2014 8:30:35 AM |
| 8431 CCC does not seem to be a reasonable and appropriate location for the proposed facility for a number of additional reasons. 1. The property has high vertical retaining walls on both sides; we witnessed two falls off the walls, and there might have been more. 2. The backyard is class C federally protected wetlands with treacherous depressions filled with water in summer, ice in winter, a hazard even for young and healthy residents. Fences, required for a facility to operate, are not allowed in the area. 3. Wild animals, particularly moose, bears, coyotes, and lynx are frequent visitors to the property. As recently as yesterday, there were two moose in the front of 8431. Scared by the snow plows, they ran into the backyard to hide. Animals can be potentially very dangerous. 4. The dead end cul-de-sac does not receive priority snow removal service: driving and walking become quite problematic after a snowfall. | |
| Thomas Kretzschmar | 2/19/2014 5:45:00 PM |
| I am opposed to the Muni granting a variance for the proposed commercial use in a residential area when the applicant has failed to show how the business will not negatively impact parking, traffic, and safety. The applicant purchased the subject property and began modifications in advance of either subdivision covenants approval, state licensing or municipal variance award. As such, the applicant fails to show how the denial of the variance is not a self-imposed hardship, and should be denied. | |
| Linda McCarthy Beckworth | 2/19/2014 3:41:12 PM |
| An additional comment....this morning after getting about 1 foot of new snow last night, our street was undriveable. My husband got his car stuck in the street & had to leave it to catch a flight out of town. I had to take our snow blower & go up & down the street multiple times before I could get the snow around the car cleared & finally managed to drive it back to the garage. Even the construction workers at the ALF house had trouble navigating the street. In the event of heavy snow (and we have had more than this many times), the street is almost unmanagable until the Muni plows finally make it to our neighborhood.....how will medical vehicles etc be able to get to the ALF at the end of the street? | |
| Linda McCarthy Beckworth | 2/18/2014 8:43:10 PM |
| Our home on Cormorant Cove in Sahalee Subdivision was the first home built on our street. My husband & I have watched lots of things happen to & in our small neighborhood & most were good things but having a business operating on our dead end street (or anywhere in the neighborhood) will change the whole perspective & attitude of the neighborhood & destroy the reason we built here in the first place. The majority of the Sahalee homeowners voted at the recent Abbott Loop Community Council OVERWHELMINGLY to not allow the home to be used as an 8 bed Assisted Living Facility. The majority of the homeowners have asked our board to not allow a business to operate in the neighborhood in accordance with our CCRs. Anchorage doesn't need another ALF in small neighborhoods. According to Residential Licensing Open Facilities as of 12/5/2013 (dhss.alaska.gov/dhcs/Documents/cl/PDFs/ALHomes.xls) There are already 410 ALFs in Anchorage with 2217 residents (SS, DMH, and DU Facilities). Of the 410 facilities, only 27 have more than 5 residents. Of the 27 facilities with more than 5 residents only 11 facilities have between 6 and 10 residents (less than 3% of the total ALFs have this range of residents). The other 16 facilities are much larger and range from 16 to 168 residents. This historical information shows that having more than 5 residents in an ALF is not commonly approved. We feel the following problems will result in any sized ALF at the end of our small dead end street: Impact to traffic volume and pattern. We are worried about a large increase in traffic. The already existing assisted living facility at 9022 Sahalee gets 6 Anchor Rides a day for 3-4 persons suggesting that an 8 person facility could generate 16 Anchor Rides or more. The Anchor Rides buses are noisy & frequently their lights blast into the surrounding homes. They use other home's driveways to turn around & sometimes block the street. There will also be staff with shift changes, medical/nursing personnel, visitors, food services, cleaning services, maintenance personnel, inspectors, and ambulances. All these people will have to park somewhere and there is limited parking. In winter the city plows pile snow into the cul-de-sac (usually for 6+ months). Being on a cul-de-sac, this home has a shorter drive than most houses in the neighborhood & there is NO room around the curve for street parking. Risks to the health/safety/quality of life of area residents. The additional traffic and increase in unknown people is another worry for parents of children walking to Trailside Elementary, Service High, and the Hanshew bus stop and children playing around the street area. We have no school age children but have 3 grandchildren who visit frequently. Children of all ages & adults in surrounding neighborhoods use the Sahalee trails & sidewalks to get to school or to enjoy the wooded area. Changes to the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. An assisted living facility is a business. It does not fit in with and will change the single family residential character of our neighborhood & not be in compliance with our existing CCRs. Cost and availability of other housing alternatives. The DeMoss application offers no substantiated analysis of the cost and availability of other housing alternatives or any financial proof that a home in this area is viable either as a 5 or 8 bed facility. Although on a map Sahalee appears close to amenities needed by an assisted living population it is not necessarily a safe and convenient area. The neighborhood has only 1 entrance & exit & is more than 10 miles from the nearest hospital (Providence). Depending on the traffic on Elmore & Tudor that distance can take a long time to travel. The area behind the home is an active moose, grizzly and black bear corridor. The home backs up to areas of standing water and miles of woods, not the best location for persons with dementia. Our own home has black bears (as many as 4 at a time) on our back deck which is a floor above ground. The neighborhood is very low priority for Muni snow removal and that could pose problems for Anchor Ride buses, needed medical personnel, and ambulances. For these reasons I ask that you side with the homeowners & prevent this business from operating in our neighborhood or if that is ot possible, then limit the amount of beds the facility has to reduce some of the obstacles I've outlined. | |
