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. | |
|---|---|
| Carolyn Kingry | 3/21/2006 6:34:27 PM |
| Just how many good reasoned arguments are necessary to say "NO" to the rezone request of public zoned property, unfortunately, currently owned by a proposed private developer? There are a multitude of great reasons why this 120 acre hillside parcel should not be rezoned for high density housing developement (see previous expert testimony). There are almost as many great reasons why it should never be developed as a residential area (just review the recent testimony of those who really care). The decision and the question to the proposed developers should be: "what part of NO don't you understand?" The ultimate resolution of this case is that the developers should sell the land to the municipality for preservation of the land for which it is appropriatly zoned; public lands, and I might add to be preserved in its natural state for the survival of the wildlife and the enjoyment of the public. | |
| David Weed | 3/3/2006 5:46:29 PM |
| My wife and I own three lots that form the South Western corner of Pennington Park Subdivision and rest against the parcel for which the rezone is requested. Reading the comments that have been submitted it is clear to me that the important issues raised by this case have been carefully and thoughtfully discussed. While the Municipality has an interest in promoting development and the creation of revenue producing projects, bad projects can result in ongoing problems that cost the community more in the long run than the short term gains. This is a bad project. The land is not suited for R7 development. Neither the prospective developers nor the Municipality know the conditions on the land well enough to take the leap of faith that committing to this development requires. Surface and ground water issues are insufficiently understood -- even surface streams are incorrectly mapped by both the developers and the Municipality. The current proposal for street access to the property does not adequately address the terrain and public safety issues. To increase the number of lots the developers are now proposing to discard the Bettijean connection in favor of a cul de sac. This further limits ingress and egress for the sake of more lots. If this rezone is allowed, the Municipality will be mired in problems and requests for changes from the developers for years to come and will end up spending more public resourses than the property deserves helping the developers destroy it and degrading this area and Potter Marsh. The request should be denied. | |
| Janelle Martinson | 3/2/2006 3:06:08 PM |
| The Goldenview area has already been compromised by development and rezoning to the point that it is barely recognizable as the place many residents invested in (heavily) years ago. Those of us who live in the area came for the quality of life it provided. The city has already allowed one developer (Prominence Pt./Goldenview "Park") to alter the character and quality of our neighborhood to the extent that it will never be what it once was. No one expects development won't happen - one does expect zoning and development parameters already in place to be honored. To change zoning, the city must identify a clear and compelling reason to do so. In this case there is only one reason the developers are asking for a change of zoning - increased profit. Will the track record of the city on rezoning be such that no one can trust when they invest in an area that it will not change on the whim of developers? Pass this rezoning request and you will alienate all those currently living in the area - who invested here due to the current zoning parameters. In time, those of us who desire the quality of life and character of neighborhood this one provides (and is clinging on to for "dear life") will move elsewhere. Perhaps the Wasilla/Palmer area will become the "center of business" for the state – as people elect to invest elsewhere for the “quality of living” this area provides - while Anchorage becomes known as "Tract City". We're almost there.... don't think it won't happen! Will you, the Assembly, save one area of Anchorage against the high-density requests of developers and preserve one of the last areas to provide the character and quality this one does – and, by virtue of that, save the city of Anchorage as a place which provides diversity in lifestyle – with neighborhoods taxpayers looking for this type of neighborhood desire to live and invest? Or will you elect to create a city where no one trusts the City won’t honor the “rules” they’ve previously set – where those who desire this type of area (and pay exorbitant property taxes, in spite of few services) move elsewhere. Look around – what is the character of most areas of this city? Most of it is already “tract city”! Uck! | |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council PO Box 112354 | 2/14/2006 10:11:16 AM |
| February 14, 2006 Re: Case no. 2005-139 Forest Heights Petition to rezone 120 acres from PLI to R7 The Rabbit Creek Community Council supports the Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 2005-067 unanimously denying Forest Heights LLC’s request to rezone 120 acres from PLI to R7 and urges the Anchorage Assembly to follow the Commission’s findings for the following reasons: 1) The Commission found that the applicant did not adequately demonstrate that the rezoning was in the best interest of the public per AMC 21.20.090. 2) The Commission cited insufficient information to decide if the rezoning is appropriate 3) The Commission found that the Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis was deficient in its analysis and should extend beyond the subject property to fully analyze the traffic circulation and traffic impacts of the proposed rezoning 4) The Commission found that the request is not in conformance with Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan policies #13, 46, 48, 65, and 67. 5) The Commission noted there was compelling testimony about the insufficiency of information and could not understand the effect of development and the cumulative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The Community Council also urges the Assembly to consider the following when evaluating this petition for rezone: 1) The Hillside District Plan has not been completed and therefore cannot guide such a large scale development and its impacts on the environment, neighborhoods, traffic and drainage 2) A Sub area Circulation Study has not been completed for this area to determine traffic flow and the need and alignment of a collector road that must run through this property and link Goldenview with Potter Valley Road 3) The MOA Watershed Department conducted a Watershed Study of this parcel and determined that significant drainage issues exist on this property and need to be further studied and taken into consideration which was not done by Petitioner’s experts in their analysis. 4) Any rezone of this property needs to be evaluated by its cumulative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods with all of the development occurring in the southeast hillside area especially along Goldenview Drive. 5) The historic Moen Trail must be preserved as a pedestrian amenity generally along its present alignment along with a vegetative buffer. For the above reasons and those outlined in the Community Council resolution dated October 27, 2005, this Council urges the Assembly to deny Forest Heights LLC’s Petition to Rezone. Approved February 9, 2006 _____________________ Susanne Comellas Chair, Rabbit Creek Community Council | |
| David Rand | 12/29/2005 9:49:58 PM |
| As a general rule, I am in favor or responsible development. However, it appears to me that the proposed re-zoning and development of this area contradicts much of the Anchorage 2020 comprehensive plan. I also think that it will adversely affect the Moen trail and the natural setting of this area with the density of the proposed housing. I ask that the re-zoning requested be denied. | |
| barbara weinig | 11/28/2005 1:04:28 PM |
| I request that case number 2005-139 be sent back to the developer for the changes requested by the preceding commenters. I have been community council president thre different years and have worked with the developer to improve elements of his previous subdivisions. First, the RS 2477 "Moen" trail is part of the MOA's "Trails Plan", it was ranked in the top 50 trails for development. To palce the majority of the trail on inappropriate soils and slope should not be allowed. Second, there needs to be a circulation plan for vehicle traffic for the entire area not just this subdivision. This area-wide plan has been recoqnized as a necessity since the Heritage Land Bank work plans dating form 1985. This need was also recoqnized in the 2020 plan, Transportation Study, of which I was a part. Third, the inclusion of sewer and water lines to this area will cause a change the flow of the surface and sub-surface water flow. This change in the water flow could severly impact the unique geological feature , which is located below this property, and adjacent to the Old Seward Highway. If the change water flow causes this unique and delicate geological feature to erode, the entire area above could start to move downhill, just like Pacific Palisades (California) did when homes catapulted into the Pacific Ocean. (Nothing in the submitted plans takes this into consideration). The original Heritage Land Bank decription, and later studies of this area all mention the possibilty of this proplem and recommend more study before development. They also suggested that with development special requirements would be need to prevent water flow changes from eroding this area. Thank you for reading my comments. | |
