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. | |
|---|---|
| PAUL&PAM MACDONALD | 6/16/2004 9:48:11 PM |
| WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS CHRUCH PROJECT.WE HAVE LIVED IN THE RABBIT CREEK AREA FOR 29 YEARS. A CHURCH OF THIS PURPOSED SIZE WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA AND RABBIT CREEK ROAD.A FACILITY THAT SIZE WOULD GREALTY INCREASE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD, WHICH WOULD ADD TO THE ALREADY EXISTING TRAFFIC HAZARDS IN WINTER DUE TO ICY CONDITIONS ON A STEEP GRADE.PLEASE DENY THE CHURCH'S REQUEST. THANK YOU. | |
| Brian Feeney | 6/16/2004 3:03:10 AM |
| I do not support this proposed expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. I do not think they have enough land to support that large of a building and parking lot. The proposed plan needs to be downsized or changed. The current buffers have been diminished and this expansion does not allow any room for substantial buffers or landscaping. The expansion will have a huge impact on the area bringing heavy traffic and congestion that our roads cannot handle. I have lived on Rabbit Creek and Snowshoe for 27 years. Our community has always made great efforts to help our fellow neighbors. It would be nice to see the church expand the outdoor landscaping for activities like a park, playground, ice rink, basketball court, or fields where the community can congregate in a more suitable place for the area. The Rabbit Creek Community Church does not seem to want to plan as a community and maybe should consider changing their name. We would like to improve the quality of the community not necessarily the quantity of the community, bigger is not always better. | |
| Brian Feeney | 6/16/2004 12:53:22 AM |
| Jon &Leigh Ann Bauer | 6/14/2004 10:07:02 PM |
| On 5/27/2004 Pastor Hill and his project manager met at our house with other concerned neighbors to discuss the church expansion issue. During the meeting, we were advised that the chuch has not completed any water impact studies to surrounding private wells. When we asked Mr. Hill about this he dismissed the concern as being unimportant. In fact Mr. Hill dismissed every proposed solution brought up by the neighbors. It is public knowledge that a large faction of members have left the church. This concerns us greatly because we question the church's ability to fund the building. Before the rift, the new building was only one third funded. We are very concerned that there will be a building bone yard in our back yard and no way to finish the project or remove it. It was very obvious in meeting with the church that they do not have a financial plan with respect to this expansion project. We urge you in the strongest way to reject the proposed church expansion project. Jon Bauer | |
| Benjamin Cane | 6/5/2004 9:49:09 PM |
| As of June 4th, Rabbit Creek Community Church has lost great support from it's own congregation on this building plan. Over 20+ families have left the church due to this and other issues and many have asked for their donated money back given towards the campaign, in excess of $75,000. This building campaign is now only the vision of the pastor and has lost support of the church's members. The important question that needs to be asked is what happens if families continue to leave the church and financial support continues to diminish. Will the structure be allowed to stand in a "bare bones" state until the church raises enough money to move ahead and be a much worse eye-sore than it already is? Without the communities support and especially without the church's inner support how can this proceed? | |
| marc palmisano | 6/3/2004 11:21:05 PM |
| I do not support this proposed expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. Ive lived in South Anchorage for 25 years. your prosal will be huge eye sore for the community. | |
| Judd & Cheryl Robinson | 6/1/2004 12:55:52 PM |
| The proposed project by the church to expant to an added Senior High size gym & school does not fit in with any of the surrounding area lots. Most of the surrounding lots are of rural nature & owned by people that moved there to get away from commercial developments, such as the church wants to build. They have told the neighbors that they will proceed with this project despite the concerns of the neighbors. They propose to resolve their concerns by building a larger barrier fence & 10-15 ft of landscaping. The traffic alone with over 600 cars on a 7 day a week would be dangerous to all traffic that uses Rabbit Creek road. Where are they going to store all the snow from the large parking lot?? This sturcture & growth of the church does not belong in this area but in an area more suited for commercial traffic & uses with adequate infrastructure & services. After meeting with Terry Hill, the church's pastor, he even admitted that this project really pushes the limits for the size of property they have to work with. As property owners that are concerned that this project is pushing the R-6 zoning we strongly request that you deny this development. | |
| Carol Fries | 6/1/2004 7:20:15 AM |