| Gilberto Guarderas | 2/18/2014 4:34:56 PM |
| When I moved to the Sahalee neighborhood, approximately 10+ years ago, I did so with the intention of building my dream home as well as an investment to supplement my retirement fund. I have recently placed my home for sale on the market because I have learned that Sahalee was increasingly becoming a neighborhood of assisted living facilities. I am aware that the investment that I have made in my home will begin to depreciate because of this and wish to bring it to the attention of all homeowners in this subdivision. The original intent upon the formation of this subdivision was for the housing to be used as single-family homes and the increase in alternative uses will affect the potential value of each individual owners' properties. I cannot support the devaluation of my assets and request an intervention from the homeowner's association to disallow this practice. Surely, if I were unable to sell my home for its current market value, the residents of Sahalee would not appreciate me turning my home into an assisted living facility. Correct? | |
| Mark Bessler | 2/18/2014 3:12:04 PM |
| As residents in the Sahalee neighborhood we are strongly opposed to this variance. We feel this ALF is truly a commercial businesses misconstruing the definition of single family residence and undermining the values for which our neighborhood was intended. We feel there will be a significant increase in street traffic from this business creating safety issues. We are at the front of the community on the main entrance road so this is a huge concern for our family. Our children are 5 and 8 and our house is biased towards the rear of our lot, so the front yard and driveway area are common play areas for our children. The additional traffic from running a business will undoubtedly increase, even if they are only at the residence for a short time. My assumption is that the increased traffic will not only include normal personal vehicles, but also more buses (Anchor Rides) and delivery trucks for food and medical supplies. Larger vehicles inherently have poorer street visibility thereby increasing the risk for our small children. Since there is only 1 entrance to the community we do not understand how this increase in traffic can be accepted. Additionally, the caregivers and other support personnel for this facility do not live in our neighborhood – they will be commuting to their job, so the propensity for them to speed will be higher. Considering I have never seen any traffic law enforcement in our local neighborhood this behavior will go unchecked. Additionally, the constant visitor traffic and parking will create increased noise and congestion for the houses in close proximity. The effect of this variance could also result in a loss of home value. It is documented that a 15-20% decrease in value is common for homes around an ALF. So please do not permit this variance to allow the ALF to go from an already untenable number to something much greater. | |
| Megan Ritter | 2/18/2014 2:36:47 PM |
| As a longtime Sahalee resident, I request that the application for occupancy limits variance be DENIED. The business petitioner was aware of the neighborhood covenants and by-laws when he established his ALF. The onus is now on him to work within the by-laws to maintain a profitable business. The residents of Sahalee should not be responsible for his lack of foresight or business acumen. | |
| Eric Gillespie | 2/18/2014 2:02:40 PM |
| I live two houses away and wish to express my opposition to this variance request to increase occupancy limits. It will change the character of the neighborhood which I have chosen for my family to live in for the past 12 years. | |
| Chris Kottra | 2/18/2014 1:53:31 PM |
| As a resident of the Sahalee neighborhood I would strongly urge that the application for variance from occupancy limits in this case be DENIED. The limit on occupancy under AMC 21.15.013 was put in place for exactly this situation: to mitigate the impact of a commercial multi-occupancy ALF on a neighborhood which is otherwise zoned as one-family residential district. With regard to the "financial hardship" criterion required for an administrative variance I think it's important to note that when the petitioner recently spoke before the Abbott Loop Community Council he said that his facility would go forward regardless of whether the variance was approved or denied. Thus, by his own statement the petitioner has indicated that this variance is NOT NECESSARY for his facility to operate. | |
| Bill Richardson | 2/18/2014 12:42:31 PM |
| We are opposed to the granting of this variance because it violates covenants that make the Sahalee neighborhood a pleasant place in which to live. The increase in traffic and the potential viewing of this as a precedence for future variances concerns a great number of our neighbors and us. We are being told that Mr. DeMoss implied that he had HOA approval to violate the covenants and by-laws when he applied for his federal home loan, and that he has already violated MAC rules in renovations to the home. I’m sure you know that the Abbott Loop Community Council vote to deny this business in our neighborhood was 79 to 1. Had we not had a conflict, the vote would have been 81 to 1 against the introduction of a business with employees and added traffic to a quiet residential neighborhood. The Sahalee neighborhood has narrower streets than in many neighborhoods, and they are curvy and hilly. The operation of mini-buses to and from the dead-end of Cormorant Cove will definitely be a noticeable and negative change to our neighborhood. We are not NIMBYs, who oppose something being built on land we don’t own nearby. We are only asking that covenants and by-laws already in place not be set aside so someone can make a profit from a home when the reason we moved here was precisely to reside in a neighborhood that was full of families, not for-profit ventures. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Stephanie Lentfer | 2/18/2014 9:25:03 AM |
