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. | |
|---|---|
| Merideane Kennison | 1/3/2018 4:48:06 PM |
| My thoughts echo those of my neighbors in their submitted comments. The property was purchased R-8. There was a very good reason for that designation. Runoff from 2 directions (Upper DeArmoun and Canyon Road) drains onto this parcel. I worry about damage to the waterways below us, and to the septic and wells down-drainage. Our lot is a little over an acre (similar to the smaller lots in the proposed development). If our well (and it's already low yield) were to be affected by this development, due to the placement of surrounding wells and septic systems - we have nowhere else to drill. With lots that close together any little change can cause big problems. 2 examples: Our uphill neighbor built onto their house adding a pitch to the roof. The added runoff to our property now causes flooding in our basement with big rainfalls and winter thaws. Our downhill neighbors changed a culvert under their driveway just enough that now the stream that runs along our property backs up and glaciers-over our driveway creating an "iceway". We have strategies for minimizing these problems, but I mention them to illustrate why small lots on poor and sloping soils are such a very bad idea. The various attempts to re-zone and repackage the development plan for this land completely overlook the fact that this land was designated R-8 for good reason. The larger lots were what the developers purchased, and was what we assumed was in store for the land when we bought our property. The Hillside Plan is a good guide to development. It attempts to rectify the lack of planning that was the norm back when we all bought our properties, and should be adhered to. | |
| rodger davis | 12/29/2017 10:22:58 AM |
| This application is the third attempt to rezone this property from R-8 to R-6. In other words, someone has just painted this same old pig a different color in order to sell it to you, the committee who refused to buy it twice before. This is a backdoor attempt to rezone to R-6 on a portion of the original property in hopes that it will set a precedent for the future rezoning of the entire property on the basis of "you approved this before" The local community opposed this for reasons of traffic, safety, water problems and a host of other issues. The continued effort to beat the existing zoning has turned the neighborhood from opposed to downright militant. The owners of the project need to understand that the neighbors are not the problem. Rather, they need to address their concerns with those they purchased the property from and the consultants who continue to bill them to defy your decisions. | |
| Bart Hawkins | 12/27/2017 8:19:32 PM |
| The platting request does not appear to meet the following requirements of AMC 21.08.070B for Conservation Subdivisions. The application should be denied until revisions are made to meet the requirements. (Numbers below refer to the AMC 21.08.070b section numbers.) 4. The Conservation Subdivision permits one or more lots to be smaller than required by the underlying zoning (R8). This application proposes all but one lot to be smaller than required. While this may technically conform to the wording of the requirement, it is clear that the intent is that a minority or small fraction of lots may be permitted to be smaller than the underlying zoning requires -- not virtually all of them. 4.c. Lots are apparently being proposed with as little as 12.5 feet of front/back setback. Given that the proposed lots are a minimum of 1.16 acres, such small setbacks would be unreasonable and unnecessary and create an eyesore for the public. 4.h. This section mandates 100' of landscaped open space abutting lot lines for Class B areas. This requirement would not be met on the north half of the western boundary. The developers have not applied for a variance of this requirement, so the application should be denied as it doesn't meet this requirement. 5. Lot coverage allowed. The developer suggests that lot coverage may be increased by 10% and simply adds this to the normal 5% coverage to come up with 15% as acceptable under the Conservation Subdivision. This is incorrect math -- 10% additional of a 5% base is 5% + (5% * .10) = 5.5%, not 15%. Lot coverage should be evaluated to a 5.5% coverage, not the developer's proposed 15%. 