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. | |
|---|---|
| Lita Oppegard | 10/1/2004 7:14:00 PM |
| Though I don't live in the Rabbit Creek neighborhood, I have been following with great interest the unfolding events surrounding the Rabbit Creek Community Church's plans to expand its facility and the impact this will have on the neighborhood. In a way, what happens with this issue will affect other neighborhoods. We have lots of churches here in Eagle River and though I have nothing whatsoever against churches, I am very wary of any attempts to impact quiet, residential neighborhoods with grand expansions that are the equivalent of putting up a "faith based" Wal-Mart next to people's homes. It looks to me that this church has grand visions for its place in the community and if that is true, perhaps it aught to relocate to an area suitably zoned for commercial interprises. I've driven down Snowshoe Lane and can't begin to imagine the kind of congestion and noise that will infiltrate this very rustic setting if this "gymnasium" goes up. Please look hard at the consequences of such inflated "additions" and do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of an established neighborhood. Let's not create a precedent that makes it easy for other churches in other quiet neighborhoods to create megaplexes that wreak havoc with traffic flow, parking, increased noise etc. Churches are suppose to be places of worship. If the plan is to enlarge the sitting capacity of the church, that's one thing. But new and very large buildings requiring large parking lots to support the kind of traffic the church anticipates as it goes into the gymnasium business is something else and absolutely demands the full scrutiny of the community and the zoning board. | |
| H. Ky Holland | 9/29/2004 3:22:37 PM |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council - Additional Comments - September 29, 2004. Upon review of the appeal filed by Jon and Leigh Ann Bauer to Case #2004-101, Staff Comments relative to the appeal, and the information submitted by the Church at the 9/13/04 P & Z meeting, the Council is submitting these additional comments and incorporate by reference our May 14, 2004 comments submitted to the Planning Department in the earlier posting. 1. In light of all the new information submitted on behalf of the church, the conditions imposed by the Planning Staff and concerns of the ADOT, the Rabbit Community Council requests that the Planning & Zoning Commission remove this project from a Site Plan Review done by the Planning Department and require a FULL PUBLIC HEARING on this application before the Planning & Zoning Commission to evaluate the full impact of this development on the Rabbit Creek Community. It is clear that there are additional studies and other municipal departments that need to review and comment on any new information that becomes available after all studies are completed. 2. The Council supports delaying approval of any building on this site until all studies are completed and a full public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission takes place. 3. The council supports the ADOT recommendation of a full Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Analysis should be based on the cumulative capacity of the church buildings with respect to their impact to not only the adjacent neighborhood, but to the Rabbit Creek community as a whole, whose only access to their homes and schools is Rabbit Creek Road. The study should also encompass the stated and potential use of the new church facilities as a school, a competition basketball gymnasium, conventions and other 7-day a week uses based on capacity of all buildings, not just estimated attendance numbers on Sundays. This study should be done prior to the approval of the Site Plan Review (SPR). 4. Air, noise, light, and visual pollution are factors not addressed by either the conditional approval of the Site Plan nor in Staff Comments relative to Case 2004-131. It is the Council’s position that these impacts have been completely overlooked even though they are specifically mentioned as developmental markers in AMC 21.45.235.G.1.c. Impacts of such pollution will have a negative effect on property values in the area and do not protect the character of the adjoining rural neighborhood. Studies in these areas must be done prior to the approval of the SPR. 5. The Council supports an aquifer study to determine whether there is adequate water to supply a facility this large that includes usage as a gymnasium, school and double the congregation capacity. We also believe these studies must be done prior to the approval of the SPR. 6. We believe there are serious potential consequences to building a facility this large that utilizes a holding tank for sewage. Even if no spills have been reported, there is no provision for inspection of a holding tank this large and therefore no way to determine if there is underground leakage and impact on adjacent residential wells. 7. Staff Condition #10 requires the church to enter into a subdivision agreement for the construction of Snowshoe Lane to rural standards. Further, the revised Site Plan submitted by the church on 9/13/04 indicates that Snowshoe Lane will be used as one of two points of access to the church property. The Council requests clarification from the city traffic department as to whether the entirety of Snowshoe Lane will be upgraded to Municipal Standard Roads, who will pay for the upgrade and what maintenance costs will be assessed to the residences on this road prior to Site Plan Approval. 8. The Council requests a determination as to whether the proposed facility’s design and use as a gymnasium and school falls outside the definition of a “church” as stated in the Code with respect to the R-6 zoning. And a determination as to whether it fulfils the requirements for an “accessory use” as defined in code. AMC 21.40.080 9. The Council requests that the MOA have the Church uphold their 1982 Conditional Use statement to have a facility with “large open areas that compliment the natural rural environment of the Rabbit Creek community”. 10. The Council supports the Anchorage 20/20 Plan. This proposed structure and large parking lot are not in keeping with the Plan that promotes the protection of neighborhood character (policies 7, 46, 49, 50). The totality of the impacts of this facility on the Rabbit Creek community have not been adequately assessed by MOA or ADOT. The Council is asking the commission to uphold the Bauers’ appeal and remand this case with the requirement for an adequate environmental assessment and associated public process before the Planning & Zoning Commission to adequately address these concerns. Rabbit Creek Community Council Ky Holland, President 907-346-1719 kyholland@orst.edu | |
| Karen Dickinson | 9/25/2004 7:50:51 PM |
| I am appaled at the underhanded attempts of the Rabbit Creek Church to slip this project by city planners and an unsuspecting RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. The bill of goods they have been trying to sell is for a GYMNASIUM. However, it has become evident the residents of Rabbit Creek do not want their GYMNASIUM or any further expansion of that magnitude. Are the lockerooms for baptisms or child care during the worship of our Lord? This seems like an extravagent (addition?) to the existing structure, and I question how is this incidental to the primary function of a church? How does a facility built to accomodate cardio-weght training, basketball, locker rooms and showers serve any type of religious purpose? It sounds like a description fit for an athletic club, not a structure of worship. A facility of this size has no business in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood especially when its' usage will impact the area 7 days a week by compromising the peaceful nature of a neighborhood. I cannot fathom how the seating capcity of this proposed building can be accomodated by the number of parking places drawn on their plans. Rabbit Creek Road is a heavily travelled road and the traffic will grow exponetially with the increasing RESIDENTIAL development. What the church is proposing is a traffic bottleneck, a death trap during peak travel hours, a mini Anchorage Baptist Temple and the unfettered notion they are doing us all a big favor in puruit of their twisted idea that destroying a neighborhood is fulfilling their "Great Commission" to honor God. This structure is no more appropriate than a Taco Bell or a strip bar at this location. Uphold the Bauers appeal and set the precedence that residential neighborhoods have a right to protection from enterprising businesses disguised as churches. | |
| Wayne Skidmore | 9/12/2004 8:07:09 PM |
| If ever there was a case that begged to be remanded back to Planning for another review, this is it. I ask the Commission to consider the following facts: On Appeal Point #1 alone, the original decision on this SPR (Case 2004-101) was in error. This is validated by the fact that Staff is now calling for a Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff cannot claim that they only became aware of the need for a TIA by virtue of comments submitted by DOT/PF; 14 of 17 public comments mention traffic as a major concern. Appeal Point #2 alleges that the SPR “does not appropriately consider noise, air, water, and other forms of environmental pollution…..“ While Staff correctly points out that the Conditions of Approval address concerns relating to water, nothing in the approval document seems to address concerns relating to noise, air or light pollution. These other forms of pollution are not even mentioned in Staff comments. Does this mean that Staff has deemed these concerns to be invalid? Interestingly, the response offered by Staff to Appeal Point #2 states that the church is “an existing facility which wants to build and addition.” Given that the new structure will have roughly 3 times the foot print of the existing one, it seems like a big stretch to call this an addition. The Staff response to Appeal Point #3 is particularly bizarre. Appeal Point #3 alleges that the SPR “does not appropriately consider the guidance of the Anchorage Comp. Plan……….” Staff comments state, in part, that “The Comp. Plan and the Zoning Code both recognize that churches are allowed within all zoning districts” and that “A church in the R-6 district is not inconsistent with the intent of R-6 zoning district.” If I understand this tortured logic then, if it is called a church it is allowed in all zoning districts and is not inconsistent with the intent of R-6 code, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF AMMENETIES, USES, IMPACTS. In other words, if it is a church laterally anything goes! No reasonable person could argue that this was the intent of the code. Staff comments regarding Appeal Point #4 states that classrooms, kitchens, coffee bars, cardio/resistance weight training rooms, high school sized gymnasiums and locker rooms are “common amenities