| First and foremost, this variance contradicts the intent of the Municipal Code 21.15.013. By approving this variance, the occupancy limits would clearly "exceed the average building in this family oriented neighborhood". Secondly, according to the municipal code 21.15.013, the relevant factors in the Planning Department’s decision GREATLY affect our neighborhood. Not only are there increased risks to the safety and quality of life of our residents, but this variance would substantially increase traffic volumes within our neighborhood. With only one entrance/exit to the neighborhood, service vehicles and visitors would be required to use our cul-de-sacs to turn around. The amount of traffic alone on Abbott before and after school starting times is tremendous. It is already difficult to exit or enter into Sahalee at the times school is starting or ending. If the variance is approved, this business would house 8 elderly and/or disabled residents. A short of list visitors each week follows: • 3 employees • Anchor Ride bus transportation • Cleaning services • Meal services • Physical therapy • Ambulance rides • Visiting family members These numbers alone, greatly change the characteristics and traffic patterns of our neighborhood. Our neighborhood houses many children who attend Trailside Elementary and Service High School. Being in such close proximity to these schools and with paved pathways to the schools, most students walk to school through the neighborhood. Additionally, there is a crosswalk on Sahalee Drive with a paved path to the neighborhood on Jupiter Drive. There is a large amount of students and families that use this crosswalk to walk to school. The significant increase in traffic to serve 8 residents at this ALF will tremendously affect the safety level for our children and residents of both neighborhoods. With three small children, I am completely opposed to this significant increase of traffic. Thirdly, approval of this variance would also contradict the intent of Municipal Code 21.40.030 for residential zoning. Approval of this variance would not “preserve and protect the single family residential character” of our neighborhood. And lastly, what is most concerning to me, is the that the owner has blatantly ignored our bylaws and due process, the same bylaws that we as residents abide by, even to change the paint color of our homes, build a fence, or landscape. He has not made himself available to answer questions to address our concerns over safety and the significant changes to our neighborhood. It is my understanding that the owner of this facility has in fact proceeded with modifications and construction to the property without HOA approval or approval of this variance by your department. His complete disregard for these established bylaws is of great concern to us. If he is determined to be in financial hardship, it would be shocking to me if the variance is approved based on “financial hardship”. Any person with sound financial and business practice would not proceed with modifications to the facility prior to receiving the required approvals. Any financial hardship here would appear to be self-induced or intentional. Additionally, I am a Registered Nurse of 11 years at one of the local hospitals, and a large proportion of my patients are transferred in from Assisted Living Facilities. Now, as I do try to be sympathetic to the needs of our community members, my concerns surround the safety of our neighborhood. While not all assisted living facility patients are a threat in any way, there are many that are mentally incompetent and a danger to themselves and often others. I have a thorough understanding of the issues that surround Assisted Living Facilities. This concerns me the most as we are not just talking about elderly patients here. There is a HUGE population of mentally incapacitated patients with poor health habits, non-compliance issues and severe instability. These characteristics are not a risk I wish to subject my family to. These concerns are in addition to the increased traffic patterns and “de-neighborhoodization” for lack of better terms, of our neighborhood. How can we as residents be assured of our safety? I strongly urge you to deny this request for variance, as there is access in Anchorage to decent, safe, accessible, and affordable housing which would permit a business to operate without opposing, established bylaws and covenants. Thank your for your consideration. | |
| Margaret Ambrose | 2/17/2014 10:03:19 PM |
| I live on Cormorant Cove Circle, where the Assisted Living Facility will be located. There are many dire downsides. Including increase of noise and traffic which endangers our children and current residents. This is a BUSINESS with revenue, expenses and profits. Nobody opens a BUSINESS TO LOSE Money or to break even, unless you are a non profit. This Facility is a business for profit and should not be part of a residential area. I would not of bought my home if it was zoned for business usage. The property values will of course decline. The purchase of this home was made underhandedly by a realtor with unethical behavior and now we are saying all this okay? Therefore, I fully deny having this business in my neighborhood. | |
| Dean Karcz | 2/17/2014 7:17:58 PM |
| I do not support the granting of this variance. The increase in occupancy and the associated traffic is not appropriate to our residential neighborhood. | |
| Donna and Jacques Boutet | 2/17/2014 12:28:38 PM |
| We respectfully request that a variance of the occupancy limits for proposed assisted living facility at 8431 Cormorant Cove Circle BE DENIED. The size restriction was placed on assisted living facilities under AMC 21.15.013 specifically to minimize potential impacts to residential neighborhoods. We understand the need for such facilities, but believe that there is no compelling reason to allow a 40% increase in resident population - and the associated traffic - as requested by the owner. The property was purchased with full knowledge of existing zoning laws; claiming a financial need to allow more residents after-the-fact is disingenuous at best. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Heather and Bill Rice | 2/17/2014 10:11:23 AM |