| I do not support the applicant's proposal to expand the church/recreation facility to the extent that is being proposed in this appication. A full size gym is an ammenitie unwarranted in this area and the resulting scale of the facility is beyond that which is suitable for a rural residential neighborhood. Other facilities in the neighborhood exist and as others have pointed out most of the residents in this area live here for other reasons, access to hiking, biking and other outdoor pursuits. Expanding a church which when originally built was intended to be a small neighborhood church fitting into the community to one with a parking lot for over 200 vehicles and the resulting traffic on an already congested and dangerous road is NOT fitting in with the community. The proposed expansion and its resulting effects, identifies a clear need to control, on a much broader scale (city-wide) this sort of development in residential neighborhoods as well as provide meaningful buffers and protections for existing residents who have invested in this community. This expansion is inappropriate as designed and appears to fly in the face of committments made previously to existing residents. | |
| Shannon Brodie | 5/31/2004 11:51:45 PM |
| One concern I have about this case is the impact it will have on traffic on Rabbit Creek Road. This church is located at the base of a fairly steep hill on Rabbit Creek Road. It is a busy two-lane road already. With this expansion there will be an increase in traffic and safety concerns. The hill is difficult to drive up on many days in the winter time. Drivers will not be able make it up the hill if they are asked to reduce speed due to safety issues, stopped-turning cars, or potentially a school zone speed limit. Coming down the hill will also become more dangerous. There is a constant flow of traffic going by that church as it is now. My other concern is for the morale of the neighborhood surrounding the church. It looks to me like the patrons of this church are not taking the thoughts of their neighbors into account. The people who have lived there for years were promised certain buffers when the church was established. What happened to those promises? The buffers that are being offered now will not protect the boardering neighbors from noise, pollution, and angst toward this establishment. | |
| Wayne Skidmore | 5/31/2004 9:22:20 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to this project as it is currently envisioned. This project would almost completely cover the property with building and parking lot and leave almost no room for reasonable buffer space between itself and adjoining neighbors. The impacts relative to traffic congestion, water consumption, noise and light pollution, drainage, and snow storage, to name a few, would be significant. This project would create a structure totally out of scale with its surroundings and which would completely overwhelm the neighborhood. The original church on the lot at the corner of Rabbit Creek and Snowshoe Lane was built as a small neighborhood church with the promise to the neighbors that it would be a facility that would complement the nature of the nearby community. The proposed project is not in keeping with this promise. Nor is it in keeping with the intent of either Title 21 or the Anchorage 2020 Plan. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny this project. | |
| Megan Poulson | 5/31/2004 9:19:20 PM |
| I do not support this proposed expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. The facility as presented, is a competition level gymnasium / multi-purpose facility that will cover a plot of slightly more than 4 acres with building and paved parking lots, all within the confines of a rural, heavily vegetated community. This overwhelming facility with its associated traffic and activity would have very real and negative impacts not only on the local neighborhood but also for those of us that pass through this rural community on Rabbit Creek Road. To add yet another voice, Anchorage has a wealth of public and private gymnasiums and recreational facilities for physical activities indoors. Rural neighborhoods with wild space, animal habits and trails are what has drawn us that live in the Rabbit Creek area and to play within its boundaries. I encourage you to deny this proposed site plan, and require that any growth truly incorporate elements and the essence of the surrounding area. | |
| Donna Van Flein | 5/31/2004 12:55:26 PM |