| Gary Cain | 11/7/2005 5:24:54 PM |
| I am a licensed civil engineer who has been practicing in Alaska for 23 years, the last 17 of which has been in Anchorage doing all kinds of site development planning and design. I have reviewed the request to rezone the property from PLI to R-7 and reviewed the Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department memorandum recommending approval. I generally do not take exception to development as long as the plan calls for responsible development that is consistent with community policies and compatible with appropriate land use designations. In this case, I strongly disagree with the direction of the rezone request as it violates numerous goals and objectives stated in the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive plan, and standards published in Title 21 of the Anchorage Municipal Code. Approval of the rezone as requested will set a precedent for allowing development projects that do not fulfill the stated goals and objectives of the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan. To quote Anchorage 2020 “The demands of rapid growth have faded, and quality of life issues have moved to the forefront. Throughout the plan development process, the community expressed a consistent vision for Anchorage’s future – a vision that balances growth with the retention of the city’s natural features and quality of life.” If this property is rezoned to R7, even with special limitations, the development of the 120 acres can not take place in a manner that will retain any significant amount of natural features. Furthermore, the development will not be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods which are predominantly zoned R-6, R-9 and R-10. These adjacent appropriately zoned neighborhoods fall under the Limited Intensity Residential designation which, according to the Anchorage Bowl Land Use Plan Map – Community Discussion Draft, “provides for large-lot, single-family residences in a semi-rural environment, and relieves development pressure in areas where natural conditions and distance to urban services limit growth. The predominant land use consist of detached houses on lots one acre or larger in size. The intended overall density for new development is less than one housing unit per gross acre…. Lot size, setbacks, the custom built nature of residences and the presence of natural vegetation help retain a semi-rural atmosphere and the natural environment.” The existing topography of the site does not allow for development of R-7 lot sizes with any significant retention of natural features. In order to physically construct a residential structure on the minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet, along with the roads, water, sewer and storm drain improvements, virtually all of the natural vegetation will have to be destroyed. A perfect example of how the property will need to be developed to accommodate R-7 density is the development where virtually all natural vegetation had to be destroyed. The destruction of the majority of the vegetation has resulted in significant storm water run-off and erosion problems. This past winter run-off from frequent freeze-thaw cycles overwhelmed the existing ditches in Goldenview Drive and caused hazardous glaciation across the roadway, with some areas experiencing ice build-up over one foot thick. Development of the 120 acre site as R-7 will result in run-off that has little or no natural vegetation for biofiltration, and will ultimately have a detrimental impact on the environmentally sensitive receiving waters of Potter Marsh. In short, this rezone request should not be approved. If it is approved the integrity of the Municipal zoning process will be compromised, and the following Anchorage 2020 policies will not have been upheld: 5. Rezones and variances shall be compatible in scale with adjacent uses and consistent with the Goals and Policies of ANCHORAGE 2020. 6. Areas designated for specific uses on the Zoning Map shall be protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses. 7. Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another 13. New Rural residential subdivisions shall be designed to: a) maintain the rural character of the area; c) Protect, maintain or avoid sensitive environmental areas 41. Land use regulations shall include new design requirements that are responsive to Anchorage’s climate and natural setting. 46. The unique appeal of individual residential neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with applicable Goals Policies and Strategies. 48. Subdivision plats and site development plans shall be designed to enhance or preserve scenic views and other significant natural features in accordance with applicable Goals Policies and Strategies. 49. Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of adjacent development. The Municipality may require layouts and designs to incorporate the functional and aesthetic character of adjacent development. 50. Healthy, mature trees and forested areas shall be retained as much as possible. I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to disapprove of this rezone request. Approving Zoning of R-7 will demonstrate a general policy of choosing quantity over quality of life. | |
| John Pinamont | 11/7/2005 12:32:53 PM |
| I ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request 2005-139) for rezoning from PLI to R7 SL as requested by Forest Heights LLC. I am a homeowner in the adjacent Susitna View Estates subdivision and do not believe the proposed rezoning to high density residential with city sewer and water is comparable to the surrounding development. The nearby area consists of large lots with onsite septic and water. The flavor of the area is open land for wildlife movement, no fences, and rural unpaved roads. The proposed area has many springs, water courses, and wetlands. In addition, there is shallow bedrock with subsurface water flow that would be disturbed by trenching for water and sewer lines, leading to glaciation as already evidenced in the other high density developments (Prominence Point, Bridgeview). The suggested alternate access via Belarde, Virgo, Tideview to Old Seward is not reasonable. There are grades to 14%, winter glaciation, and road deterioration with the current traffic. Takings of private property would be required to make this route feasible. The proposed high density development will also have impacts on the night skies. Where I live there are no street lights and minimal light sources allowing for great star gazing. Thanks for accepting my comments. | |
| Lori Davey | 11/5/2005 6:39:01 PM |
| As the current Chair, I am speaking on behalf of the South Goldenview Limited Road Service Area. I attended the Rabbit Creek Community Council meeting a few weeks ago. I asked the Lantech representatives if they intended to annex into the South Goldenview LRSA and was assured that they would. I just read over the MOA Planning Dept Memorandum dated November 7, 2005 and found that they do not intend to annex into the LRSA, but instead the ARDSA. This is not reasonable! This subdivision should absolutely be annexed into the South Goldenview LRSA primarily because ALL of their points of access are throught LRSA roads. It would be unconscienable to allow 1382 additional trips through our roads without participation in the maintenance. Yes, there are several LRSA's with different contracts. However, there is only one LRSA and contract that concerns this parcel of land. Our contract is for snow removal at 4 inches with a 4 hour response time and sanding with a 2 hour response time. These standards are much higher than that of ARDSA - which I believe is snow removal within 72 hours. For this to be a viable secondary access in emergencies for the South Goldenview area, it must be maintained to the same high standards. We must request that annexation into the South Goldenview LRSA be a requirement for Subdivision Planning. | |
| Carol Fries | 11/4/2005 10:37:12 AM |