| As residents of the Sahalee Neighborhood, we ask that the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) deny the request by ACG Holdings for a variance to increase the allowed home occupancy limit from 5 to 8 persons in their proposed senior assisted living facility at 8431 Cormorant Cove Circle. Based on a review of the variance application submitted by ACG Holdings, and as discussed below, we do not think the request meets Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC). 1. ACG Holdings’ request for a variance does not meet the intent of AMC 21.15.013. The intent of AMC 21.15.013 is to “provide a procedure …to request reasonable accommodation…when access to decent safe, accessible, and affordable housing with assisted living would not be available absent a reasonable accommodation.” At no place in the application does ACG Holdings provide factual proof that, without this variance, there would not be access to decent safe, accessible, and affordable housing with assisted living in Anchorage The applicant offers no numbers or other data about the existing supply and demand for such assisted living facilities in Anchorage and the effect of their proposed facility at Cormorant Cove Circle on that supply and demand. (Also see #3 below regarding the “addendum” purported to address this topic.) 2. The request submitted by the HCG Holdings does not provide information about a number of factors the MOA Planning Department must review In order to decide whether to approve or deny an application. Specifically: a. AMC 21.15.013 E.1- ACG Holdings does not explain how it will seek to protect and preserve the primarily residential character of the district (in this case the Sahalee Neighborhood). In its application for a variance, ACG Holdings only states that “The residents will not have vehicles so only attending staff will be parked on site (3 car garage and/or driveway) and not in the cul-de-sac or roadway.” ACG Holdings provides absolutely no information about other traffic-related factors listed in AMC 12.15.013 E.1 including: traffic patterns or the control exercised by the assisted living provider to mitigate environmental disturbance associated with ingress and egress of facility staff workers at shift change. In fact, ACG Holdings does not even provide the number of staff working at the assisted living home, nor the likely work shifts, timing of exit/entry to the house, or any other similar details about the staff which would help determine the resulting traffic patterns. Along these same lines, ACG Holdings provides no information about other business activities which may affect traffic in the neighborhood, such as the number and timing of visits by medical/nursing personnel, personal groomers, massagers, therapists, visitors, food services, laundry and cleaning services, maintenance personnel, inspectors, and ambulances. All of these ancillary businesses could be associated with the assisted living facility and would, therefore, impact the amount of traffic generated by the facility. b. AMC 21.15.013 E.2 - ACG Holdings does not explain what economic hardship on the intended occupants would ensue if the variance is denied. ACG Holdings provides an addendum to the application titled, “Limited Housing Options for Seniors In Assisted Living,” in which it purports to address this issue. However, this addendum is nothing but five paragraphs of personal opinion, unsubstantiated by facts or numbers of any sort. Using words like “most,” “may,” “seems” and “can be,” the author implies that small, medium, and large assisted living homes are inadequate. The bias in this addendum also is clear. For example, the author uses scare tactics regarding small assisted living homes, stating that “I have seen notices given for move out especially with residents affected by dementia.” The author refers to larger facilities as being “institutional” in feel and fact, again clearly intending to bias the reader against all but the size of the facility ACG Holdings is proposing. In all, the author would have the readers believe, simply because the author states it as so (again, with no factual evidence), that facilities for 6-10 residents, such as ACG Holdings’ proposed facility on Cormorant Cove Circle, would have an advantage over all other types. c. AMC21.15.013 E.4 – ACG Holdings does not address the impacts on the residential aspects of the neighborhood from commercial aspects of the operation. As noted in 2(a) above, no information is provided by the applicant to determine the impacts on the residential character of the Sahalee Neighborhood. d. AMC 21.15.013 E.5 - ACG Holdings does not explain whether the proposed size of the facility is necessary for the facility’s financial viability. Instead, ACG Holdings states broadly that “Because of the cost and amenities of these larger properties, it is only possible to provide this level of service and quality with added resident numbers.” Nowhere in the application is any economic analysis provided to support this statement. In addition, even were ACG Holdings to have provided such an analysis, it still must be said that ACG Holdings’ desire to make their business viable by increasing occupancy limits should not come at the expense of the Sahalee Neighborhood. e. AMC 21.15.013 E.6 and 7- ACG Holdings does not describe the impacts of the proposed facility, including projected contribution to traffic volumes within the neighborhood, nor does it quantify the risks to the healthy, safety, and quality of life of area residents and users. Again, no specific information to address these issues is provided in the application; see 2(a) above. The vague and uninformative nature of the variance request submitted by ACG Holdings leaves us with the impression that this business does not care about the impact it has on the character of the neighborhood. ACG Holdings is not forthright in its description of the proposed assisted living home nor of its impacts. Instead, ACG Holdings gives the impression that it believes the less said, the better. This is not the attitude a good business promotes, nor for that matter is it the attitude desired in a good neighbor. AMC 21.15.013 provides a procedure for MOA to follow when deciding whether to grant a request for an administrative variance from occupancy limits for residential care facilities. MOA should follow its own code to ensure a thoughtful analysis is conducted and input from the affected neighborhood is carefully considered. For all of the above reasons, the MOA should deny the request for variance. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Heather and Bill Rice | |
