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. | |
|---|---|
| Dave Pope | 6/1/2015 7:42:34 PM |
| We suppose this proposal for the new subdivision. There will be high traffic on a poorly maintained road. It's hard to drive on upper Dearnoun now. It cannot withstand high traffic flow. Neither can Cox dr. Cox dr doesn't need more traffic either. It is so poorly maintained now that it falls apart each year. We are also worried about the water table & what will happen when our wells dry up. We are also concerned about additional septic use. I've walked through that property and more than half is a wetland and should not be built on. The ground is not stable enough. It's just a marsh. | |
| Marc June | 5/31/2015 8:43:02 PM |
| I testified at the last meeting on this. Since that time new information has come to my attention. A 9 acre parcel on Canyon Road has been offered for sale. If zoning is changed for the Lewis and Clark Subdivision, the same rationale applies to this parcel. Basically, changing the zoning means abandoning the existing zoning plan forever. Once the existing zoning is abandoned, one can never go back. Additional support for maintaining existing zoning lies in the lots in the Southwest corner. When considered in conjunction with preserved wetlands, these lots are approximately the lot size required by existing zoning. I question whether there are already commitments to purchase these lots. On the other hand, the most intensively developed portion of the property will be near the current intersectin of Canyon and Upper Dearmoun Road. This intensive development would destroy the existing plan. I renew my request that the existing zoning plan be affirmed and the application denied. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Merideane Kennison | 5/18/2015 6:33:13 PM |
| My concerns about this proposed development are many. For ease of discussion I will list 3 categories: the environment/ecosystem, current residents, and the unsuspecting buyers. We live in the first house on Canyon Road, directly above the proposed development and one of the creeks flowing into the land below goes right through our lot. We have observed it for more than 24 years. This creek and the land below is a major corridor for wildlife, prime wetland habitat, and an important part of the Rabbit Creek watershed. 32 houses will certainly negatively impact trails used by bear, moose, lynx and countless other creatures. The runoff from those roofs, driveways and streets will go directly into Rabbit Creek affecting flow and water quality - not to mention the affect failed septic systems would have to the watershed. Although I'm not in favor of any development, I think that the current R-8 zoning would have less detrimental effects on the surrounding natural environment. The families that already live in this valley have chosen to reside in owner/builder type neighborhood and not a cul de sac style suburban subdivision. The increased traffic on our already substandard road would be hard to imagine. I think 32 houses would probably mean an additional 65-75 vehicles traveling up and down Upper DeArmoun several times a day. In winter this land is in the shadow of the ridge which lies to the south. It does not see much sun for several months and in years like this last one - containing many days of freezing rain - I have a difficult time imagining all those cars getting in and out of ice covered roads without piling up along the side of the road or in a ditch. The R-6 zoning will put too many people, vehicles and stress into our quiet neighborhood. The destruction of our immediate viewscape, light pollution from house & street lights and air quality issues (dust & sand kicked up from the increased traffic)are other problems I see with the proposed development. I worry that potential buyers would purchase lots without knowing the extreme weather and conditions this valley experiences. Icy, sloping roads that receive little sun in the winter (coupled with high winds) could create a neighborhood people move into and then rapidly out of. Most of the folks that live in the area now bought their land, watched it for a year or more and considered where on the property to build and which way to orient the house. They like living on the edge of the wilderness and know what that means. A development like the one planned sends a message that this is the suburbs ... road maintenance, school bus transport, drainage, water and septic are all taken care of and reliable. In reality that will not be the case. All those houses going in at once will affect one another in ways that won't be known until it's too late. The R-8 zoning allows for more options regarding house, well, and septic placement, and will also have less impact on the existing neighbors and wildlife. | |
| William Bryant | 5/18/2015 4:01:47 PM |
| First of all, I apologize ahead of time for the somewhat stream-of-consciousness nature of these remarks. I have two main concerns, the first of which is potential adverse effects on surface water and groundwater. Adding 30+ septic systems to known hydric soils seems to me like a recipe for disaster. Because soil types (and aquifers) may be discontinuous in this area (and therefore porosity and permeability will vary), there is potential for un- or partially-digested sewage to find its way to the ground surface, which would facilitate the movement of contaminated water into Rabbit Creek. Obviously, with higher density wells and septic systems, there is also the possibility of groundwater contamination. Because of the possible/probable discontinuous aquifers, some of which may be perched or confined, the actual domestic water supplies recharge rates might be variable and/or inconsistent. I lived in Bear Valley in the mid-80s, on a 0.5 acre lot with similar soils. I, and several neighbors, had frequent issues with water supply and/or septic systems. I know that the proposed lots are larger, but similar issues are likely. And there are also well and septic siting standoff issues that will have to be considered. My other concern is traffic. Upper Dearmoun is classified as substandard, and anyone who drives it even infrequently should have no trouble believing that. If an extra 100+ trips per day are added, it will have to be reclassified as a rutted urban trail! Anyway, for what it is worth and I am not an expert, but having lived on the Hillside for a total of about 24 years, all of which in houses with wells and septics, I have experienced problems personally, and heard about many others, believe that the current subdivision as planned is not a good idea, and therefore ask that the zoning change be denied. | |
| Chris Alexander | 5/18/2015 2:59:12 PM |
| I am against rezoning this property. My latest concern is that the opinions of those that spoke at the last meeting might not matter. Out of nearly 40 there only the developers and one neighbor were in favor of rezoning. Yet in order to make a decision more maps are needed. That lends me to think our opinion doesn't matter. As water is one of the largest concerns here, I don't believe using perk test results from the driest year ever is good idea. I live on a 5 acre lot, and can tell you it is wonderful. Leaving the current zoning the way it is will make whomever lives there very happy. My wife and I are not looking forward to more light, sound, and smoke pollution in our quite valley. Going from the currently allowed 14 houses to 32 would not be helpful from the eyes, ears, and noses point of view. We are not against the 5 acre lot zoning and would support that development. It would make for better homes with appropriate space for septic and leach fields to do their jobs correctly with less probability for "gross" errors. Good septic systems makes good neighbors. If this rezoning is allowed to go through, I'll be disappointed. Please recognize the overwhelming majority do not want this change. | |
| Timothy Thomas | 5/18/2015 9:32:20 AM |
| I oppose rezoning of this area. We don't need another Prominence Point like housing estate with 32 houses bunched on each other. The developer has not demonstrated any reason why it needs to be rezoned. Profit seems to be the only motive. Those who have chosen to live out there have done so because of its rural nature; putting 14 houses on that piece of land will change the neighbourhood somewhat but putting 32 houses is not acceptable, let alone feasible from a geophysical perspective. Please do not allow this rezoning to go forward. Thankyou | |
| Raymond Kaufman | 5/18/2015 9:12:31 AM |
| Re-zoning this parcel of land would jeopardize the existing hillside neighborhoods by creating significant additional traffic on Upper DeArmoun Road. This road is already in very poor shape, and is the only route off the hillside for many residents in case of fire or other disaster. Additionally, most (if not all) homes up here obtain their water from wells. I fear permitting more homes to be built as a result of re-zoning will negatively impact the water table, causing loss of water pressure or possibly wells drying up altogether. Please deny this re-zoning request. Thank you | |
| Mark Hodor | 5/14/2015 9:39:49 PM |
| I commented previously on this application and remain concerned about the scale and nature of the proposed development. One new piece of information that came to light today was a flier that the developers (Lewis & Clark Subdivision) produced. In that flier, they state the following: "We are committed to keeping the character of the area, maintaining the natural beauty found here, preserving existing ecologically sensitive areas . . . [and] leaving as small a footprint as possible." As I discuss this with more of my neighbors, it has become increasingly apparent that the proposed project will do just the opposite of what the developers seek. The project is too large for the neighborhood; it will result in significant degradation of the existing habitat; negatively impact the water quality; adversely affect our view; potentially diminish the water supply that supports the surrounding homes; and would increase the number of people and traffic in our peaceful neighborhood. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local processes must be adhered to before the project moves forward, including a rigorous analysis of the potential environmental and social impacts associated with this project. The public must also be given an opportunity to provide input during each process. The bottom line is that the project is ill-conceived and will negatively impact our quality of life and result in environmental harm that cannot be reversed. I would strongly encourage you to adopt the recommendation of your own expert planners and deny the request to rezone the site. | |