| The request to rezone the Forest Heights parcel containing 120 acres from PLI to R-7 is premature and unsupported by the information provided. The petitioners have failed to 1) adequately address surface and subsurface water flow through the parcel, 2) identify and accommodate all streams located on this parcel, and 3) thoroughly consider other physical characteristics, such as soils and bedrock, in developing a proposed plan. The characteristics of this parcel have been documented and additional studies previously requested by the Municipality but apparently this information has not been considered. There are no special limitations proposed, no protections offered by the developer other than two 25-foot stream setbacks on each side of two streams. Little Survival Creek in other subdivisions in this area has 45 or 50-foot stream setbacks on each side of the creek. Even with this level of protection, Little Survival Creek has been seriously impacted by upstream development. There are no plans to limit vegetative clearing to protect soils and stream health. Failure to adequately address these issues has the potential to negatively affect adjacent landowners, Potter Marsh, and as a result all residents of Anchorage. In addition, R7 zoning is not compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods to the north and east of this parcel. The proposed connection via Bettijean Street to this subdivision will route traffic from the proposed higher density subdivision into a lower density subdivision where the roads are not built to sustain this level of impact. It is unrealistic to think that Goldenview Drive can continue to absorb the traffic generated by yet another 155 units following the development of Goldenview Middle School, Prominence Point, Shangri La, and the new subdivisions planned and recently platted for the area above or east of Prominence Point. There has been no circulation study or planning for infrastructure to alleviate the impact on existing residents from the increase in traffic these subdivisions are creating. These impacts include unacceptable levels of congestion at the intersection of Rabbit Creek and Goldenview Drive, compromised public safety in the event of a required emergency evacuation, and limited accessibility for emergency vehicles. At the very least the rezone should be denied until such time as a secondary access route can be developed from Goldenview to Potter Valley Road. It is unreasonable to expect existing residents to subsidize the development of higher density subdivisions through higher LRSA maintenance costs and the degradation of the neighborhood character that has prompted them to purchase homes in this area. Provisions for recreational access via pedestrian trails to HLB lands located at the western edge of this parcel should be addressed. These lands were determined to be best suited for Public Open Space/Greenbelt in the Potter Valley Land Use Analysis alternative adopted by the Assembly. The public has a right to access these lands. Access should be provided via the existing historical Moen Trail as well as other pedestrian connectivity connecting to the north to allow residents to access the greenbelt and also allow students to walk to Goldenview Middle School and walk to the houses of friends who live in adjacent neighborhoods. Furthermore, the comments regarding public notice offered by Ky Holland of the Rabbit Creek Community Council are indeed troubling. The public has a right to be provided a complete picture of what is proposed on this parcel. Given the information provided and the characteristics of this parcel, the characteristics of adjacent neighborhoods, and the relationship of this parcel to the health of Potter Marsh, density greater than that allowed by R-6 is not supported and a rezone at this time is premature. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Anita and Robert Felker | 10/30/2005 8:10:05 PM |
| We request that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the petitioner's request for a rezoning of 120 acres of PLI zoned land located at Goldenview Drive and 172nd Avenue to R7 Intermediate Rural Residential district. We have lived 1/2 block away from the subject parcel since 1989 and believe that the development of this subdivision as R7 or R7SL would be an irresponsible act and a potentially costly decision for this area of South Anchorage and for the municipality for the following reasons: 1. Public safety issues: Goldenview Drive cannot continue to be the only collector road for an additional 155 homes on top of the 700 new homes from the Bridgeview, Prominence Point and Shangri-La subdivisions. Goldenview Drive is not designed to accommodate the amount of traffic generated by this new influx of automobiles. All of the traffic funnels down to the intersection of Goldenview Drive and Rabbit Creek, passing by Goldenview Middle School, where even more traffic is added to the road. The intersection at Rabbit Creek is too steep to allow for a traffic light, so significant traffic gridlock occurs during early morning commutes, especially when school buses, parents taking children to school at Goldenview and morning commuters all convene at this one uncontrolled intersection. It is bad now, but will certainly get worse as the rest of the homes are built in the exsiting subdivisions and if 150+ more homes are added to the mix. As more people are forced to use this intersection, accidents will increase with more los of property and very possibly more fatalities from these accidents. The early morning commute gridlock is minor when considering what type of gridlock that intersection would experience in the event of a major disaster such as a fire on the hillside, when this whole area tries to evacuate in a hurry with only Goldenview as an escape route. the alternative route often sited - 172nd, Belarde, Virgo to Tidewater and the Old Seward Highway is no alternative at all. Even in our 4 wheel drive vehicle with studded tires, that way is impassable many days in the winter due to the steepness and the icy conditions. This summer, the frost heaves in portions of the road were bad enough to swallow a Volkswagon "bug". It is a joke to say that this route would be a reliable evacuation route for the proposed subdivision. Nor is it a road that could or would be used by anyone for normal commuting on a daily basis. And if it were used by many vehicles on a routine basis, it would be in worse shape than it already is. It would take a considerable investment from the municipality and/or the developers of these subdivisions to improve this route. And we have yet to see any developer want to commit dollars to improving the infrastructure of the area to support their development. 2. The developer's proposal to access the subdivision via Bettijean St and Kallender is unrealistic without major improvement to those roads, something the developer is not planning to do per his presentation to the Rabbit Community Council. In fact, the worst part of Bettijean St is the part which the developer plans to use as the ONLY access for 5 lots of his subdivision. That area of Bettijean is a muddy pit with logs and stumps coming out of the mud and only a very narrow lane passable for vehicular traffic. It is not feasible, nor desirable to the residents of these low density subdivisions to have 5 of the 155 households use this R-6 LRSA maintained road as their ONLY access. Nor is it reasonable to have more Forest Heights subdivision traffic be routed through these same R-6 roads by connecting to Bettijean St and Kallender, thus using these R-6 subdivision roads as an alternative route to Goldenview for this densely planned subdivision. The R-6 roads were not built to sustain this volume of traffic. 3. Wetlands issues: The 120 acre property is full of well documented springs, streams and wetlands. We have walked and skied on this property for many years. One only has to look at the Prominence Point subdivision to see the problems that have arisen with the man-made solutions to stream and ground water diversion in high density subdivision built on steep hillside terrain. We walk often in Prominence Point and have witnessed hillside sloughing with rivers of mud running down the paved streets, springs popping up in ditches overnight, springs pouring out of hillsides causing glaciation up to the foundations of existing homes-requiring bulldozers to come in and make ice dam trenches to divert the run-off away from the homes. And Prominence Point has even fewer documented streams and wetlands than this 120 acre parcel. 4. bike paths, pedestrian trails and connections between developments. People living in the South Anchorage hillside neighborhoods enjoy trails just like a majority of the people in the Anchorage bowl. So, it is not surprising that we want to see trails, bike paths and safe pedestrian access between our subdivision and from our subdivisions to the local schools. As these new subdivision get developed,the old trails that were used through these large tracts of land are developed and no attempt is made to develop bike paths and pedestrian access in these subdivisions. Also, no attempt is made to tie these new subdivisions to the surrounding neighborhoods through interconnecting pedestrian trails. Without these connections between the subdivisions, walkers,joggers, and bike riders are funneled onto Goldenview, just like the auto traffic. This increased pedestrian and bike traffic on Goldenview Drive compounds the existing safety issues. Most of these issues have been discussed, planned and written out in the various plans the municipality and its citizens have worked on for years and years and years - the Trails plan, the Hillside plan, the 2020 plan. What is the point of all these plans if we don't institute them until all the land is developed? Please deny the developer the re-zone to R7 and address thses issues before approving further hillside development. Thank you. | |
| Katherine Nitzberg | 10/28/2005 8:06:37 PM |