to most churches………” This is an opinion, not a fact and in any case is not true. I submit that very few churches have this array of amenities. Appeal Point #5 points out that the language in Paragraph A of 21.40.080 clearly states that the code is intended to “encourage LOW-DENSITY development while at the same time protecting and enhancing those physical and environmental features which add to the desirability of SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LIVING.” Therefore, the contention of Staff that “Nothing has been asked for by the church that is not allowed by code” is false. No one could reasonably argue that this project meets either requirement of this Paragraph. Public opposition to this project has been nearly unanimous. Of 17 postings to the original SPR Case 2004-101, all 17 opposed the project. Of 36 owners of property near the church who were asked to sign the appeal petition, 35 agreed to sign. These are the neighbors that would be most directly affected by this project. Of several letter to the editor that have appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, I believe all expressed opposition to the project. Nearly all comments offered by neighbors in attendance at Rabbit Creek Community Council meetings have been in opposition to the project. While much of the code that applies to this project allows room for interpretation, the language in both Title 21 and the Comp. Plan is clear in expressing the intent to “encourage low-density residential development” (21.40.080), “avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another” (Comp. Plan Policy #7), protect the “unique appeal of individual residential neighborhoods” (Policy #46), “enhance or preserve scenic views and other significant natural features” (Policy #48), “consider the character of adjacent development” (Policy #49). By virtue of its’ size and scope, this project falls far short of these goals. I strongly encourage the Commission to remand this case back to the Planning Dept. for full review, without limit to issues, and with recommendation for a public hearing. | |
| Frank Maita | 9/12/2004 2:51:33 PM |
| I can't belive the Planning department would approve such a large building without any kind of traffic studies. Even if they do a traffic studt what good is it if we don't have any idea of what the building will be used for? According to staff they say churches are without limitation. If that is so they can have a junk yard, cemetary, bingo parlor, dump or whatever they want. Since when are churches allowed to rob a neighborhood of peace and quiet? This place can be used any time any day and what can the neighbors do? Nothing like having a beautiful house in the country next to a parking lot. They say this building has to have a permanent negative impact substantially greater than that of permitted residential development. What does that mean? Isn't an estimated 200 to 400 cars per hour substantially negative? With a Planning department like this I ask, Can Anchorage get any uglier? It sure can because these people approve the most ridiculous requests I have ever seen. | |
| Margaret merschman | 9/11/2004 5:19:39 PM |
| So this is for the people of the church and not for them to share this site unless you go to their church and as some did and was told to leave because they did not belong to the church But to me it should not matter what you are church goer kid etc.They should allow every one to enjoy it and maybe they could get more people to see the light and they may enjoy the new people and freinds they make by allowing others then the church. And by the way they never had modern things in the past and they got along fine mm | |
| merschman margaret | 9/11/2004 11:35:13 AM |
| What impact will this have on traffic that is now to heavey for this road Does this also mean a stop light?This is one of the most dangerous roads in the winter plus increase in traffic and noise.I have had more church traffic pull out in front of me when it lets out which I know it happens at scools other churches etc. I allready know the impact of having a trucking company next door to us which has increase noise dust and traffic.So when it comes to selling the house what person will want that when this is zoned for R6.Not all people are church going people or they go to other churches. So in the long run I think it best to leave well enought alone.Build more houses if we have to, so people will stay in the city margaret merschman | |
| Susanne Comellas 14821 Snowshoe Lane | 9/10/2004 4:23:10 PM |
| The proposed project has broad and deep opposition in the area. The Planning department performed a cursory examination of this proposal and apparently has discovered the need for a traffic impact analysis after the adjacent landowners filed this appeal costing $1200. I agree with staff that the TIA is needed however it is apparent in their own citations of code that this type of analysis has to be completed PRIOR to approving a site plan. It is an obvious violation of AMC21.45.235. The commission should also be aware of the information posted by the church on the application for the site plan review. It appears that this is considered to be an addition to an existing site or structure. Is a free standing building an addition? Is this not a new site plan because it is the result of a re-plat? The request for the Church site Plan Review is for a gym/multi purpose room (common in schools, not so common in churches)and classrooms on the second floor. Classrooms for what? Did the planning department ask? In item 7 the question asks for proposed accessory uses. The applicant includes only meeting rooms. The ability for the planning department to approve a project of this magnitude begs the question, how can the planning department make any kind of intelligent determination on the impact of a large facility like this and approve it without any facts whatsoever. Doesn't this type of analysis come into play in, 2. Demand and availability of public services and facilities? An estimated 200 to 400 vehicles for hour places a big demand on roads(see DOT comments). Impact cannot be determined unless use is defined. The impact of this building is not the impact of a church. When these codes were written a church in a community was a quiet neighbor used on weekends not a gymnasium, weight room, coffee bar with the unlimited ability to morph into whatever it could. I believe we have all gotten over the idea that churches can do no wrong. The intent of the code is not being considered and churches and an unthinking planning staff are allowing abuses. This approval should be remanded back to the planning department for a more complete review without limitations to issues and a full public hearing should be scheduled due to the serious community concerns. Please review the comments that have been posted by area residents prior to the appeal. | |
| Megan Poulson | 9/9/2004 7:47:59 PM |
| I have attended several meetings with representatives of the Rabbit Creek Community Church, immediate neighbors of the church, and local community members. We have walked and measured the property, taken a great deal of time and effort to understand the intent and impact of this building plan. It has been clearly presented as a recreational and educational facility, and although I can see the advantages to providing such services from the perspective of the church's pastor and its participating members, a facility with this intent and size does not belong in an R-6 rural neighborhood. The proposed facility is not a "church" as I believe the word is used in the existing code, or subsequent planning documents. I would encourage this body when reviewing notes attached to Appeal point # 5, to carefully review the definition of "Churches". I do not believe the intent was to emphasize the phrase "without limitation" in association with accessory uses, but the full phrasing intends to avoid rigidity while clearly requiring a relationship to religious worship. Specific examples are laid out with care, for instance the specific qualifier that day care be included "while they are attending religious functions". I encourage you to deny the RCCC site plan request, per this appeal and to require that any future plans for development on this site be downsized to truly blend with the nature of area and to meet the intended composition of an R-6 neighborhood. | |
| Hezekiah Holland | 9/8/2004 7:12:17 PM |
| The Rabbit Creek Community Council previously submitted these comments on the original Case. May 18, 2004 Planning Department MOA PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519 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 | |
| Carol Fries | 9/7/2004 8:51:49 PM |
| I have just received a copy of the staff comments dated September 13, 2004 regarding this appeal. I concur with staff analysis of Appeal point #1. I find the logic behind staff's analysis of appeal points four and five seriously flawed. Staff asserts: Appeal point #5 refers to AMC 21.40.080.B.6, R-6 Permitted Uses. The R-6 zoning district allows churches as a principal use. The section states: “Churches, to include any place of religious worship, along with their accessory uses, including without limitation, parsonages, meeting rooms and child care provided for persons while they are attending religious functions, but excluding day care uses, which shall be permitted only if they are otherwise allowed in accordance with this title. ” Staff goes on to say that the applicant has asked for nothing not allowed by code. Where in the code is a gymnasium defined as an accessory use? The code clearly states "including without limitation, parsonages, meeting rooms, and child care facilities." It DOES NOT say "including without limitation, GYMNASIUMS, parsonages, meeting rooms and child care facilities. According to the author's interpretation of the code a church could have a bingo parlor, a casino, a winery, virtually anything if there is no limitation. It also says that child care facilities may be provided for persons while they are attending RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS. Is basketball now a religious function? Staff asserts that: "Appeal point #4 speaks of the current design of the project which includes: four classrooms, kitchen, coffee bar, high school size gymnasium and locker rooms. These types of rooms are common amenities to most churches and their accessory uses are clearly incidental to the primary use of a church." This is the reviewer's OPINION, not fact and has no place in the analysis of this appeal. These are clearly not common amenities to most churches. Furthermore, if a gym is used six nights a week and five days a week, and religious services are held one day a week, how is this use INCIDENTAL? If the use is revenue generating, how is this use incidental? This analysis implies that you can build something that resembles a church, define yourself as a church, and do most anything anywhere. I find this arguement quite troubling. | |