| Bern Davis | 5/12/2015 1:29:05 AM |
| We live at 13101 Jeanne Road, directly across the street from this proposed development. The lot plan shows two new roads, both connecting with Upper DeArmoun. Headlights from this excess traffic will be shining right into the windows of several houses in line with these new roads- our house, especially. The excessive density of the proposed 32 houses is needless and disruptive. I notice that the developers have shielded their own new properties (proposed lots 1 and 2) from any such exposure to noise and traffic. If there is to be any new road for this subdivision, the logical path is to have just one road, that parallels DeArmoun, starting at Canyon Road, and connecting to Massena. Upper DeArmoun, itself, is a very old, bumpy and substandard road. The excessive traffic caused by yet another 32 houses will just result in a lot more overusage of this already under-maintained street. We walk all over our wonderful neighborhood, but we do not hike in the area south of DeArmoun (where this proposed development is located). It is usually far too steep, and marshy, and boggy. I do not understand how these developers can declare that an area with four streams and two ponds is "only 10% wetlands." The developers took soil measurements during one of the driest winters we have ever had. Although they were advised in January to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for a jurisdiction determination, I still do not think that they have bothered to make contact with this important government agency, at all. We are all greatly concerned about the impact that 32 more houses will have on our already tenuous water table. Once 32 houses are built, and our wells are sputtering, the city cannot order half of those properties to be demolished. At that point, we will have to endure this ill-conceived travesty forever. The city planners took great care to devise a long range plan that would be economical and sustainable. The experts at the Community Development Department Planning Division have performed a thorough and thoughtful analysis of this rezoning proposal. They concluded that this overly dense plan does NOT conform to either the Anchorage Comprehensive Plan, NOR to the Hillside District plan. I implore the members of the Zoning Commission to travel out here, see what DeArmoun Road is really like, walk around the area, and think about the magnitude of the adverse impact that this zoning project will impose on this wonderful, peaceful and quiet neighborhood. Then vote "NO" on this proposed zoning change. Please consider this proposal very carefully, and vote to protect our neighborhood form such over zealous development. Thank you. | |
| Sue Goodglick | 4/20/2015 8:07:37 PM |
| From the Anchorage zoning definitions: R-8 Rural Residential District (Large lot) was designed to satisfy the needs of low-density residential development in areas where topographic or other natural conditions are such that higher-density development and the provision of public sewers and water would be unfeasible at any time. Since the topographic and other natural conditions in this area have not changed I do not see how this request can legally be accomplished - it remains unfeasible. Allowing more development in this area would be problematic to the area water supply, sewers, in addition to posing harm to valuable wildlife corridors in the immediate area and down stream of Rabbit Creek. Please ensure the proposed area is not rezoned from R-8 to R-6. Thank you. | |
| Mark Hodor | 4/13/2015 6:43:21 AM |
| My family and I moved to Anchorage recently and purchased a home that overlooks the subject property, among other scenic views of the Upper Hillside neighborhood. We chose this neighborhood primarily for its beauty and the environmental features that Upper Hillside offers. The proposed development would alter, in an adverse way, the character and environmental features of my neighborhood and would result in significant congestion and traffic, thereby taxing further the structural integrity of Upper De Armoun Road. I have reviewed much of the information shared with me by my neighbors and have read Mr. Jon Cecil’s Memorandum dated January 23, 2015, in which he recommended denial of the rezone from R-8 to R-6. Many legitimate reasons exist to deny the request. These include, but are not limited to the following: the parcel is comprised of important wetlands and habitat for wildlife; development will affect runoff by replacing permeable land with less permeable surface; potential problems with sewage, water quality, and water supply; the significant increase in vehicle traffic and residents; and the view from my home will be altered in a material way as I will now be looking directly at a parcel filled with homes instead of trees. I respectfully request that the Municipality of Anchorage deny the rezone request and, if possible, disallow any development on this parcel of land. Thank you | |
| Amy Holman | 4/6/2015 9:12:45 PM |
| Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I recommend the planning department deny this rezoning request. My concerns include: - negative affect on my water supply as warm summers with long dry periods already are causing a change in water quality and availability in my well. - lack of emergency escape routes. There are limited emergency escape routes from this neighborhood already, adding a subdivision without creating addition egress routes (connection to Cox Dr or improving Jeanne Dr) is ill advised. - higher density housing would lead to increased run-off and pollution to Rabbit Creek - higher stress on Upper DeArmoun Road which is in need of maintenance - habitat loss for area wildlife; potential for wildlife causalities from increased traffic and 'self defense' | |
| Loke Freedman | 4/6/2015 8:17:05 PM |
| Having worked over 25 years ago, (and then purchasing my land soon after),in surveying the land in the area and in question, I recall Grandfathered water rights, watershed rights, and that this land was intended for Mental Health Trust Lands trade and use, not rezoning for prolifically built housing and overfilled subdivisions, ignoring critical watershed issues on this continuously wet land, home to moose, bear (frizzy & black), Lynx, wolverine, etc. We oppose such rezoning with severe concern for neighborhood well & septic use & needs. | |
| Stephen Day | 4/6/2015 7:15:37 PM |
| On behalf of the owner, my grandmother, of the plot of land directly to the south of the development in question I would like to oppose this zoning expansion. We have concerns as to what this amount of septic systems uphill from our land will have on our property and what effect it could have on rabbit creek which runs through our property. The water table being affected by so many wells is also a concern as well as the increased traffic on Upper Dearmoun which does not hold up well as is due to poor substrate. | |
| Carol Ashlock | 4/6/2015 6:01:03 PM |
| Located just below the area in question, and adjacent to Rabbit Creek, We are opposed to zoning change from R8 for the concerned property for Case No. 2014-0219 due to watershed, water table and septic issues, as well as proximity to Rabbit Creek itself, particularly in view of the recent changes brought about by the ice dam that occurred up at Rabbit Lake, thereby causing the lower flooding and change in the creek and effects itself. The impact on wildlife, coyote dens, short tailed weasel, porcupine and others are already being evidenced. Construction of the innumerable homes planned will further destroy this habitat, one that cannot sustain the septic, well, soil & watershed needs that would be required. | |
| Bob Sutherland | 4/6/2015 4:21:14 PM |
| I am dead set against this proposal because I think it will put too much traffic on Upper DeArmoun. If there is an accident closing the road above the Messina or Michael intersection with Upper Dearmoun, all the traffic will be re-routed onto Jeanne which a portion of is on private property. This section is poorly drained, seldom plowed in the winter and is narrow mud hole right now. Not safe. For safety purposes, What the developers should do is develop a road connecting to Laconia or Cox providing for a safe exit out of the bowl. Dumping any more traffic onto the private portion of Jeanne is unsafe and unacceptable. Upper DeArmoun barely has any shoulders so any walkers or runners are pushed into the road. Many of those folks have dogs, sometimes unleashed. Folks come bombing down and roar up the road making it unsafe for pedestrians if the vehicles don't move over. At a minimum there should be some decent (4 foot ?) shoulders which allow those users to get off the road. Thank you for allowing us to comment. | |
| Mark & Gail Morrison | 4/6/2015 4:04:53 PM |
| My wife & myself have the same concerns and trepidations as the other people commenting here. The proposed housing number is about three to four times greater than the acreage will support given the surface waters and natural drainages noted. Wetter years are worse for surface water. Dearmoun & Rabbit Creek roads were not designed nor capable to safely accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. The proposed subdivision will all be depending on wells and septic systems. The drop in the existing water table would be unacceptable to existing residents, forcing everyone above the proposed subdivision to drill new wells in the near future. We have seen no information/comments from the Corps if Engineers to validate the existence of this new subdivision. The developers show a severe lack of planning and little or no concern for the affected residents. | |
| Robert Brown | 4/6/2015 12:42:23 PM |
| My wife and I are strongly concerned that the proposed housing concentration will do damage to the Rabbit Creek watershed and negatively affect the quality of the aquifer we pull water from, infringing upon our legal water rights. In addition to the inability of the roads to support so much extra traffic, the land is filled with high water and streams. R-6 zoning will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood, which we expected to stay at low density when we purchased our property. | |
| Chris and Janet Alexander | 4/6/2015 11:36:57 AM |
| We are against a zoning change here. 1) Poor water drainage will be problematic for septic systems. 2) Increased wells with high density septic systems and poor drainage just sounds gross. 3) Upper DeArmoun isn't a great road. 4) I love walking this swampy, wildlife filled area, and was very sad with just the bulldozed dirt road to put in over 30 perk test holes. Since the perk test road was put in, there are not as many moose in the area, which is strange as I thought the dirt path would be liked by the moose. 5) Our house looks over the entire area to be developed, and I'm not thrilled with the idea of all the light pollution, and air pollution from smoky fire places. Star and northern light gazing will suffer. 6)The plan submitted doesn't have green space included except on the very edge where even the perk test guys didn't dig as it is always wet. We realize that our wants and desires aren't what will make this decision, but we live and play here and the developer doesn't. We don't want another high density development in the area. And any new development should have more green belts for wildlife, and recreation. Please, developer, think green. | |
| Michele Martin | 4/6/2015 9:35:01 AM |
| I do not believe a zone exemption should be given. The additional traffic first by the heavy construction trucks and then the additional subdivision traffic will wreak havoc on Upper DeArmoun which is already is very poor shape. The Glen Alps Road Service Area (GARSA) does not have the funds currently available to fix this road. Besides, isn't the south side of the road a swamp area from all the runoff? This could further affect the drainage of those individuals living off Messina & Cox Road, which is already bad. Please do not allow this exemption to go through. | |
| Bart Hawkins | 4/6/2015 12:17:37 AM |
| I request that the parcel in question remain at its current zoning (R8) for the reasons giving in my prior comment. | |
| Derek Reynolds | 4/5/2015 11:15:02 AM |
| My Wife and I strongly object to the proposed rezoning described in 2014-0219. While we naturally disapprove of the proposed increase in density due to the impact on the overall subjective “feel” of the Upper Hillside – this is of course why we chose to move into the area in the first place – we believe the traffic and safety hazards created by this increased density would be objective, and measurable. As mentioned in the report, Upper DeArmoun is already substandard road. Even with the periodic maintenance currently performed, the road surface is constantly in a state of disrepair with large cracks and dips which are inconvenient at best in the Summer, but downright hazardous in the winter due to the steep grade and frequent sheet-ice conditions in Winter. An increase in vehicle traffic will only worsen these conditions. In addition, the access roads to this Proposed Subdivision are poorly thought-out. The proposed tie-ins to Upper DeArmoun would require vehicles to enter the road by making a blind, left-hand turn in front of oncoming downhill traffic in a section of Upper DeArmoun that is already particularly steep, and downright treacherous in the winter conditions described above. This will create an unnecessary additional safety hazard even at the current lower density of the present zoning, let alone the even higher traffic patterns created by any increased densities proposed. Even if the proposed rezoning is rejected, we would strongly urge that these access roads be re-routed to a safer merging point with Upper DeArmoun to mitigate this hazard. We respectfully request that the Planning Board reject this increased zoning density proposal. Thank You. Derek Reynolds | |
| Steve Mac Donald | 3/2/2015 4:45:03 PM |
| We've lived on the corner of Jeanne Rd and Upper Dearmoun for more than 15-years. We know the issues with traffic, water and wildlife very well. My wife and I are against the proposed zoning change for the 70 acres of land across the road from us. If this land must be developed it must be kept at R8, with construction limited to 14-houses. I feel more houses could have a negative impact on existing wells in the neighborhood. More homes on the property will also have a major impact on traffic in the area. Upper Dearmound is a substandard road that's long been neglected. With more than 30 new houses in the area this would increase daily vehicle trips by several hundred. The road can't handle that kind of traffic increase. One last point, the land in question is almost a complete eco-system. There are hares, lynx, bears, moose, owls and occasionally wolves that wander through and live on that land. There aren't many places like this remaining in Anchorage. If it was my decision I wouldn't allow any development. However, I do understand the housing shortage Anchorage currently faces. If this land must be developed I respectfully ask that you keep its designation at R8. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Mac Donald | |
| Steve Mac Donald | 3/2/2015 4:39:37 PM |