| I do not support the planned expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. This expansion is beyond the scope of what should be allowed in an R-6 residential area. A small community church is one thing, but to add a full competition size basketball arena with a supporting parking lot is another. The increased traffic, noise, and lighting will effect not only the immediate neighbors (which I am not) but will also effect all of us whose only access to their house is Rabbit Creek Rd. The church is in the process of taking two homes (which used to pay property taxes) and will be converting them to their new Gym and parking lot (that will not pay property taxes) but will increase traffic and further impact roads and neighbors in this community. I attended the meeting with the church representatives who said this will provide a much needed place to get kids off the street and into the gym. We have Golden View Middle School, Rabbit Creek Elementary, Bear Valley Elementary, and now the new South Anchorage High School that we as taxpayers and neighbors can use for recreation. We also live in this area because there are other things to do besides play in a gym - like hiking, biking, and skiing from our doors that are offered by living and maintaining a rural hillside community. Again, I am strongly opposed to this church expansion and would ask that any expansion on these lots be made with 50 to 100 ft buffers to protect neighboring houses and the road from the impact that such an increase in this now modest church site will have. Donna Van Flein | |
| Jess Grunblatt | 5/31/2004 10:49:43 AM |
| I do not support this proposal's intent to provide a large, public recreational facility. A variety of suitable alternatives exist at commercial facilities (ie.Alaska Club on O'Malley), and public facilities (local schools). Indeed the new high school on Elmore is about to open with regulation size courts more appropriately in a high school. The daily demands of such a facility on the local residents would be substantial and would include increased traffic, noise, lights, water/sewage demands and snow removal. The facility is near the curve on Rabbit Creek where highspeed traffic approaches the intersection with Old Seward Highway. Increased turning traffic and congestion at this location is dangerous especially without turning lanes and improvements at the Old Seward intersection. I do support the applicants desire to provide a a suitable facility for the congregation. Opportunities for quiet reflection and contemplation are more limited than those for basketball. | |
| Hezekiah Holland | 5/29/2004 12:10:24 PM |
| Residents involved in discussions with the church request that the comment period be extended. Neighbors, the church building committee, and the church pastor Terry Hill met this past week to discuss the concerns of the Rabbit Creek Community Council and area residents. The pastor will be taking these concerns to the leadership group on Wednesday of next week, June 2nd. However, comments for the site review are due on June 1st. I request that you extend the comment period in order to encourage the current dialog between the applicant and the surrounding residents, and to allow time to incorporate any comments that may be generated as a result of these meetings. My original request was for a one week extention, but I see that our council meeting is on June 10 so an extention to June 11 would allow further discussion and council comment. Thank you, Ky Holland President Rabbit Creek Community Council | |
| Susanne Comellas | 5/28/2004 1:24:37 PM |
| After attending 3 meetings and having numerous discussions with neighbors I am unable to support the site plan as submitted by the church. Even though there is on going dialog between the church and residents I am not optimistic that the church is really willing to be a good neighbor and take action to reduce the negative impact this structure will have on the area. At this time I am requesting the site plan be denied and redesigned to better fit the rural residential nature of the area and comply with conditions set forth in Title 21 and the Anchorage 2020 plan. 1. According to Title 21.45.235 Churches. Sub section G. states: "A site plan must be prepared and approved by the Director of Economic Development and Planning or his designee which demonstrates that the church will not have a permanent/negative impact on those items listed below substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development: a.Pedestrain and vehicular traffic circulation and safety:" The church will have a negative impact on both. The parking area is doubling and the use of the facility will be available 7 days a week. The seating capacity is greater than that of Bear Valley Elementary school on one tenth of the acreage. 2 schools drain onto Rabbit Creek Road. That in itself is not unique however bus service to the residents in the area is sharply curtailed due to terrain. The vehicular traffic exceeds that of schools where regular bus service can be provided. The proposed facility will be used as a school and the increase in traffic twice daily will create a hazardous condition on Rabbit Creek Rd. as the facility sits at the base of a very steep incline. People powering up the hill will have to stop for traffic turning into the church or drive around on the shoulder creating a serious hazard for any pedestrians or cyclists. During the winter months this situation is compounded as traffic having to stop on this hill will be unable to continue in slick conditions. "b.Demand for an availability of public services and facilities:" The traffic situation described above may be solved by a turn lane into the church. This would require an upgrade to Rabbit Creek Rd. Site distance is poor from Snowshoe Lane as cars disappear into a dip very close to the church property line to the east(uphill). Snowshoe Lane is a a sub standard, privately maintained road that could not