6. Minimum open space. The developer is proposing that the cul-de-sac meets the requirement for a common pedestrian corridor. As the cul-de-sac is a roadway, unless there is a sidewalk along the corridor it doesn't provide pedestrian access and would require pedestrians to enter roadways to gain access, so it doesn't meet this requirement. Variance on cul-de-sac length: Request for variance on cul-de-sac length doesn't meet the requirements. Point #1 is simply stating that a Conservation Subdivision is by its nature "special circumstances". However, that doesn't constitute in and of itself a special circumstance. The developer is arguing that because their property isn't all easily developed, that they should get special exemptions from regulations. This does not meet the requirement. #4 Undue hardship. The developer indicates that it would be more difficult to access the corners of the property, but if the lot sizes were to more closely adhere to the 4 acre size requirement for R8, this would not be the case. The developer's desire for increasing the buildable lots beyond the specifications for R8 creates the problem so the variance should be denied. Request for variance for pedestrian easement from cul-de-sac to nearest road: 1. As previously indicated for the prior easement, being a Conservation Subdivision does not itself constitute a "special condition" meriting exemption for the applicable regulations. 2. The developer indicates that the variance will not be detrimental to the public. However, as pedestrian access to adjacent roadways and/or interconnecting trails is a public benefit, denying provision of such access does not meet the variance requirements. In addition, interconnecting trails have been found to be beneficial and to increase property values in many areas throughout Anchorage, so not providing them may reduce adjacent land value and the value of these properties proposed for development. 3. Avoiding provision of the trails is stated as "unnecessary"; since other trails are or will be located in adjacent areas. However, lack of access to the other trails in itself reduces the value of the other trails and is inconsistent with the intent of city plans to provide pedestrian access during development. 4. There is no undue hardship in having trails run along adjacent properties. Property values along city trails elsewhere in the city are higher than adjacent properties without access, and providing access is a common benefit to all homeowners. | |
| Michelle & Dave Pope | 12/27/2017 11:11:05 AM |
| We are not opposed to new construction in our area. However, there are many concerns we still have for this project. These concerns are all the same concerns from the beginning of this project for this developer; drainage, water/well, septic, road and environmental issues. Septic/well/drainage/environment-This area has poor soil and drainage. The developer needs to guarantee none of the surrounding, existing homes, will be affected by building the number and size of homes they want. The developer needs to guarantee the existing home wells will not run dry due to any new wells in this development. The developer needs to guarantee the new septic systems adhere to the strict codes for poor soil in this area and guarantee there will be no run off that will affect existing homes and contaminate those home’s well systems. The developer needs to guarantee they will not cause a detriment to the surrounding environment. Roads-The developer and or the Municipality needs guarantee to make considerable improvements to the roads accessing this new development: Cox Dr., Messina, Upper De’Armoun. These roads are already in severely poor condition and cannot support the amount of traffic that will increase from new residents, not to mention the traffic of heavy machinery, dump trucks etc. that will be used to build this project. Without these road improvements, those roads will become unsafe and deadly. The most important issue of all is the issue where the developer appears to want special treatment and wants to bypass protocol and will do whatever manipulation of numbers and rules needed to make this development happen. Everyone else who has built a home in this area has had to abide by all Municipal codes/easements/rules. This developer should be held to those same rules and standards as everyone else. There should be no special treatment for a wealthy developer from Outside just so they can push their development through at the cost and detriment to the neighbors, roads and environment. No approval should be given until the develop plays by the same rules as everyone else, makes sure to address all issues and make the fixes necessary to guarantee everyone and their homes are safe. | |
| Bern Davis | 12/26/2017 8:03:46 AM |