| We've lived on the corner of Jeanne Rd and Upper Dearmoun for more than 15-years. We know the issues with traffic, water and wildlife very well. My wife and I are against the proposed zoning change for the 70 acres of land across the road from us. If this land must be developed it must be kept at R8, with construction limited to 14-houses. I feel more houses could have a negative impact on existing wells in the neighborhood. More homes on the property will also have a major impact on traffic in the area. Upper Dearmound is a substandard road that's long been neglected. With more than 30 new houses in the area this would increase daily vehicle trips by several hundred. The road can't handle that kind of traffic increase. One last point, the land in question is almost a complete eco-system. There are hares, lynx, bears, moose, owls and occasionally wolves that wander through and live on that land. There aren't many places like this remaining in Anchorage. If it was my decision I wouldn't allow any development. However, I do understand the housing shortage Anchorage currently faces. If this land must be developed I respectfully ask that you keep its designation at R8. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Mac Donald | |
| Adrienne Fleek | 3/2/2015 11:40:55 AM |
| I am a homeowner directly across from the proposed area. I do not believe the boggy land can support the proposed changes (from R8 to R6) and would strongly encourage the municipality to maintain the current designation of R8. Many lots on and around the proposed site have extreme glaciation activities each year and I believe the science shows that the greater number of well/septics installed has a negative impact on the water table and produces more glaciation. I am also very concerned about the run off into Rabbit Creek from massive land disturbances and it will impact the creeks ability to stay pristine and unpolluted. I am not against the area being developed but believe it should stay R8 to avoid impacting residents and wildlife above and below this plot of land. Another concern I have is the current status of the Upper Dearmoun Rd which has been severely neglected and cannot support increased traffic. Both an increase in the number of users on a daily basis as well as heavy equipment (contruction phase) will destroy the already poor road condition of both Canyon Road and Upper Dearmoun. This use will be very costly to the entire City of Anchorage. | |
| James Brady | 3/2/2015 10:25:40 AM |
| I own and live on a lot immediately across Upper DeArmoun Rd from the 72.66 acre parcel requesting to rezone from R-8 to R-6. My family has lived here since 1990. We purchased our property because we like the space that larger lots provide in this scenic part of Anchorage, and it’s proximity to Chugach State Park. The proposed rezoning and development of this parcel raises a number of concerns for us: 1.) The rezoning would potentially permit an increased density in housing in the area, thus diminishing the qualities that my family has enjoyed over the past 25 years; 2.) all houses in this area are dependent on wells, and most have a relatively slow recharge rate. How will the addition of a large number of new homes affect on water tables for the existing homes in the neighborhood? 3.) Are the soils adequate to support septic systems for the proposed housing density of R-6? 4.) The property contains important wetlands that support wildlife and hold water for the Rabbit Creek watershed, which feeds the Potter’s Marsh wildlife park. How will these be affected? Won’t much of this wetland habitat be lost to a high density development? 5.) Can Upper DeArmoun Rd support the increased traffic? This road has little shoulder, is constantly in need of surface repairs and suffers frost damage every year. | |
| cliff hyatt | 3/2/2015 12:05:06 AM |
| I have lived at 13035 Jeanne road since 1979. (Directly north, across Dearmoun Road from the property that the zoning change is being requested) The request for rezoning this parcel from R-8 Rural residential to R-6 Suburban residential will greatly increase the housing density. If I understand the Zoning correctly under the R-8 classification approximately 14 housing units are allowed. Rezoning to R-6 would allow 54 housing units to be built. My concerns are: 1. Water: All of these new units will require wells to be drilled into the aquifer that is probably the same one many of us are currently using. We do not have high output wells and we have to be careful not to run our wells dry. What assurances do we have that 58 new housing units will not effect our water supply? 2. Septic: All of these houses will require septic systems. Will the soils support this? This appears to be a fairly wet area. About 20 years ago a 20 acre plot directly north of this plot and across Dearmoun Road was denied the same rezoning request, R-8 to R-6, for this very reason of the land being too wet to support this housing density in regards to septic systems. They were ultimately allowed a change to a PUD (planned unit developement) which had more housing allowed than R8 but far less than R-6. 3. Roads: Dearmoun Road is the only access and it is not in very good shape. All the additional traffic for construction and then the added housing units owner traffic would surely tax and destroy the road. The soils underlying the road are poor and this is the reason the road is in such poor shape. A fairly costly rebuild of the road subbase would be required, as well as widening and paving. Who is going to pay for this? 4. Land aesthetics: Probably most of the current surrounding land owners purchased their property based on an expected housing density. I know I did. The land has long been classified R-8 which denotes low housing density. We own property that is on R-6 zoning but it is on much better drained soils and is adjacent to this low density housing parcel, and our land was zoned as R-6 when we bought it, so we knew what we were getting. It's like buying a house next to a park and then having the park rezoned to allow dense housing. That's not why we chose to buy here. 5. Land value: Our property would more than likely lose some of its value. It would no longer be next to a low housing density area thus making it less attractive to potential buyers. 6. Disregard for Zoning Commission Work: Long ago the MOA Zoning and Planning Department put in a lot of time and money to determine the proper housing density of all the different property in Anchorage. This was based on drainage, available water, roads, vegetation, wildlife and soil type and condition. To request a change for such a large piece of property flies in the face of those who put these zoning and planning decisions in place. This change would allow 4 times the housing density from what was long ago decided as the proper density. Finally I request that this zoning change be denied for the above reasons. Thank you Cliff Hyatt | |
| Marc June | 3/1/2015 6:43:33 PM |
| The Planning Department recommendation of denial appears to have a solid basis. In particular, I have concerns that Upper Dearmoun Road and existing Fire/Road infrastructure is inadequate to support access to this large number of homes. | |
| Bart Hawkins | 3/1/2015 2:32:45 PM |
| I own an adjacent property (Block 2 Lot 1, Grecian Hills subdivision). I acquired this property for several reasons: 1. Scenic views of Flattop Mt. and adjacent woodlands. 2. Rural character, with extensive wooded areas, low traffic and low noise, particularly to the east toward the Chugach Mountains. 2. R8 zoning on east side limiting future development. This situation would be expected to preserve views, woodlands and low traffic volume. 3. Good well production and clean well water as there are no homes uphill of my site. Rezoning the site at 13301 Messinia Street that is the subject of this case from R8 to R6 will likely diminish the above values of my property, since the expected purpose of requesting a rezoning would be to enable the property to be developed as a subdivision. This will increase local traffic and noise from additional residents. The increased traffic may damage the access roads that were not designed to carrying the increased volume of traffic, and would decrease air quality due to increased creation of dust. It will very likely result in removal of much of the wooded areas adjacent to my property and partially or fully reduce the scenic views of the Chugach from my property. The rural character will be significantly diminished. In addition, building a subdivision on the subject property that rely on wells and septic systems may significantly change the water table or subsurface water flow, resulting in reduced flow at my well or others in the area to the west of the subject property, and may reduce water quality at my well or others. In addition, as parts of the subject property lie uphill of creek drainage areas, denser development may put the general watershed at greater risk due to increased runoff, less water infiltration and other causes. Development of the property will also reduce the extent of wetlands important to maintaining water quality downstream. Reduction of woodlands and increased development density will also reduce existing wildlife habitat and transit corridors, making it more difficult for wildlife to reside in areas around Anchorage. The presence of wild lands and wildlife is a major city-wide benefit attracting tourists and increasing the desirability of living in Anchorage. Increased encroachment of development into low-density or rural lands will likely increase human encounters with bears or moose and, as has happened at other locations on the hillside, increased risk for both. | |
| Joan Priestley | 2/28/2015 8:30:25 PM |
| My friend talked to someone onsite, who said his group has bought the property, and intended to construct 32 houses(!) here. They will ALL be lower in the drainage area. A project of this size could easily diminish or deplete the water table of every house that is above them. The only address given on our Notice (13301 Messina) refers to just Lot 2, which is the very small lot on the Western-most end of the entire parcel. Typing every conceivable combination of numbers comprising the legal description produces no meaningful or accurate results,either. The letter we received states that "case information" can be found here, but there is NO information about this case, at all. Therefore, I cannot do any research on this property. I urgently request a delay in this hearing, until we have been provided sufficient information to make informed and reasoned, fact-based judgments about this proposed huge project. | |
| Adrienne Fleek | 1/8/2015 4:30:46 PM |
| I would like to know the proposed lot sizes for the rezoning of this property (how large are the individual R-6 lots going to be)? Thank you, | |