| Valerie Waldrop | 2/16/2014 8:01:29 AM |
| I ask that the MOA Panning Department DENY the variance request on 8431 Cormorant Cove Circle. The ALF corporation purchased this home in a neighborhood with very strict covenants. We homeowners choose to abide by our regulations so that we can protect the character of the neighborhood. You will notice that ALL of the submitted comments (online and likely in writing) are opposed to the variance (and the ALF operating at all!). While there are plenty of Anchorage neighborhoods that could absorb this sort of facility, this neighborhood, and this particular location, is not one of those places. 8431 is at the end of a DEAD END CUL DE SAC. I urge the decision makers to visit the site. We have limited to no on street parking. There is only one way into and out of the neighborhood. The amount of traffic and parking that a business of this size will create in our cup-de-sac will DRAMATICALLY change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. | |
| Emily Lunoe | 2/13/2014 4:33:41 PM |
| My family and I live on Cormorant Cove Circle and we oppose the variance. I have three young children who are part of the fabulous group of kids who are regularly found on their bikes and scooters going up and down the cul-de-sac. Two bikers quickly turn into six or eight as they see or hear the others outside having a good time. They open the garage, get their helmets on and join in the commotion. That's a beautiful gift growing up - to live on a safe, quiet, dead end street. These qualities are specifically why we chose to live here. To live where other families are making their lives and are personally invested in preserving the goodness, the esthetic and the safety of our neighborhood. We live close to school. Too close for bus service so kids walk to school. It's dark in the morning for most of the school year. There are snow berms that are taller then third graders heads. There is limited visibility because of both the berms and the darkness. I live here - I know where to look - it's still hard as a driver to see these little kids. I'm not just talking about Sahalee residents, but all the kids who live in the no bus service radius. Because of where the school zoning pulls from and the trails funneling people, most will cross Sahalee Dr. walking up to school from the neighboring subdivisions. A large ALF is problematic because: 1. Traffic - most certainly it will dramatically increase!!! 2. Residential Character - as a for profit business an ALF of 8-10 people will not fit in as a single family neighbor. The personal investment in the area is simply not there - it's a place of employment. 3. On street parking - a very particular problem as 8431 Cormorant is on a cul-de-sac (a circle with driveways sprouting off) no room! In winter, the plows create a fantastic snow hill for us - fun for kids, impossibly bad for parking. 4. Safety - increased traffic, strangers, lots of different workers in and out. Who will these people be? This is where we live, our safe place - I know my neighbors and they know me. A large commercial business brings a very different arrangement. 5. Against the HOA covenants - All the homeowners in Sahalee agreed to them when we each bought our home and so did both the owners of the two ALF's in our subdivision. | |
| Jennifer Haynes | 2/9/2014 4:58:49 PM |
| In reference to request for a variance to allow the assisted living facility to house 8 or more residents, I strongly urge that this not be allowed. The group of people who purchased this home, and who plan to open this assisted living facility there, did so knowing that they were only allowed 5 residents. They did not claim that this is a hardship for them until after they purchased the property and started renovations to add more rooms for more residents. They have not acted in good faith with our homeowners association. This home is located in a family neighborhood at the end of a street on a cul-de-sac. Traffic is of great concern due to the nature of the street and the children who play in the neighborhood. There is only one entrance to our neighborhood at the top of the subdivision off of Abbott. Adding more Anchor Rides driving through on a daily basis is concerning due to the nature of this neighborhood. We also have a cross walk from another neighbor hood that leads to the local Elementary School and High School. The traffic is not only a safety concern it is a quality of life concern. When we purchased our home in this subdivision we did so because of the cul-de-sac design at the ends of the streets. We knew that this would be a quieter neighbor hood due to the fact that there was no through traffic. Only people who lived here would be driving in and out on a regular basis. Granting a variance for an 8 room facility will greatly impact that quiet nature of the neighborhood. It Is like having a small hotel open up next door. We already have one and now will have another. Please limit it to the already granted 5 room capacity. The shift changes will occur every 8 hours. The owners will not be living on site and therefore not be impacted personally by any traffic. I think that if these kinds of facilities are going to be placed in family subdivisions, owners should have to live on site and be part of the community and quality of life they say they so want to provide for their residents. They would then have a vested interest in the traffic and safety of the neighborhood. The owners in this case will not live in the facility and thus can not be as concerned about traffic noise and safety of the citizens who live here. The only reason we can see that these business owners wish to be granted a variance is so that they can increase their profit margin. That seems unfair granted that they purchased the home knowing that the law stated they could only have 5 residents. They then went about asking for this variance without thinking about their neighbors. This is a financial issue for all. This has always been known as a family neighborhood. What will happen to property values when homes can be converted house 8 residents and be run as a business? Please deny their request to increase the number of residents to this assisted living facility. | |