| Comments about the Lewis & Clark subdivision (S 12388) Bern Davis, owner 13101 Jeanne Road We support responsible and rational development in the Hillside area. For the most part, the present plan for the Lewis & Clark subdivision has become a better design. It is now more in conformance with the Hillside District Plan goals. However, there are some problems that still need to be addressed. 21.08.010.B "The subdivision should provide safe efficient and convenient movement to points of destination or collection. . . . should protect residents from adverse noise and vehicular traffic. [New developments should include] considerations of connectivity and pedestrian access to neighborhood destinations. . . ." The two variance requests violate the clear provisions of this section, and many other sections, of title 21. Variance # 1- longer cul-de-Sacs 21.08.030.F.6. cul-de-Sacs a. The platting authority shall permit longer cul de sacs when necessary to accommodate natural features. b. The length shall be measured from the centerline of the intersecting through street to the radius point of the cul-de-Sac bulb. The developers are asking for a minor increase of 85 feet and 96 feet to their two cul-de-Sacs, for total lengths of 985 and 996 feet. However, their plat map has a 1” = 100 feet ratio. Using their own map, (starting from the center of DeArmoun Road), the cul-de-Sac that connects to Upper DeArmoun, and turns right (east) on the map, is clearly NOT 985 or 996 feet, but appears to be about 1150 to 1200 feet in length. Calculation of the longitudinal length of the parcel is another example of numbers that do not match. Adding all the east-west linear feet on each lot, as listed by the developer in the plat map, plus 60 feet for the cul-de-Sac road, plus 30 feet for the Canyon Road right-of-way, the total linear footage comes to 1,923.70: 202.99 Lot 14 400.00 Lot 16 60.00 cul-de-Sac 296.03 Lot 1 185.24 Lot 2 185.24 Lot 3 264.39 Lot 4 300.31 Lot 5 _ 30.00 Canyon Rd ROW 1,923.70 However, the Plat diagram also shows a distance of 1,983.63, from the western monument above Lot 14, to the eastern monument above Lot 5- a difference of 60 feet. I do not understand how their own numbers could be so different. They should exactly match. This potential difference in the calculated length of the cul-de-Sac is also a disconcerting discrepancy. If my measurements are correct, this plat design should NOT BE APPROVED until an independent surveyor can determine the real length of the proposed cul-de-Sac, and take other measurements, too. I personally think that an entirely new and more accurate plat design will have to be developed and submitted to the Board. Moreover, extensions in length of a cul-de-Sac are supposed to be approved only “to accommodate natural features.” In this parcel, there are no natural features that need accommodation. It seems that the developers just do not want to have to create a better design. Mandates in Title 21 should not be tossed aside, merely to perpetuate an inferior design and layout, that contains questionable numbers. The non-answers provided by the S4 Group on October 25, 2017 do not show any substantive facts about the way in which the developers have met the mandatory four standards, that the platting board must consider. In fact, as discussed below, longer cul-de-Sacs are in direct violation of standard # 2- they ARE detrimental to the public welfare, because all traffic and pedestrians will be forced to use just one extremely long road, to traverse the entire subdivision. There is another important aspect of these cul-de-Sacs that needs to be discussed. On May 17, 2017, the state Department of Transportation stated opinions about this plat. It said that a single, solitary exit point was not acceptable. The DOT brought up a very important issue about safety standards and concerns. The DOT stated that a second access to existing roads would be necessary. Having only one exit road to accommodate 16 houses, each with multiple cars, poses a serious threat to important issues of congestion, noise and public (and pedestrian) safety. The developers have not included plans for any sidewalks by the road. With the present plan, I certainly would not want to live on Lot number 1, 2, or 16. All that traffic is just too noisey. Due to the boundaries of the subdivision on the west side, the obvious solution (to meet the DOT standard) is to extend the eastward cul-de-Sac road to Canyon Road, on the east. This change would eliminate the need for a variance to merely extend the cul-de-Sac, and would also negate any need for special pedestrian access paths. In fact, the very first Plat created by the developers, and also one of the incarnations of their 2014 Plat, included that very connection to Canyon Road. Now this extension to Canyon Road might require the elimination of one lot on the north side of the parcel, but such enhancement would bring the subdivision up to a much higher standard of public safety. Variance # 2- Ignore Title 21 mandates for pedestrian access routes I have read, and agree with, the excellent analyses that were sent to Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Whitfield, by the two people who are most knowledgeable about land use issues. I would like to add for the public record comments that this variance definitely DOES “nullify the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.” Facilitating pedestrian access (“connectivity”) to neighborhoods, trails and recreational areas is a clear and long-standing policy directive of Anchorage. This position is stated in