withstand the additional traffic nor do the residents feel it is appropriate they absorb the huge inconvenience the church traffic would impose on them. "c. Noise, air, water and other forms of environmental pollution:" It is obvious that the dust and combustion fumes will create air pollution, runoff from the parking areas, water pollution, noise from the starting of 250 vehicles and school children playing outside during recess periods and the presence of over 900 people, and visual pollution seen by those who feel this imposing structure is not well suited to the area. "d. Furtherance of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Development Plan and conformance to the plan in the manner required by Chapter 21.05. This site plan does not comply with Anchorage's 2020 plan(policies 7, 46, 49, & 50) that provides protection of neighborhood character. To resolve many of these issues I feel that the overall structure needs to be downsized. The church has not demonstrated why a high school sized gum is necessary for an elementary school. Additionally, the church representatives have given conflicting statements regarding the necessity of this large structure, some saying the added space will only be used during peak holidays and others saying the structure and parking areas will be filled immediately. 2.Page 6, Planning and Staff Analysis #CU82-18 "C. Minimum yard requirements: The Planning Commission may specify such yards as in its judjement will adequately protect the integrity of the surrounding areas and uses." Both CU82-18 and the more recent #93-016 clearly demonstrate the intent of the staff to provide adequate buffers to the surrounding neighborhood. A minimum of 20 feet is being requested. Throughout the prior applications by the church staff clearly intended to keep a minimum of 20 foot buffers. This is demonstrated on the final approvedsite maps and comments throughout the cases. It was requested that parking areas be moved to allow greater distance from homes. Again, this has not changed. Natural vegetation was to remain on Snowshoe Lane. That vegetation has been all but stripped allowing snow to be plowed dirctly from the parking area on to Snowshoe Lane this winter. No bollards have been placed, as required, to help prevent this from occurring. The new building site is 40 feet from the old. If this new building is brought closer to the older building the availability of space for vegetation and parking is increased. Also there should be consideration given to the roof line. A flat roof and smaller structure would be better suited to the area. This area is served by private wells and the capacity of this building surely will surpass the water use of the 2 single family homes currently on the site. The neighboring wells need adequate protection. Additionally, a holding tank is proposed for the site. This is a huge environmental hazard for a building this size. Great care and consideration should be given to this particular issue. Again, I request as do many residents of the area, this site plan be rejected as it is designed. The building does not fit well into the area and will create hazardous conditions for local neighborhoods. Being generally unoppsed to the Churches' mission I feel the recreational and educational purpose of this site will not be diminished if a smaller facility is built. By reducing the size of the facility and bringing both buildings closer together the foot print will be reduced enabling a greater buffer to the local residents both along Rabbit Creek Road and their northern boundary. This approach will provide a more asthetically pleasing, less overwelming facility and help to reduce potential traffic and pedestrian hazards to the residents of Rabbit Creek. In this manner we seek only to preserve the original intent of the church,...to provide a campus-like facility with large open areas that are complimentary to the natural area of Rabbit Creek." Page 73, CU82-18. | |
| Michael Flister | 5/26/2004 12:10:57 PM |
| I do not support the expansion of the Church as presented by the Church's contractor. The intended scale of the project will not complement the neighborhood or blend in with existing homes and land use. Perhaps the congregation has become confused between the definition of a church(an edifice for religious worship) and a cathedral (an imposing church edifice). | |
| Michael Flister | 5/26/2004 11:36:36 AM |
| Leigh Ann & Jon Bauer | 5/19/2004 3:29:23 PM |
| We are homeowners in the Rabbit Creek area. In fact, the new church expansion will adversely impact on our residence. The church plans on building a 18,000 square/ft gym/sanctuary and a 240 space parking lot to butt up to our property line within 10 feet. There will be no other buffers save a few shrubs that the church will plant. If this church is built, when we look out of the windows in our home, we will look directly onto a church roof and parking lot. In fact, the church roof will completely block any view we currently have of the inlet. So much for living in a rural residential area! The church plans on buildign a high-school size gymnasium that will seat up to 660 people. The church, to date, has a maximum membership of approximately 300 people. The church told the property owners that they do plan on using the building for a k-3 school. They also told the cousel that they plan on leasing the gym out to others. What is shocking to me is that the church does not have an economic viability plan. How do they plan on financially supporting such a massive structure? If the church builds this gymnasium, we are looking at a constant stream of traffic on Rabbit Creek road. This means that at least six days a week, this facility will be open. This means that there will be an increase in noise pollution due to school children playing, car exhaust, and the general risk to the community due to the increase in vehicle traffic--to name just a few. As home owners, we are very concerned with the lack of water studies done by the church. Presently, the water pressure at our residence is very low. The church plans on building a facility that has at least 60 different water fixtures. There is no question that this will adversely impact water availability for the adjacent property owners. In addition, our well, to the property line where the church wishes to lay asphalt for a parking lot is only 100 feet. The impact this gymnasium will have on the community will be tremendous and is not in keeping with a rural residential environment such as Rabbit Creek. This preject is massive and in no way fits with this community.Jon & Leigh Ann Bauer | |
| Hezekiah Holland | 5/18/2004 11:09:13 AM |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council P.O. Box 112354, Anchorage, AK 99511-2354 May 18, 2004 RE: Rabbit Creek Community Church Re-Plat and Site Plan S-11259 and #2004-101 The church was built under a conditional use permit issued in 1982 (82-18) and expanded in 1993 plan (93-016). The 1982 CU stated the church would be providing a “facility with large open areas that are complimentary to the natural area of Rabbit Creek.” The current request is for an 18,000 sq foot gym/auditorium, approximately 45 ft in height, with classrooms and locker rooms, 200-car parking lot, and a 10-foot buffer on two sides. The RCCC held a meeting with neighbors, residents, and church representatives on April 30, ’04 to discuss the proposed expansion. Action was taken on the case at the regular monthly Council meeting on May 13th when the project was discussed again with church representatives and about 45 attendees. Regarding S-11259, the Council requests that conditions of the CU permit (1982) and 1993 site plan be reviewed for inclusion into the new subdivision. It is unclear to the Council what the relationship of the new subdivision is to the larger site plan review (#2004-101) and associated Title 21 requirements. The site plan (#2004-101) drew numerous comments. The Council appreciates meeting with the church representatives to discuss the project and can support some details of the project. While the goal of providing a community gym is admirable, basically the neighbors believe the project is too large for the surrounding residential area. Neither do the neighbors feel they have been given adequate information about the current and future uses of the addition and the ability to financially support and maintain this large facility without the need to lease it out. The proposed addition, with its minimal buffering, is not in keeping with the 1982 CU statement to have a facility with large open areas that compliment the natural area of Rabbit Creek. Nor is the structure and large parking lot in keeping with Anchorage’s 2020 Plan that promotes the protection of neighborhood character (policies 7, 46, 49, 50). The Council comments and requests are: 1. S-11259: Support the incorporation, and completion, of conditions of CU (#82-18) and site plan (#93-016) into the proposed new subdivision agreement. These include requirements for buffers, vegetative screening and other concerns outlined below. Some of the prior landscaping, buffering conditions have not been met and some vegetation has died or been removed. 2. Support 2020 Plan Policies 7, 46, 49, 50, which address consideration of the character of adjacent property, avoiding adjoining incompatible uses, and retention of healthy trees. Policy 14 states there shall not be a conversion of residentially zoned property into commercial or industrial uses. 3. Support cooperative discussion between church representatives, Council and neighbors for resolution of structure and site plan issues. 4. Support low-level outdoor lighting. 5. Support no competitive use of the gym. 6. Do not support the size and height of the proposed structure in the otherwise low-density residential area. The Council and neighbors believe a smaller structure would be more appropriate for this rural residential area, yet could fulfill the goal of having a recreational facility. It hasn’t been demonstrated that a senior high-sized gym is needed for a structure that will house a K-3 school and will not hold competitions. A small structure would be in keeping with the church’s 1982 statement (CU 82-18) to provide “large open areas that are complimentary to the natural area of Rabbit Creek.” The size and number of seats in the auditorium sets in motion numerous other regulations such as the requirement for over 200 parking spaces which in turn reduces the amount of vegetative screening to an unacceptable level. The height of the proposed structure is excessive and out of character with the neighborhood. Residents voiced similar objections in 1993 during the previous expansion. 