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. | |
|---|---|
| Barbara Karl | 8/29/2016 4:21:40 PM |
| The Airport Heights Community Council does not meet in the summer months and could not comment as a whole on this case but its Executive Board (E-board) met and, as President of the council, I am submitting these comments on behalf of the E-board. The comments are set out by the sections referenced in the memorandum of the Current Planning Division regarding the proposed amendments to Title 21. Section 1: The twice a year requirement should be maintained in the interest of the public review process. The review of more frequent amendments by the public and council members is done after most of the general public has already worked a full work week. The public cannot continually monitor every amendment 12 months of the year, research each amendment and provide positive or negative comment. This E-board has spent at least 18 hours of research and writing on this case alone. Builders, planners, and project management can plan for the future and plan their projects within current requirements. If not, they should see the problem, have it well researched, and reach out ahead of time with proposals to the affected councils, thus asking for public input. This will assist in developing a good product to be brought before PZC and the Assembly from the very beginning, and will also help in building public trust. Section 2: The E-board has no objection to this section. Section 3: The E-board appreciates that some people would like to build larger garages and some have already incorporated them in our neighborhood. The new amendments appear to resolve the perceived problems. What would be a problem is if a builder decided to design an entire area with large garages in order to avoid the windows facing the street requirement. The aircraft hangar accessory use would not affect this council area. Section 4: The primary argument for windows not facing the street appears to be about energy conservation, yet the entire section on energy efficiency has been removed from Title 21. Energy efficiency in a home can be obtained through triple pained glass, through a higher R-Value installed in the walls, and insulation installed on the exterior of a structure. Although it may increase the price of a home, the cost to value ratio is completely within limits, and long-term savings are achieved. The E-board has no problem with windows facing streets as this allows neighbors to keep a closer eye on what is happening in the neighborhood. The increase in purchase cost is minimal compared to the increase in insurance rates that could occur if these homes become more frequented by crime. Front facing windows allow a community to interact more by knowing who belongs in the neighborhood and who does not and who might need help. Knowing ones neighbors often begins by seeing them outside. The standard for front facing windows used to be 15% and has been reduced to 10%. Now, the proposal is to decrease it even further in small and narrow lot homes and to allow garage windows included in the standard. We find this unacceptable. Garage windows should not be counted as front facing windows. Few people, if any, spend the hours in their garage that they do in their homes. The garage windows shown in the diagram for narrow lot/small houses are over 6 feet off the ground. There are not many individuals who can comfortably see out those windows, let alone while working in the garage. By a separate attachment scanned and sent to Current Planning by E-mail to be included with these case comments, you can view narrow lot designed homes both 1 story and 2 story that easily meet front facing window specifications. It is completely possible to have nicely designed homes that continue to help synergize the Anchorage community,fit within Title 21 parameters, and that are still affordable. Per the measurements on the diagram, 1” = 9’, 1-1/8”. With this measurement the drawing on page 6 equals 34.87’. You will see that the scanned examples of homes that meet this width have 2 car garages and windows. •The E-board is willing to agree to proposed amendment B eliminating the triangular area of the gable from calculations provided front facing window space does not drop below the 10% minimum requirement and garage windows are not included in the window percentage calculation. •The E-board does not agree with the removal of the Flexibility in Window Placement Paragraph. •Regarding the Five Star Energy Rating, there are many ways to meet the points required for this rating and many homes in Anchorage with a Five Star Rating have a window or windows on the North side of the house. Five Star Rating or not, there must be 10% window coverage facing the street that does not include garage windows. •Amendment E makes sense as only the wall being affected must be brought into compliance, since the director may eliminate or reduce the requirements for window openings based on project specifications as long as all fire codes for egress are met. Please refer to the attachment titled AHCCAttCase#26=016-0101 to view the homes referenced in Section 4 of these comments. | |
| Matt Burkholder | 8/22/2016 7:57:48 PM |
| Huffman O'Malley Community Council No Objection | |