MANY land use ordinances and other planning reports, notably including the Hillside District Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Plan and the Anchorage Pedestrian Plan. Pedestrian access paths in the subdivision would meet this goal by allowing direct and much shorter routes connecting with Canyon Road on the east, which is a gateway to several nice Rabbit Creek trails. The second walkway from the cul-de-Sac to the west would lead to and (hopefully) Messina on the west. The non-answers submitted by the S4 Group on November 8, 2017 make no convincing statements, and effectively avoid the real issue. They have failed to demonstrate that there is any reason to consider such pedestrian access as “impractical, unreasonable or undesirable to the public.” Therefore, I believe that the reasons behind this variance request have nothing to do with public welfare or safety. However, Mr. Paul Gionett wants the lot directly south of the obvious trail location. He has said at Community Council meetings that he does not want his grandchildren able to ride their bikes along some nearby pedestrian path to Canyon Road. So everyone else has to be denied access, as well. A variance should never be granted to satisfy the hopeful whim of a single person. I request that the platting board deny this variance, for the reason stated above. | |
| Joan Priestley | 12/26/2017 7:51:39 AM |
| Comments about the Lewis & Clark subdivision (S12388) Joan Priestley, owner 13101 Jeanne Road Here is the standard that must be upheld by the Platting Board: 21.08.030.A No subdivision shall be approved unless it complies with: 2. the Comprehensive Plan The design shall further the goals of the Comprehensive Plans 3. other provisions of this title All other applicable zoning, design and development requirements. In addition, the Platting board must consider 9 items listed at 21.03.200.C.9. I am glad to see that the developers of the Lewis & Clark subdivision have chosen to work with the R-8 zoning. It fulfills most, but not all, of the concepts listed at 21.03.200.C.9. I support their new effort to be good stewards of the land in our neighborhood. The Conservation Easement will protect the wetlands and other natural portions of the parcel forever, moving forward. However, I have some concerns about several aspects of the present plan. 1. The size of a lot of the lots 21.08.070.B.4 clearly states that alterations in lot size and configuration are allowed, with a Conservation Easement. It states: "Conservation subdivisions may include one or more lots that do not conform to the minimum lot size or lot width requirements of chapter 21.06, or the dimensional requirements of 21.08.030.K.1 and 2. . ." It is reasonable to permit some flexibility from the R-8 mandate of 4 acres per lot, that are also at least 300 feet wide. But with the developer's; plan, 15 of its 16 lots do not meet the size requirements. 5 of them are barely more than 1 acre. Another 5 are less than 3 acres, and another 5 still are less than 4 acres. 93.75% of the total lots fail to meet the standard of 4 acre lots in an R-8 zone. In addition, the width standard is not met, for at least 9 of the lots. Only one of the entire 16 lots meets the R-8 standard for both size and width. Title 21 section allows a variance of “one or more lots.” Surely the legislators never intended “one or more” to mean 15 out of 16 lots! The developers have tried three times to achieve an R-6 designation, which would allow lots as small as one acre. With this new plan, they have defacto met that goal, and subverted the clear directives contained in the Hillside District Plan and Title 21 R-8 restrictions. Moreover, the smallest lots are jammed up against DeArmoun Road. All we will see is the back of several houses, whose lots are far smaller than the allowable lot size for our R-8 zoning. If passed without change, this plan sets a dangerous precedent for the future integrity of both title 21 and the Hillside District Plan. It will invite developers to install one “show lot” that meets the acreage requirements, and flaunt Title 21 restrictions, with every other lot in their plan. Title 21 will basically become irrelevant. This way of “gaming the system” abuses the privilege of allowing some smaller lots. The developers’ new plan goes FAR beyond any reasonable legislative intent of the Anchorage Assembly, and should not be allowed, as it presently stands. 2. The real “allowable increase” in lot coverage Title 21.08.070.B.5 states that “maximum lot coverage for lots in a Conservation subdivision, as set forth in chapter 06, may be increase by no more than 10%.” A rational reading of this sentence means “by no more than 10% of the allowable lot coverage." For R-8, that coverage is 5%, so an increase of 10% would expand the allowable lot coverage (i.e., a house) up to 5.5%. But the developers, in their application (page 5 of the November 9th letter from the S4 Group), simply added 5% plus 10%, to arrive at a new allowable lot coverage of 15%. For the smallest lot (1.16 acres, or 50,529 square feet), 5% coverage would be 2,526 for a one story house, or 1,263 for a 2 story house. 