| I chose to live in Potter Creek for the nearby open space and the Moen trail. My family and I have used the trail regularly for hiking in the summer, and sledding in the winter. Forest Heights LLC proposal to change the PL1 land to dense residence and build over the Moen trail removes the neigborhoods "park". The proposed easement and 10' greenbelt along the boggy portion of the property does not replace the well drained Moen trail. I suggest that the historic Moen trail be left in its current location and condition with a natural buffer so residents and wildlife can continue to use it. | |
| Katie Nitzberg | 10/28/2005 7:56:54 PM |
| As a resident of Potter Creek subdivision, I chose to live here because of the nearby open space and access to hiking along the Moen trail. The proposed re-zoning by Forest Heights LLC of the PL1 zoned lands into densely spaced houses removes our local "park". The Moen Trail is a favorite hiking and sledding route for our family and neighbors. Forest Heights LLC proposed 10' greenbelt easement through the wettest portion of the property does not replace the current historic trail used by many south Anchorage residents. I request that the area around the Moen Trail be left intact with a natural buffer to continue providing the existing access for people and wildlife between Potter Marsh and the tundra. | |
| gregory schumacher | 10/28/2005 12:09:17 PM |
| I believe it is not in the best interest of this neighborhood to create such high density housing. The issue of safety, specifically regarding wildfire is of primary concern. Further, there is insufficient infrastructure to support such an increase in population density, the most obvious being lack of major roads. Lot sizes should be minimum 1 acre. Preservation of the MOen trail is also important to me, as is additional green space in this southern end of town, to counter ANY further development. thanks you for your consideration greg schumacher | |
| Marilyn Scarborough | 10/27/2005 10:50:26 PM |
| I recommend denial of the current proposal (Planning Dept. Case # 2005-139) to rezone 120 acres currently owned by Forest Heights LLC from PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) to R-7. I believe zoning of R-6 to be more appropriate. for Anchorage, this neighborhood and it's numerous wildlife. I have lived adjacent to this property for 23 years and have walked this property frequently. There I have observed moose, black and brown bear, lynx, coyote, wolf sign, bald eagles and many songbirds. This is an important island of wildland in the midst of many developed properties properties. It is the only remaining wildlife corridor to connect potter marsh to the tundra. The Moen trail merits saving. It is a well used, dry historic trail providing a safe place to walk and ski and much needed in this area of almost no other trails. The proposed trail is not an adequate replacement. It goes through several bogs and wet areas. There are also many issues of access to this property. The proposed roads do not adequately address these issues. Also, Potter Marsh would be adversely affected by drainage from roads and chemicals from lawns. I believe there needs to be more study of these issues and a larger lot size to adequately provide for humans and wildlife. | |
| Valerie Kenny | 10/27/2005 10:48:34 PM |
| We hope the current proposal (Planing Dept, Case #2005-139) to rezone 120 acres currently owned by Forrest Heights LLC from Public Lands & Institutions to Intermediate rural residential district or one-half acre lots fails. This proposal will devastate a serene beautiful spot which enjoys the sense of community that has past over so much of the Anchorage bowl. This proposal if agreed to would further destroy water quality and quantity essential to Potter Marsh. the system i this area is becoming over burdened. During much of the winter roads are dangerously icy and stacking up cars at the top of hills will only increase the chances for accidents. There already are traffic problems on Golden View drive with traffic from Goldenview School and now Prominence Point. | |
| Bruce Seppi | 10/27/2005 6:11:49 PM |
| My family and I live directly adjacent to the 120 acre parcel being reviewed for rezoning, and know it well. We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny Forest Heights LLC’s request to rezone the property from PLI to R-7 (or is it R-7SL ?). After reviewing the petitioners concept plan and rezone application we obtained from neighbors, it is very apparent that the R-7 zoning density is too high. Issues involving access, traffic congestion and road connections to existing neighborhoods have not been addressed adequately. The Moen trail is not recognized for its access or historical value. The cumulative effects of this development with other large developments on Goldenview and Rabbit Creek Rd. have not been considered. This development proposal will remove most of the forest and the character of the property, as well as its value as wildlife habitat and movement corridor between Potter Marsh and the mountains. Much of the property has bed rock near the surface, and sheet flow of water over the bedrock near the surface, causing glaciation and unstable soils, and will likely create problems with sewer lines as there has been in the nearby Prominence Point development. This development depends on access to Goldenview Road which already accommodates hundreds of new houses and a Middle School, resulting in significant traffic congestion. Connecting this development to existing neighborhood roads for addition needed access is absurd. These roads (Bettijean, 172nd, Belarde, Virgo, Tideview) are virtually unmaintained, steep, and glaciated and dangerous in the winter. They continue to deteriorate with existing use, yet they are the only alternative to the use of Goldenview Road. The road design and layout of the development will not encourage use of a connecting road to Potter Valley to relieve traffic on Goldenview Road. No one will travel on steep winding roads in the opposite direction to travel to Anchorage. The proposed multi-use trail along the developments road is a poor excuse for the Moen Trail. An alternative ten foot wide trail easement is pitifully narrow and its alignment is very wet. This development will essentially do away with the Moen Trail. Zoning densities of R-6 with a minimum of 1 acre lots would help reduce these problems, and leave the character of the property intact. Do not ignore public input for this rezone request. Deny the petitioners request until a proposal is submitted that realistically addresses the above issues, lowers lot densities to at least R-6, and includes careful site planning for placement of roads and houses. Don’t let the petitioners profit motives take priority over sensible land use planning. | |
| Wayne Skidmore - For Rabbit Creek CC | 10/27/2005 1:27:52 PM |
| The Rabbit Creek Community Council (“RCCC”) has reviewed information presented by the petitioner to rezone 120 acres of PLI land. This prospective rezoned property lies within the RCCC boundaries and has been the subject of prior rezoning efforts and prior studies (and directives for additional studies). This letter sets forth the RCCC position regarding the petition along with recommendations. The property at issue is one of the last undeveloped gross acreage of 120 acres parcels on the Hillside forming the watershed for Potter Marsh. The property has seven documented streams that feed Potter Marsh, a small section of wetlands, and an historical RS 2477 trail known as the Moen Trail. This parcel contains variable topography, sections of steep terrain over 30% slope, stands of mature spruce and birch, drainage challenges, and documented important wildlife habitat; all of which should be taken into account in the plat. This parcel has substantial environmental importance to the continued existence and vitality of Potter Marsh. Petitioner's Burden of Proof Any purchaser of land buys the land subject to the existing zoning. It is not the job of the Planning and Zoning Commission to reward land speculation where property is purchased at a lower property designation and then the owners attempt to profit on the property by seeking a zoning that allows a far more lucrative development. There are many useful, and profitable, developments allowed in a PLI zoning district. The RCCC objects to what appears to be a presumption that whomever buys this parcel is automatically entitled to change zoning to whatever the new owner thinks is the most profitable. Yet, for good reasons, this same presumption is not applied downtown, or in South Addition, or midtown. Given the scenic and habitat values of this tract, platting should be sensitive to terrain, drainage, and scenic qualities, as well as neighborhood connectivity. Neighborhoods cannot be orderly developed, and reasonable economic expectations cannot be protected, if zoning districts are arbitrarily changed every time a new owner buys land. Forest Heights, LLC bought land zoned PLI. It knew what the zoning was before it bought the property. It is not “entitled” to a rezone anymore than a property owner in South Addition is entitled to change zoning from R2-M to B2-B (certainly a potentially more profitable zoning). Neighborhoods cannot be orderly developed, and reasonable economic expectations cannot be protected, if zoning districts are arbitrarily changed every time