| John Dittrich | 2/8/2014 2:29:06 PM |
| OPPOSED TO VARIANCE TO ALLOW 8431 CORMORANT COVE CIRCLE TO EXPAND OCCUPANCY TO 8 RESIDENTS. I am on the board of directors of Hope Community Resources and in general fully supported assisted living homes to be placed in neighborhoods throughout Anchorage. That said these homes need to operate within the confines of the law. Buying a very expensive house and then after the fact deciding it needs 8 to cover the cost is NOT a legitimate reason for increasing occupancy. We have a quiet neighborhood in Sahalee and the increased traffic from Anchor Rides and caregivers will cause a disruption to that balance. There are numerous other options in anchorage for more affordable homes that can justify 5 occupants. As such there should not be any need to convert this property to 8. Please do NOT approve this variance. Thank you. | |
| Bill Johnson | 2/1/2014 1:58:57 PM |
| I don't support a business of this size in a single-family subdivision. It will change the character of the neighborhood. I request that the variance request for case number 2014-018 be denied. | |
| Mary Kretzschmar | 1/29/2014 8:50:16 PM |
| I respectfully request for the MOA to DENY the request for MOA variance #2014-18. Jack W. DeMoss, the applicant, is requesting that "it is only possible to operate his [business]... with added resident numbers.", according to his Request for Zoning Variance letter. Mr. DeMoss cannot meet the burden of proof as set forth by the MOA code 21.15.010, subsection C. 1. c. (see below) that the hard-ship is not self-imposed as he purchased the property in July and commenced construction modifications prior to obtaining the variance. As a knowledgeable and experienced businessman, the applicant must have determined the project was economically feasible without a variance. With that being said, the applicant assumed the risk that the variance would not be approved. ~~~~~ 21.15.010 Procedure for obtaining variance subsection C. Standards. A request for variance may be initiated only by the property owner or authorized representative. The application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following standards: 1. c. The hardship is not self-imposed, and special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute inconvenience;... | |
| Patrick Cuddihy | 1/27/2014 7:18:57 PM |
| I respectfully ask that you *DENY* this administrative variance. While the applicants’ motive of providing quality life-care for those less fortunate is understandable & commendable, a business to the scale and size that they are proposing is simply not appropriate for a single-family residential neighborhood. | |
| Maxwell Hammond | 1/26/2014 9:14:31 PM |
| I'm not going to be politically correct with this. I'm extremely pissed off that this would even be considered by the municipality. Furthermore, someone needs to be held accountable with the municipality for allowing an assisted living facility at 9022 Sahalee drive without making the single family residence neighborhood aware. That assisted living facility was sneaked in to our neighborhood. Our covenants prohibit business and these ARE businesses. If this is allowed, where does it end? It's easy to spin this as it's just a nice alternative for elderly people. Once this is started, who's to say we can't open an assisted living home for mentally handicapped? Why couldn't we then open an assisted living/halfway home for convicts? Does the municipality, city council, or mayor want any of these facilities in THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS? This is a neighborhood with a lot of children who play openly in the streets. All of our residents bought in this neighborhood because of it's family appeal. We DO NOT want that infringed upon by commercial assisted living facilities. If this assisted living facility opens the doors to mentally handicapped people, would anyone feel safe letting their children play openly in the streets. I'm sorry if this is taken offensively, but this is the truth. To add to this, our property prices WILL DECLINE. The value of this neighborhood will be diminished. There is zoning requirements in place. Why is the municipality considering exemptions to these zoning requirements? Jack Demoss is the requestor and franchise owner of Comfort Keepers FRANCHISE. The Sahalee Home Owners Association has not approved a franchise to operate in our neighborhood. How about all the Anchor Rides buses that mysteriously started showing up in our neighborhood with the existing assisted living facility (9022 Sahalee)? That's just what our neighborhood wants is a full blown bus service, routing to multiple businesses in our SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE neighborhood. I've got two young children who ride their bikes and play in the neighborhood. Is the municipality open to accepting the risk and liability of all the increased bus and business staff traffic should a child get hit? We as homeowners are not willing to accept the risk! Please respect the homeowners who would like their neighborhood to remain a single family neighborhood as it was always intended to be. Please revoke the permit of the assisted living facility at 9022 Sahalee Drive, as I understand it's a temporary permit. Respectfully - Max Hammond | |
| Mindy Baum | 1/26/2014 9:01:05 PM |
| As residents of the Sahalee Neighborhood living in close proximity to the proposed assisted living facility, we ask that the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) deny the request by ACG Holdings for a variance to increase the maximum allowed home occupancy limit from 5 to 8 persons at 8431 Cormorant Cove Circle. We are concerned about the effects of such a large commercial facility in our neighborhood in terms of the impact to traffic volume and pattern, risks to the safety and quality of life of area residents, and changes to the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. While our concerns also pertain to a smaller facility, they are magnified by the increased size of the proposed facility. The greater the size of the facility, the greater the commercial effects upon the neighborhood. The following are the considered impacts of a large commercial facility on our neighborhood: 1. Projected contribution to traffic volumes and on-street parking within the neighborhood. We are worried about a large increase in traffic and on-street parking. Our neighborhood consists of one long street dead ending into two cul-de-sacs. There is only one way in and out. There is an already existing assisted living facility at 9022 Sahalee that usually generates six Anchor Rides a day. (This number is based on observations of a neighbor who is home during the day. Her living area with large windows is directly across from the assisted living home and she can either see or hear the loud high pitched beeping of the vehicle.) Although this facility at 9022 Sahalee is at the front of the subdivision, the bus often drives through the entire subdivision to turn around at one of the two dead end cul-de-sacs. These numbers suggest that an 8 person facility at Cormorant Cove could generate 16 Anchor Rides or other means of transport a day. In addition to that, there will be staff with shift changes, medical/nursing personnel, personal groomers, massagers, therapists, visitors, food services or trips to the store, cleaning services, maintenance personnel, inspectors, and ambulances. All those people will have to park somewhere and there is limited parking in the cul-de-sac, especially in winter when snow is stored there. The application addresses staff parking (it does not specify the number of staff) but it does not address the issue of any additional traffic or added parking needs. There has been no independent impact study or statistics provided on the effects of the establishment of such a facility in a neighborhood in terms of increased traffic and on-street parking patterns. Such information should be available before any decision regarding a variance can be made. We fear that the proposed facility for 8-10 residents will turn our formerly quiet street into a commercial parking lot. 2. Quantifiable risks to the safety and quality of life of area residents and users. The additional traffic and increase in unknown persons are worrisome for parents of children walking to Trailside, Service, and the Hanshew bus stop and children playing in the street. School children and their parents from nearby neighborhoods also walk through our subdivision on their way to and from school. We are concerned about opportunistic incidental crime resulting from the increase in traffic. It is not possible to quantify these risks because there has been no impact study or statistics provided on the effects of the establishment of such a facility in a neighborhood and that information should be available before any decision regarding a variance can be made. It is also not possible to quantify the risk to the quality of life of area residents who chose to live in a quiet, residential, rural-like, single family zoned neighborhood, and not in a more mixed or commercial zone. I purchased my home in the cul-de-sac specifically for its location where my children could and did play outside safely but parents will no longer be able to allow their children to play outside without being closely supervised. I chose the neighborhood because it is intended for single family homes, not mixed commercial use. We understand the need for the small residential facilities of five persons for which our neighborhood is currently zoned but we strongly oppose a zoning change to allow the expansion of a small facility into a larger commercial facility at the expense of our safety and quality of life. 3. Changes to the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. Neighborhood residents chose to live in Sahalee because of its single family residential character. We understood, as did the applicant who states that he reviewed the HOA covenants, that we were choosing to live in a neighborhood whose covenants prohibit businesses and require single family dwellings. (Those covenants read “No Lot shall be used except for residential purposes…and no increase in street traffic, substantial or insubstantial is permissible, “and specify that dwellings should be one detached single family dwelling.) Although we recognize the need to make reasonable accommodation for the assisted living facility, it is a business. A change in zoning to expand the facility does not fit in with ,will commercialize, and greatly change the single family residential character of our neighborhood. The variance committee is supposed to consider measures taken by the assisted living provider to ensure the commercial aspects of the facility do not detract from its residential purpose and the primarily residential character of the district as well as the extent to which the accommodation and assisted living provider seek to protect and preserve the primarily residential character of the district. Although the applicant mentions that staff will park on site and garbage will be collected in residential containers he does not list any other measures that will serve to lessen the impact of increased traffic and street parking to ensure that the commercial aspects of his operation do not detract from the residential purpose and primarily residential character of the neighborhood. His failure to request in advance reasonable accommodation for his business as required by our HOA covenants, his attempt to bypass the state licensing requirement that he secure written permission from the HOA, and his failure to get permission in advance from our HOA as encouraged and probably required for his AHFC loan, do not indicate that he has respect or concern for maintaining the residential character of our neighborhood. In addition, the variance request does not meet the intent of Anchorage Municipal Code 21.15.013 to grant reasonable accommodation as the application does not show that access to decent, safe, accessible, and affordable housing with assisted living would not be available absent a reasonable accommodation or that there will be any economic hardship on the intended occupants if the variance is denied. There is no substantiated analysis of the cost and availability of other housing alternatives. While there is an addendum included that is referenced as an article in Senior Voice to address this topic, this “article” is actually cut and pasted out of an advertisement that the applicant himself placed in the Senior Voice to advertise his mid-town facility. (See attached addendum in full context.) The information presented is just personal opinion, unsubstantiated by any facts or statistics, and it is emotionally crafted to bias the reader against any other size of facility other than the one that the applicant wants to establish. It does not show whether the accommodation requested is advancing housing opportunities for disabled individuals in a residential community without jeopardizing residential aspects of the neighborhood with commercial aspects of operations. The applicant also does not show whether the proposed size of the facility is necessary for the facility’s financial viability . The applicant offers no financial proof that this is the case other than a general statement that “because of the cost and amenities of these larger properties, it is only possible to provide this level or service and quality with added resident numbers.” However, even if it can be proved that this is the case, we feel that the applicant’s attempt to make his business viable by requesting increased occupancy should not come at the expense of our neighborhood. For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the MOA deny this variance request. Thanks you for your consideration of our comments. Mindy Baum and Anatoly Zyatitsky | |
| Stacey Moon | 1/26/2014 3:04:26 PM |
| Please mark me down as opposed to granting a variance for the zoning to allow another assisted living home in this subdivision. Proper planning and guidelines have not been established for this kind of endeavor. Today we have one assisted living home in our neighborhood. We are already seeing impacts to the neighborhood in traffic alone. What will six of additional assisted living homes look like for additional traffic? What will twenty five look like for additional traffic? What is the limit of what this neighborhood can handle? There is only one entrance/exit for approximately 100 homes, so anything that adds additional traffic is of concern. The realtor (same guy who sold the other assisted living home) did not think about this when the lightbulb went on that this is a new quick way to make a buck. When he sells out and moves, he will not care who he has harmed by his selfish actions. I have found his character to be repulsive; he would easily sell his own home to make only $1 profit over what he paid for it even if it dropped all the rest of the home values in the subdivision by two-thirds. He only cares about himself. This eroded trust is rampant throughout the neighborhood and is a huge (unspoken) reason that everyone is uncomfortable with this arrangement in addition to the other factual concerns listed by others in their case comments regarding this variance. | |
| John Eldred | 1/25/2014 1:53:42 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to this Administrative Variance for the following reasons: This entire area is comprised of single family, residential homes. When I purchased my home in 2003, one of the prime reasons was the zoning restrictions and covenants in place. I wanted assurance that I knew what was allowed in my area, and could count on that being enforced. I considered purchasing in an area that I could run a business from my home, but elected to buy in a more family friendly and controlled area. My expectation was and is that when I purchased into this area, I would be expected to abide by those rules for the duration of my ownership. Each person knew and knows the rules when they purchased into the Sahalee area, and signed agreements to abide by those rules. I have lived in other areas of Anchorage where business and residential areas are mixed. The opportunity to run this type of business exists in other parts of Anchorage. There is no valid reason to deviate from the known and established rules to accommodate this variance, when this opportunity exists in areas that are zoned for that opportunity. To provide this variance, in an area that is known as a single family, residential area, will dilute the assurance to future buyers that the rules will be enforced, and ultimately devalue the properties that abide by the known, published, existing rules. This business, ACG Holding, purchased this home with full knowledge of the Covenants and zone restrictions. This is the same agreement I signed when I purchased my home in 2003. I would ask that you consider the impact on the area, and on the many other residents of the Sahalee area that abide by the rules that we bought into and live by. I urge you to deny this variance, and uphold the agreements that I and the other Sahalee residents purchased into. | |
| Margaret Stock | 1/14/2014 12:02:42 PM |
| I live on Cormorant Cove Circle and I am opposed to the granting of this variance. I bought a house in this neighborhood because of its quiet character and the covenants that restrict businesses from operating here. An ALF with 8 residents will change the character of our neighborhood negatively by creating lots of traffic. We have already seen a disruptive increase in traffic on our street from the smaller ALF that already operates on nearby Sahalee Drive (buses that transport the residents of that ALF turn around in our cul de sac regularly). The ALF plan indicates that the increase in residents will be supported by numerous employees who will be traveling to and from the ALF to get to work as they staff round-the-clock shifts; this will add more traffic to our street on a round-the-clock basis. Such a large number of residents will lead to many visitors coming and going, adding yet more traffic and creating parking problems. | |
| Graham/Olga Alvord | 1/6/2014 2:19:15 PM |
| In agreement with all other neighbors, we are against the proposed facility for the following reasons: - It will cause a significant increase in traffic and noise in otherwise quiet cul de sac with single family homes and many small children playing outside - The street parking is already limited, especially in the winter. The owners and visitors to 8431 have already been parking in the street next to the fire hydrant and right across from our driveway, thus creating unsafe situations for us and the neighborhood - The HOA and all residents are generally opposed to businesses operating out of single family residences - The plan proposes too many residents (8) - there is a concern about density of ALF in our subdivision; one is already in operation - we contacted the Dept. of Planning 4 times by telephone asking for clarification of details and received no feedback or information | |