5.5% would increase that up to 2,779 feet, or 1,385 for a two story dwelling. Going from 5% to 15% coverage is actually a 300% increase in an allowable house size. For the smallest lot, the house would go from 2,526 feet to 7,578 square feet. I can’t believe that such huge gain in the house size was the intention of the legislators who wrote this new Title 21. This is an important issue, that needs to be resolved before the Plat plan can be approved. 3. Where’s the buffer zone? 21.08.070.B.4.h states that a: “common open space with level 4 Screening landscaping shall be provided along any lot line where any adjoining lot is greater than 150% of the average lot size along that lot line of the conservation easement. In class B areas, this abutting landscaped open space area shall be 100 feet wide.” On page 4-5 of the developers’ November 9th S4 Group letter, they somewhat glibly state that “the northern half of our western boundary may be applicable to the required screening easement.” Of course it is applicable. Lot 13 is only 1.66 acres, and lot 14 is 2.16 acres. The adjacent lots to the west are each 4 acres, which is way more than 150% larger. The Plat map needs to be amended, to show the mandatory 100 foot setback on lots 13 and 14. In addition, the developers should be prepared to supply the mandatory designs by a licensed architect, and the 3 trees and 10 shrubs required for every 20 linear feet of the 630 feet buffer zone. Lot 13 is one of the tiniest lots in the parcel- only 1.66 acres (72,093 square feet), with 329 feet abutting the much larger lot. With a 100 foot buffer zone, removing 32,900 feet (.755 acre), takes the developable area down to 39,193 feet (.90 acre). Using the 5.5% lot coverage, the house could have a footprint of 2,155- but with the irregular shape of the lot, coupled with the well and drainfield setbacks, it may not be developable at all. Also, this 100 foot wide setback, times the two lots at a total of 629 linear feet, means that 62,900 feet should be subtracted from the lot size that could be counted towards the 30% open spaces demanded in title 21. 4. Where is the “riparian easement,” and other easements? An easement for riparian maintenance and protection is mandated in 21.08.040.F (Subdivision Standards). This is necessary “whenever a stream, water body or wetland traverses or is adjacent to the subdivision.” However, the present Plat does not show these easements. The plan should be amended to include all these important easements. 21.08.030.F Streets 3. ROW Open Area “All street rights of way shall include an open area, which may contain sidewalks, for snow storage. The open area shall extend 7 feet outwards from the back of the curb or pavement edge.” These easements should be added to the Plat plan, as well. In fact, all the necessary setbacks for the drainageways and streams should be included on the Plat map. Otherwise, they may be overlooked or deliberately ignored, when the clients’ builders get started. 5. Stream and drainageway setbacks 21.08.030.C Maintenance of existing natural drainage “The general lot configuration and layout shall be consistent with naturally occurring drainage features and historical drainage patterns within the subdivision and surrounding areas. . . .Reasonable efforts have been made to avoid or mitigate the diversion and/or contamination of natural and historical drainageways.” Here are my thoughts- A. Lot 7 calls for a driveway to be installed directly over an active stream. The setback, which cannot be disturbed, is 50 feet on each side of the waterway. Paul Gionett would have to build a suspension bridge over 100 feet long, to install such a road. Has the Army Corps been notified? What is their opinion about this proposed encroachment on a stream that feeds directly into Rabbit Creek? B. A drainageway runs right through the middle of lot 16 and lot 9. These mandatory setbacks should be included on the Plat map. With the well and septic setbacks added on, they may render lot 16 undevelopable, too. 6. No more future lots Such a Plat could, in theory, be further subdivided in the future. The approval should include a statement declaring that NO further subdivision shall ever be allowed for this project. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. Joan Priestley | |
| Rob Brown | 12/20/2017 7:17:44 PM |