a new owner buys land. Existing zoning requirements must be consistent and rarely altered in order to protect property values, property owners' expectations, and organized growth. Zoning variances and zoning changes are the exception, not the rule. The burden of a petitioner seeking a zoning change is heavy, and zoning changes should be granted sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances. The reasons for granting a zoning change must be substantial, serious and compelling. In order to grant a re-zoning request such as this, Planning and Zoning Commission must have facts establishing that the new zoning or variance will be in the public interest. Here, the petitioner failed to provide any data that establishes this proposed rezone is in the public interest. Indeed, the RCCC's primary concern with the petition is that it is not in the public interest since it is contrary to the orderly development of the Hillside, imposes public safety issues because of lack of roads and emergency access, reduces quality of life for the existing residents by increasing traffic and density and violates reasonably based expectations of private property owners. The petitioner here has failed to meet its burden of providing evidence that, without a zoning change, the public interest will not be served. The Adjoining Neighborhoods This property is bordered on two sides by established rural neighborhoods consisting of R-6, with natural vegetation, on-site water and septic, and LRSA maintained narrow gravel roads. The southern boundary is currently undeveloped and zoned R¬3SL. The Western boundary is Heritage Land Bank property parcels 2-127 to 2-136, currently zoned PLI, after an intensive planning analysis in which it was determined that open space was the best use for the parcel. The petitioner’s “concept plan” and Traffic Impact Analysis show that two access points on Goldenview Drive and one on Bettijean St. up to Goldenview Drive would be the primary access to this development. It also states that when the connection to Potter Valley road is made that a fourth access point would be created. The petitioner failed to evaluate current traffic and road conditions, a condition on the most recent prior development proposal. Goldenview is an already overloaded, dead-end cul-de-sac collector road for the residents south of Rabbit Creek Road. It has two lanes, no sidewalks, no bike trails, and due to massive construction in the last 10 years, including Bridgeview Subdivision, Prominence Point, Shangri-La and a host of independent developments, more traffic than it was ever designed to handle. The cumulative effects of development in this area have created a dangerous situation that have been only partially evaluated and addressed by the MOA in the Hillside Sub Area Circulation Study dated April 2005. This study indicates that 500 - 600 new homes will be built south of Bear Valley up to 172nd Ave and that until another road is built parallel to Goldenview Drive, the only access to Rabbit Creek Road is on Goldenview. This does not even include any development south of 172nd including Forest Heights and Potter View, adding an additional 350 homes. In 2000, the MOA Transportation Planning Department commented on a previous petition to develop this parcel and stated "the circulation system in this area of the hillside is incomplete, including a north-south collector system. At present time Goldenview Drive serves as the only collector road in and out of the area. It is not likely that the Goldenview - Rabbit Creek Road intersection will be signalized due to excessive intersection grades." It further states that "an additional link is needed between Goldenview and Potter Valley Road through the petition site that will function as a collector street. This new link will greatly improve the access to this site and should serve as its primary access. It would help to reduce the traffic on Goldenview Drive as well as provide a needed south access to the area for emergency services. For these reasons the Transportation Planning does not agree with the petitioner's proposal to utilize Goldenview Drive as the primary access to the site and recommends that the long-term need to accommodate a connection to Potter Valley road should be addressed in the subdivision plat. The Anchorage Fire Department concurs with these remarks." The MOA Transportation Planning Department comments and analysis were true in 2000, and even more true today in 2005. It is notable that the Petitioner completely ignores the Planning Department’s analysis in its current petition. According to the petitioner’s “concept plan” and Traffic Impact Analysis, the main and only road to access this subdivision will begin in phase one at the northeast corner on Goldenview Drive and traverse the property with a sharp curve and a speed limit of 10 mph to ultimately tie into Potter Valley Road. This type of road would not be considered a “collector road” and would not serve as a main access road to Potter Valley Road. In addition, the petitioner states that it may take up to 8 years to complete the construction of this property and thus preventing access south to Potter Valley Road. In addition, this petitioner has no written agreement with the Heritage Land Bank or the developer to the south, Potter Heights LLC to access through their properties to Potter Valley Road. So, it remains speculative that this connection will ever be made. The MOA has already determined this collector street must be the primary access for this subdivision. Further, the petition shows no buffering from this suburban type subdivision to the rural subdivisions which border it to the north and east sides. In fact, this concept plan shows 5 lots to be built on the northeast corner of Bettijean St. These driveways will access directly into the Pennington Park and adjacent Loma Estates subdivisions and not connect at all into the Forest Heights subdivision. Pennington Park and Loma Estates are rural and are zoned R-6 with 1 house per 1-1/4 acres. Adding 2 houses per acre would have a significant effect on the existing neighborhood. A 50 ft natural vegetative undisturbed buffer along the north and east boundaries is needed to protect the rural nature of these existing neighborhoods. Current zoning requirements mandate a buffer between different types of zoning. The RCCC believes that the northern boundary of this property would best be served by on-site septic and water, but only with relatively large lots of 1.25 acres, consistent with R-6 zoning and the adjoining neighborhoods. The September 2, 2005 Anderson Engineering Septic System Feasibility Study concludes that the soils in this area can support on-site septic systems. (The existing on-site septic systems in Loma Estates and Pennington Park bear witness to this). A low-density subdivision on this parcel could be made compliant with the requirements for on-site wastewater disposal systems. This was the conceptual design of the previous owners for this area of property. On building sites with compatible soils, conventional septic systems could be utilized, as is the case in nearby subdivisions. On sites with poorly drained soils, advanced on-site septic systems could be used. Many of these modern systems have already been approved elsewhere in the Municipality. Utilization of on-site septic systems would eliminate much of the topographic disturbance that would result from construction of pipelines that connect individual residences with the municipal sewage system We strongly recommend that if not all, at least 30 acres of the northern boundary be exempted from the HWMP and be zoned R-6. This level of zoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood zoning immediately to the north of the subject parcel, and such a zoning determination would provide a buffer to the existing Loma Estates, Pennington Park, and Susitna View Estates Subdivisions from higher density housing. It would also prevent excessive removal of native vegetation, destabilization of soils, replacement of indigenous vegetation with lawns and non-native landscaping and loss of wildlife habitat and movement corridors. It would reduce public health concerns involving stormwater runoff containing fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The cumulative effect of a high-density development, as proposed by the Petitioner, will adversely impact surface water, groundwater and wildlife habitat both on the parcel and within Potter Marsh. We support extending this exemption to all areas abutting the Pennington Park, Loma Estates, and Susitna View Estates neighborhoods on the north/northeast side of the subject parcel. Lack of Planning The MOA has not completed a Hillside District Plan to help guide these last large-scale developments on the hillside to determine traffic patterns, land use patterns, and open space as mandated by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This is another example of development happening without a plan and the existing neighborhoods and the MOA itself having to live with the consequences of overburdened streets, fire hazards, lack of access and having to purchase land back from developers for open space and trails. This is contrary to the 2020 Plan and to the carefully planned community interest intended by the zoning regulations. Impact of the New Development This proposed rezone will, if approved as described in the Petition, create an additional 155 dwelling units into the area south of Rabbit Creek Road and West of Goldenview. By itself, an additional 155 dwelling units is a dramatic increase in houses and people in this area. But this development is not isolated. Recent developments in Prominence Point, Bridgeview, and Shangri-La have already introduced over 700 units in this area. Putting aside the construction of individual dwelling units which continues in this area at a rate of dozens per year, over 700 dwelling units have been or will soon be added to the same area as the Forest Heights property (all using Goldenview and Rabbit Creek Road). (Please see Hillside Sub-Area Circulation Study, April 2005 by the MOA Traffic Dept.) This is the equivalent of building a small town, as each dwelling unit contains an average of two cars and 2.5 people or over 1,750 new residents. According to the 2000 census, there are only 31 towns in Alaska with populations in excess of 2,500 people. If this area was not part of Anchorage, the additional 1,750 people added to this area, which already has approximately 4,000 residents, would make this part of the Hillside, with the new development and a population of at least 6,000 people, one of the 15 largest towns in Alaska, not far behind Ketchikan, with 7,589 people or Sitka, with 8,829 people. This information is necessary to put in perspective the magnitude of the development that is ongoing. With such large scale development, responsible planning is necessary. The impacts of this additional large-scale development on the infrastructure in this area are not addressed in this application. The MOA needs to complete an additional traffic circulation study south of 172nd to Potter Valley to determine how these new developments are going to move traffic off of the already overburdened hillside roads. Specifically, the petitioner does not fully describe the impacts this proposed development will have on traffic loading on Goldenview Drive, which, at the intersection with Rabbit Creek Road is already at unacceptable and unsafe levels during morning commute hours, combined with the load factor from Goldenview Middle School. The situation will be further aggravated if an elementary school is built on Goldenview, which the Anchorage School District has identified as a potential elementary school site, and is adjacent to the petition property. The primary access to this subdivision should be from the south. The petition suggests a time frame of up to 8 years to complete this development with the first phase to begin off of Goldenview Drive. This will have an immediate impact on Goldenview Drive both with the construction process and with new residents moving into this subdivision. The MOA already determined this parcel should be accessed from the southern route and should not be allowed to proceed until the primary access is built. With the addition of several thousand new residents to this area, provision needs to be made for pedestrian access along Goldenview, from Goldenview Middle School to the road terminus to the South. Presently, there is no sidewalk, bike trail or other protected access along this deteriorating road. The recent developments have resulted in hundreds of new families moving to this area with no provision for safe pedestrian, child or school access. The RCCC recommends MOA bond funds, combined with a developer's user fee, to provide funding for this access. A funding formula needs to be in place prior to any rezone approval and certainly prior to any platting approval. Connectivity In addition, the RCCC requests that pedestrian connectivity be retained using the existing trail from the end of Belarde Street to the Heritage Land Bank parcel 2-127 running along the western boundary of this property. This connectivity will provide existing and future residents access to these public lands which given the current proposal will be cut off from existing neighborhoods. This is an asset that should be available to residents of the proposed development and existing residents of this area. Other areas of pedestrian connectivity should be considered to allow residents of this entire area pedestrian circulation. Set Backs The new parcel if approved, should be required to recognize the existing streams and waterways running through this property that feed Potter Marsh. Set backs of 50 feet on each side of any stream should be required as it is on other streams in this area, including Little Survival Creek, and as is suggested in the new Title 21 rewrite as a national standard. The RCCC suggests that the petitioner’s water study is incomplete and is lacking in many areas including ignoring the MOA’s watercourse analysis done in December 2002 showing the tributaries to Potter Marsh. One would expect a private water study to at least discuss the MOA watercourse analysis and, if there was changed data, to explain how and why. The Petitioner’s water study cannot be relied upon as a credible document since it fails to actually address the watercourses on the parcel. This petitioner’s water study ignores ephemeral streams and other existing wetlands and how they will be protected. Water flowing on to and from this parcel directly feeds Potter Marsh and 50-ft setbacks will help maintain the water quantity and quality as the Potter Marsh watershed. Any development of this parcel must take into consideration the impacts to habitat and wildlife in Potter Marsh. These are resources enjoyed by residents of the greater Anchorage community and tourists alike. These resources help provide critical wildlife corridors. The wildlife values are promoted and endorsed by the Anchorage 2020 plan and Living with Wildlife plans. Similarly, the Moen Trail, which qualifies as an RS-2477 trail must be platted and maintained in its original location and an easement recognized, and preserved for its historical uses, pedestrian, uses, horseback, and recreation. Federal law grants the public the right to continue to use this trail in the same manner, and in the same location, as it has always used the trial. The petition suggests providing a “10 ft easement” along a stream as a replacement for the Moen Trail. No person can “replace” an RS-2477 trail. Federal law grants the public the right to use this trail in its historical path. The Petitioner can no more “alter” the Moen Trail than it can “alter” the Seward Highway. Both have easement rights that the Petitioner cannot alter. This is a popular and well-used trail. It is of historical significance and should not, and under federal law, cannot, be moved from its original location. CONCLUSION The RCCC finds the following: (1) Existing zoning laws should not be loosely interpreted or promiscuously amended. The petitioner must provide detailed facts establishing the reason and purpose for the rezone as requested other than “it will make more money than if it remains PLI.” (2) The proposed rezone is inconsistent with current neighborhoods and contrary to the private property rights of current landowners in the area. (3) The petitioner has failed to address the impact this proposed rezone could have in this area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is required to have data before altering existing zoning. Petitioner has failed to provide detailed studies or data regarding an infrastructure study to include traffic loading on Goldenview, a collector road to Potter Valley Road, public safety including fire ingress and egress, and the quality of the existing LRSA maintained roads and what petitioner will do to improve the roads he intends to use as access, such as Bettijean and Kallender; (4) A Traffic Circulation Study needs to be completed by the Traffic Dept for the area south of 172nd to Potter Valley Road to complete the circulation study for the southeastern hillside where numerous new subdivisions are scheduled to be built. (5) A collector road should be built on this property to encourage traffic to flow downhill to Potter Valley Road and not to Goldenview Drive as stated in the petition. (6) There should be no access on Bettijean St. either directly with driveways or with a connection. This and other LRSA maintained roads were not built to the standards to handle a suburban type residential density and would disrupt the existing neighborhoods of Pennington Park and Loma Estates. (7) There should be 50-ft setbacks on each side of the existing streams that run across this parcel. A detailed water course and wetlands study is needed on this tract given the topographic and soils characteristics of this property. There should be protections for the ephemeral streams that were identified by the MOA Watercourse Study to maintain the quality and quantity of water flowing to Potter Marsh. (8) The historic RS-2477 Moen Trail should be preserved in its original alignment as a wilderness trail. This is one of the only trails that service this area and provide access to the HLB parcel of open space. (9) Identification of stream setbacks and vegetative buffers and screening to protect these community assets. (10) A Drainage Study needs to be completed before the rezone petition is considered for the area documenting surface and subsurface drainage and recommending with Corps of Engineers approval measures that will ensure no adverse damage to existing significant drainages as well as providing for mitigating measures to address new surface water collected on homes and roadways that would otherwise have been directly absorbed in to the ground and the natural drainages. (This was a condition of the previous development proposal.) (11) Pedestrian circulation should be provided for between existing subdivisions and between cul de sac bulbs within this subdivision by requiring trails at strategic places in this subdivision to be determined at platting. The RCCC will have further comments should additional information including staff comments become readily available. However, as currently submitted we cannot support the request for rezone without proper protections and changes to the concept plan. | |
| Ann Rappoport | 10/26/2005 11:16:50 PM |
| We recommend denial of the current proposal (Planning Dept. Case # 2005-139) to rezone 120 acres currently owned by Forest Heights LLC from PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) to R-7 (Intermediate rural residential district, or one-half acre lots). In brief, this proposal: (1) is contrary to the character of the adjacent neighborhoods and designated open space, (2) would destroy the well-used, historic Moen Trail, (3) is at odds with policies and goals established in “Anchorage 2020” and it’s companion document, “Living with Wildlife,” (4) would irreparably fragment and destroy the last open space and wildlife corridor connecting sea level marshes to the alpine tundra and protected ecosystem of Chugach State Park, (5) would further compromise water quality and quantity essential to Potter Marsh in the Potter Point State Game Refuge, (6) lacks coordination with an undeveloped parcel to the south so that transportation options that might result in better access for a larger area are not fully evaluated, and sewer/septic, well/city water options are not fully explained, (7) continues the area fragmentation begun with nearby Goldenview Park and Prominence Point developments which provide no or minimal pedestrian/neighborhood connectivity for school children and area residents. We have lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the subject property for 20 years and know it very well. We regularly walk, cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and sled on the subject tract. Previously, we have been involved in proposals both to zone and to protect this parcel. We worked with our neighbors and the Municipality to ensure the adjoining 101-acre Heritage Land Bank parcel was designated as Open Space after a careful, thorough study by the Municipality resulted in that recommendation (Potter Valley Land Use Analysis, January 1998). Additional information on our reasons for recommending denial of this proposal include: (1) Proposed R-7 zoning is contrary to the area’s neighborhood character: R-6, 1 to 1 ¼-acre lots, is the zoning to the north and east; designated Open Space/Greenbelt is to the west, and land to the south is undeveloped. The subject parcel and surrounding lands are steep, include areas of near-surface bedrock, poorly drained soils, and numerous springs and drainages. The proposed half-acre lots leave few options for naturally vegetated buffers to existing neighborhoods and roads. (2) The Moen Trail is a significance and highly valuable feature of southeast Anchorage: this existing historical, popular, accessible, and dry trail (a recognized RS2477 path) should be maintained and a 50-foot, naturally vegetated buffer provided on either side of the Moen trail. It is an excellent walking, X-country skiing, sledding, wildlife observation and mountain biking trail in an area of town where similar trails are virtually nonexistent. We appreciate the petitioner’s proposal to develop a trail through the parcel, but their alternative is in a boggy area, would cross the proposed subdivision road three times, and includes a significant section where the buffer of natural vegetation is actually on existing homeowner’s properties. The Municipality has mapped existing waterways in this parcel and noted the extensive area of springs, including appropriate buffers of at least 25 and 75 feet. Roads and houses are an inappropriate use of the spring area. (3) Both Anchorage 2020 and our city’s Living With Wildlife plans document the importance of wildlife and natural spaces to residents of, and visitors to, Anchorage. These documents were developed with extensive public comment and interagency involvement and should not be ignored. (4) The proposal fragments and interrupts an important wildlife corridor and use area: wildlife are a common feature of the area with moose a frequent sight, bald eagles and black bears occasionally seen, and brown bears, lynx, coyotes, and wolves rare but present. This wildlife is a major part of what makes Anchorage such a special place to live. Once this habitat is gone, we will not be able to get it back – having bears, moose, lynx, eagles, coyotes and even the occasional wolf wandering on this tract make it a particular treasure that should not be destroyed with a lot of houses and improved roads. (5) R7 zoning would compromise water quality and quantity: Waterways originating on this area drain into Potter Marsh, providing about half of the water that sustains the Marsh. The values of Potter Marsh have been recognized by the state with its designation as a State Game Refuge. The Municipality has agreed that the highest and best use for Heritage Land Bank land between this tract and the Marsh is as designated Open Space. Tourists regularly visit Potter Marsh to view wildlife. Those tourists represent an important, and renewable, component of Anchorage’s economy; that component is ever more critical as the state faces fiscal gaps. (6) Information on water/well and sewer/septic options, and coordination of transportation with adjacent areas is lacking: We know that additional data has been gathered on area water resources but have seen no reports on how or where septic/well may be the best option or where sewer/water will be necessary. Both present problems – sewers and roads will interrupt existing drainage patterns, glaciation may result on roads and lots. Runoff may be contaminated from dirty cars, leaks, and spills. All of these could interfere with the watershed and wetland values of Potter Marsh and the critters dependent on it. The proposal shown at the October Rabbit Creek Community Council meeting included full development along the gasline on the western edge of the property. That area is an extensive wetland with many springs which should be protected with setbacks, not filled for development. Moreover, lack of a figure depicting this development plan in either the notice mailed to area residents, or the Municipality’s website notification of this proposal are a serious omission that should be corrected with proper notice before this proposal is heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission. (7) Neighborhood connectivity and values are not promoted: Pedestrian walkway connections are needed between each side of the proposed development and adjacent neighborhoods or open space. School children are currently prevented from easily walking or biking to see friends or attend Goldenview Middle School due to the lack of such connections between adjacent, long-established neighborhoods and the newer Goldenview Park. Moreover, southeast Anchorage severely lacks parks and this proposal does nothing to remedy that problem. We recommend this proposal be denied, or at a minimum, significantly delayed to allow the petitioner to continue discussions initiated at the recent Rabbit Creek Community Council meeting. The goal of these discussions should be to develop a plan that better addresses (1) concerns raised at that meeting, and in our and other neighbors’ comments on this proposal; and (2) broader needs of Anchorage residents and visitors, as described above, while meeting the petitioner’s needs to realize a profit on their investment. A number of recent studies show the value of open spaces in adding monetary value to residential developments. A combination of larger lots, some smaller lots in cluster developments that protect chunks of open space, and maintenance of the Moen Trail could better meet the needs of area residents as well as the developers. By developing and accessing the area from its fringes, it should be possible to maintain the Moen Trail while decreasing the petitioner’s development costs. There are also opportunities to apply for a Forest Legacy or other grants, and work with land trusts and the Heritage Land Bank to establish more connected wildlife corridors and protect some open spaces within the 120 acres while compensating the petitioner for loss of revenue on those areas. We sincerely believe that the overwhelming value of this parcel to our citizens, as well as visitors to Anchorage, lies in a different zoning scheme than that proposed. We and other area residents would like to sit down with the petitioner and thoroughly investigate these and other options. In closing, please do not approve this zoning request at this time. It would be prudent to ensure that the values of this tract remain protected for future generations. Some development on this tract may be reasonable. But first, require the studies and planning that will ensure the area is not trashed, and any development is complimentary to the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. | |