7. Do not support the size of the parking lot that is required for the 600-seat auditorium because it reduces the buffers between neighboring residences to an unacceptable and unsustainable size. The Council suggests requesting a variance for parking lot size and requirement for 360-degree access around buildings. 8. Do not support the proposed 10 ft vegetative buffer or use of Geo-tex fabric and rocks to fulfill landscaping requirements. Small buffers are not adequate as a transitional buffer or screen between the non-residential and residential uses. Ten feet is insufficient to sustain trees especially when snow is plowed against them. 9. The Council requests larger buffers—20-25 ft and safeguards to ensure survival of vegetation. Conditions of the 1993 site plan expansion (#93-016) included yard requirements of 50 ft (front), 25 ft (secondary front) and 25 ft for two side yards. The 1993 site plan shows 20 ft natural vegetation buffers. The prior buffering conditions should be maintained. Conditions of the 1982 CU permit included removing the parking spaces along the northern border to allow greater buffering to residences. The current proposal with its minimal 10 ft buffer is a reversal of the MOA’s 1982 concern for adequate transitional buffers. The 1993 site plan called for retaining 20 ft perimeter natural vegetation on the north and west borders. Landscaping conditions of the 1993 expansion included placing bollards between parking and landscaped areas to protect plants from plowed snow and cars, as well as landscaping along Rabbit Cr Road and 5% of interior parking areas. While some spots are designated within the current parking lot for interior landscaping, the vegetation has died and the placement of these areas is not done well. Bollards are missing, as is landscaping along Rabbit Cr Road and Snowshoe Lane. 10. Support re-vegetation of the southwest corner and along Snowshoe Lane according to requirements from earlier expansions #93-016 and CU 82-18. 11. Support use of fill from the excavation to extend the slope/berm along Rabbit Creek Road eastward towards the entrance point of the proposed parking lot. The current berm forms a good sound and visual barrier and extending it would do the same for the proposed building. 12. Support engineering studies on water consumption and impacts to surrounding private wells and commercial nursery. Studies should include a flow test with associated monitoring of adjacent wells and take into consideration the facility will be used 7-days a week. Impacting residential water is not acceptable. The new addition includes numerous gym locker rooms and lavatories that could easily have a large negative impact on surrounding properties—all of whom are served by private wells. 13. Support requirements for Class B or A well system for all wells serving the church, including required setbacks. A condition of the 1993 site plan expansion was to upgrade the well to a Class B system. 14. Support direct access to Rabbit Cr Road. 15. Support assessment of traffic impacts to Snowshoe Lane and Rabbit Cr. Rd and snow dumping sites. Concerns for traffic were also expressed during the 1982 and 1993 expansions. Snow should not be pushed into Snowshoe Lane as it causes drainage problems on this substandard road. Consideration must be given to the gas line on the east side of Snowshoe Lane, which is only 18” under the ground. The Council and church representatives support a cooperative arrangement with the local road maintenance group and the church to maintain Snowshoe Lane. 16. Support clarification of details for K-3 (or K-6) school before site plan is approved in order to address impacts now to water use, traffic, and other requirements that may accompany such future use. While the school is in the church’s 5-10 yr plan, no information has been forthcoming on why a senior high sized gym is being proposed if competitions are not going to be held. The Council would like forthright information before supporting the current addition. 17. Support clarification of economic viability. Good planning practices include long-term uses for the buildings. Those plans and the ability for financial support and maintenance of those uses are requested. It was brought to the Council’s attention that similar facilities elsewhere have needed to be leased out in order to remain economically viable. Rabbit Creek Community Council H. R. “Ky” Holland President 907-346-1729 kyholland@orst.edu | |
| Richard Melms | 5/13/2004 9:26:20 AM |
| The impact on the immediate community will be tremendous- both in traffic and people. What happened to the notion that this location was zoned to be rural and not impacted by large commercial development? A church this size is no different than a Carr's shopping center in terms of it's impact on the surrounding community. I urge you to deny their request. Thank you. Rich | |