| This application does not meet Conservation Subdivision Standards. Below I will describe why: 1. Municipal Code 21.08.070 B.4.h. says "Common open space with level 4 Screening landscaping shall be provided along any lot line abutting a residential neighborhood where any adjoining lot is greater than 150 percent of the average lot size along that lot line of the conservation subdivision. In class B areas this abutting landscaped open space area shall be 100 feet wide" - They are required to put a 100 foot wide open space along the west side of the norther half of their western lots. Lots 13 & 14 (or Lots 14 & 15 in the map presented to the community council) would be reduced in size greatly, and perhaps have to even be eliminated due to decreased lot line size. Why is this not reflected in the plat application map? And if they don't want to do it, then they must apply for a Variance. The developer says in their application, "The northern half of our western boundary MAY be applicable to the screening requirement." Why is not reflected in the application's map and why was this not presented at the community council? Where is the Variance Request? 2. The waterway coming across Canyon on the East side of the property that runs through lot 7 (see page 25 of application) should not count towards the total open space. This is a recognized waterway by the muni. See Municode "21.07.030 - Private open space. D. Standards. 1.Areas not credited. Lands within the following areas shall not be counted towards required private open space areas: a. Setbacks with slopes over ten percent; b. Swales with side slopes over ten percent, and drainage ditches 3. The very fuzzy map on their application shows that they have only platted a 30' wide section line easement. The section line easement is 33 feet wide in actuality -- they have denied the existence of one from the beginning but were wrong -- so their measurements are off. This land was patented from the Federal government March 10, 1954 (Patent Anchorage 019854). Per Alaska Administrative Code 11 AAC 51.025, "for surveyed federal land that was unappropriated and unreserved at any time on or after March 21, 1953 through December 14, 1968, the width identified in ch. 35, SLA 1953 for any section-line easement is 33 feet" Why does this matter? Because at the Southeast corner, they have Open Space abutting the Right of Way and they have calculated the Open Space incorrectly if they don't have the section line easement correct. 4. Per ANC municode 21.08.070 B.5 "Lot coverage allowed. The maximum lot coverage requirements for lots in a conservation subdivision, as set forth in Chapter 21.06, may be increased by no more than 10 percent." The developer is claiming they can have 15% lot coverage (normal R-8 is 5%) -see page 5 & 7 of application. Doesn't the code mean lots can be increased by no more than 10 percent of the allowed coverage, meaning they can have 5.5% coverage? Why would the code allow for a tripling of lot coverage? This would mean all of their larger lots can have more coverage than any other R-8 property in the city, causing massive amounts of runoff to flow downhill towards other properties. That is NOT Conservation. 5. I have pictures from the community council meetings of the map they presented and it is different from the one in their application. Which map is the real map and how can the public accurately comment on something which has not been accurately presented? 6. They are now asking to not have a walkway for pedestrians through the top of Lot 7 -- Paul Gionet, the co-developer's personal lot. Though the Hillside District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan require it, Paul says the reason is he doesn't want the walkway is for his kids/grandkids riding bikes onto Canyon. But, he HAS been trying to get a driveway for himself coming off Canyon and has already put one in where the equipment is currently. They had previously retracted the request for a variance claiming hardship but now are using the kids as a reason. Where is the second variance request with a new reason in the application so that we may accurately comment on it? Also, Lot 7 has the creek going through it. So,are they going to build a bridge to go over the creek for themselves so that they can drive from the cul-de-sac to Lot 7? No, they will try to get the driveway off Canyon. Where is the plan for accessing Lot 7 in the application? Clearly, this is a bad application. They have changed it significantly since we were presented with it at the community council. It does not follow the law and does not show enough information to be accurately considered by the public. The Assembly made the code for Conservation Subdivision standards very specific because they did not want to bog down the system and they wanted to prevent environmental degradation. This application has so many problems with it and it clearly does not meet the Conservation Subdivision standards. | |
| George Horton, DML&W | 12/15/2017 1:56:23 PM |
| If a 33' or 50' wide section-line easement exists along the west boundary of this subdivision (i.e. underlying the 30' ROW dedication) we request that it be depicted and labeled on the final plat. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |