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. | |
|---|---|
| James Cunningham | 8/1/2004 9:18:59 PM |
| I have received two "Notices of Public Hearing" for asking a variance to allow two relocatable buildings and a permanent structure on the area designated as Tract 1A. I feel to accurately make a decision there needs to be a better map showing exactly where these relocatable buildings will be situated. Especially when you talk about a “Permanent Structure”. You need to inform the property owners that are most effected by these structures. You have done a very poor job of giving us all the information for which to make an informed decision. There is no additional information on the web site either. Without having additional information, location of buildings on Tract 1A, size, use of buildings, outside lighting, landscaping, etc., I am against moving ahead on such a variance and “encroachment into required yard setbacks”. The “encroachment into required yard setbacks” is not even addressed in this information. I moved into the Huntington Park neighborhood because of the openness of the soccer fields and distance from the schools, area lighting and safety. Those items added to the price I paid for my home. I am not in favor of reducing my values or having my property “encroached upon”. Please be more open with your planning and what you are trying to accomplish. I will be out of town on Aug. 12th or I would come and voice this in person. Get your details out on the web, as well as in an additional mailing with the details and a map showing locations and use of these buildings. James E. Cunningham | |
| James Cunningham | 8/1/2004 9:18:14 PM |
| I have received two "Notices of Public Hearing" for asking a variance to allow two relocatable buildings and a permanent structure on the area designated as Tract 1A. I feel to accurately make a decision there needs to be a better map showing exactly where these relocatable buildings will be situated. Especially when you talk about a “Permanent Structure”. You need to inform the property owners that are most effected by these structures. You have done a very poor job of giving us all the information for which to make an informed decision. There is no additional information on the web site either. Without having additional information, location of buildings on Tract 1A, size, use of buildings, outside lighting, landscaping, etc., I am against moving ahead on such a variance and “encroachment into required yard setbacks”. The “encroachment into required yard setbacks” is not even addressed in this information. I moved into the Huntington Park neighborhood because of the openness of the soccer fields and distance from the schools, area lighting and safety. Those items added to the price I paid for my home. I am not in favor of reducing my values or having my property “encroached upon”. Please be more open with your planning and what you are trying to accomplish. I will be out of town on Aug. 12th or I would come and voice this in person. Get your details out on the web, as well as in an additional mailing with the details and a map showing locations and use of these buildings. James E. Cunningham | |
| Kenneth L. Brown | 7/23/2004 11:35:11 PM |
| With such a large tract potentially affecting so many adjacent residential properties, the variance requested is over-reaching. It is vague, too broad in scope and lacks any of the following details or assessments that are necessary to make an informed decision: ? Site design considerations and criteria; ? shape, location, and orientation; ? extent & character of proposed encroachment(s); ? dimensions, type of construction, number of stories; ? fire & occupancy rating(s), character and duration of use (esp. temporary structures); ? utility corridors, drainage, lighting, noise assessment and emergency access; ? shadowing, privacy and any impacts on current character and use. ? What conforming alternatives are possible, and why are they not being pursued? ? Is there an over-riding public interest in granting such a variance, or is it simply degrading zoning standards out of expediency? I strenuously object to the exclusive and conclusive nature of the proposed hearing ("...the only public hearing before the Board..."). Even if detailed information is presented at the hearing, adjacent property owners that do attend will be impaired in their ability to prepare testimony and adequately respond. This process as administered in this case is flawed and may represent an interference with the due process rights of private property owners. Further, since the Anchorage School District and MOA Planning Department are both administrative units of the Municipality of Anchorage, the built-in conflict of interest could bias any analysis by the Planning Department unduly in favor of the petitioner. I hereby formally appeal the approval of the proposed variance(s) in any form and reserve the right to modify this testimony or append additional testimony as may be required. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to a direct response. | |
| Ken Brown | 7/23/2004 11:33:53 PM |