| Dianne Holmes | 10/26/2005 11:47:57 AM |
| This rezone should be denied until the critical collector road (that is needed as a vital secondary access from Goldenview to Potter Valley Rd) is designed in conjunction with a larger Sub Area Circulation Study. With hundreds of acres of land being developed along with the Forest Hts lands--in the larger area--it would make it impossible to design this critically needed road should the rezone go through without the requirement for a circulation system that adheres to standards for at least one collector road. Roads that are being proposed in this subdivision will not relieve the major congestion problem along Goldenview or Rabbit Cr Rd because the design (which includes speed)will not encourage traffic to use this secondary access. This access has been planned for a long time as part of the mitigation solution for the area's traffic problems and as an emergency egress for wildfire. This will not be accomplished if this rezone and it current road design is adopted. Regarding the requested rezone--it is not in keeping with the surrounding areas which according to the polices of 2020, it should be. At a minimum the rezone should reflect larger lot sizes towards the north which would be in keeping with the adjacent area. The developers have a wonderful piece of property to work with and they can maximize their profit while providing a subdivision that is in keeping with the surrounding areas by including larger lots and a wide trail easement with extensive vegetative buffers residents to use. Economic studies show that people are willing to pay more to be near a well designed and constructed wilderness trail. This parcel allows this opportunity and it would entail less cost to the developers to do so rather than their current design. | |
| John Isby for Potter Creek HO Association | 10/25/2005 10:21:25 PM |
| The Board of Directors of the Potter Creek Homeowner's Association requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the petitioner’s request to rezone the 120 acres of PLI-zoned land in South Anchorage to R-7SL multiple-family residential district with special limitations. This tract of land is traversed by the historic Moen Trail, which is heavily used by the residents of Potter Creek. It is used for hiking and mountain biking in summer and sledding in winter. The 10 foot trail easment proposed by the developers is poorly placed and extremely boggy and is no replacement for the Moen Trail. The Moen Trail is dry, long and steep enough grade to make it a superb mountain biking and sledding route which has no equal, even in the established city parks. It is possible to plan a more environmentally friendly, lower density project on this tract of land that preserves the Moen Trail. The developers need to be made to go back to the drawing board. | |
| Susanne Comellas | 10/25/2005 11:01:58 AM |
| At the Rabbit Creek Community council meeting I had an opportunity to review the proposed development plan for the Forest Heights 120 acres. To become better acquainted with the issue I took the time to walk the proposed trail easement that was flagged by Landtech. It is not possible to build a trail within the 10 ft. easement they have offered. It is steep and wet, having to cross a creek or 4, seepages, and semi frozen alder covered wetlands. The side cut created by the gasline is still a mud bog after all of these years and an easement or public access above or below the gas line is absurd with the amount of water running down that hill. This is a very poor replacement for the Moen Rd which is dry, usable and of historical value. The Moen Rd.or trail is in better shape than some of the neighborhood roads in South Anchorage and has withstood the test of time since it has been used since the early 1900's. It has been used as access for many homesteads and the Pennington subdivision. I can only think that its' destruction is tantamount to demolishing the Oscar Anderson House or building homes on the Iditarod Trail. How unfortunate that the builders are unable to recognize the value of retaining this piece of history. This could be a stunning development complete with a rich historical value unique only to Alaska instead of the mediocrity that is on the current design menu. The rezone of this area is premature. The ground is not suitable for the density desired. There is so much water on this tract. R-6 would be more appropriate and certainly help to maintain the character of the existing neighborhoods, follow the policies of the 20/20 plan, provide more space for good drainage, put less pressure on the current infrastructure, help maintain the watershed of Potter Marsh and protect our citizens by preserving wildlife corridors that give bears and moose a way to move through the area. | |
| Hezekiah "Ky" Holland for Rabbit Creek CC | 10/25/2005 9:02:44 AM |
| The Rabbit Creek Community Council requests that the rezone application submitted by Forest Heights, LLC be denied any hearing on November 7, 2005 before the Commission. The reason no hearing can be provided is that the applicant failed to comply with MOA notice requirements set forth in AMC 21.15.005. The mailed notice received by the adjacent property owners states that 120 acres is being sought for rezoning from PLI to R7SL, as did the notice agenda of the Planning & Zoning Commission published in the Anchorage Daily News October 11, 2005. Under AMC 21.15.005(C)(1)(b) the form of notice shall state “a description of the application.” Unfortunately, the description of the application set forth in the notice does not match the description of the application now under consideration which contains no request for special limitations, as incorrectly stated in the notice. This is a substantial and material variance between the actual application and the notice. By giving “notice” that special limitations are being sought, but in fact, by failing to actually request special limitations in the application, the public is mislead in thinking that if the zoning change is granted, the applicant and the Commission will impose some restrictions to conform to zoning issues when in fact that is not the case. Notice is fundamental to procedural due process. Failure to comply with the notice requirements mandates denial of the application at this time and removal of the issue from the Commission agenda. The applicant must meet municipal notice requirements in order for the hearing to be lawfully held. The Forest Heights, LLC rezone application packet received by the Rabbit Creek Community Council contains a prior application submitted by John Berggren for a rezone of this property from PLI to R 7SL dated December 31, 2003. This MOA planning department required studies and data before the Commission could address that application. Action on that application was then “postponed indefinitely.” The old application that was withdrawn requests varying lot sizes on this property to be served by both sewer and water and on-site septic for the larger lots as requested by the adjoining neighbors in meetings with Mr. Berggren. The new application now contains an amendment submitted by the new owners of this property requesting a different zoning of R7 with no special limitations and public water and sewer to serve all properties in this subdivision. This amendment is located 9 pages behind the old application. The notice recently sent out and published (the only notice given to the public) erroneously omits these key changes and amendments. This is a significant change to the original application and proper notice is required under law. The public has the right to know exactly what zoning map amendment the applicant is requesting by receiving clear and accurate notice in order to make informed comments at a public hearing. For these reasons the Rabbit Creek Community Council requests that this matter be delisted from the agenda with an order from the Planning Department to the applicant to give proper and reasonable notice that complies with MOA requirements. In the event proper notice is not required, any actions taken by the Commission may be deemed void. See AS 44.62.310(e) (“Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings” and (f) “Action taken contrary to this section is voidable”); Lindblom v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 90 P.3d 1283 (June 10, 2004) (action deemed void and set aside for lack of proper notice). | |
| Art Weiner | 10/19/2005 12:13:16 PM |
| I ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the petitioner’s request for a rezoning of 120 acres of PLI-zoned land in South Anchorage to R-7SL multiple-family residential district with special limitations. The reasons for my request are summarized and detailed below: 1. The destruction of the forested area and its loss as wildlife habitat and as a movement corridor for wildlife. 2. Adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 3. Increase of traffic on local roads and no agreement allowing for a road connection to Potter Valley Road. 4. Incompatibility with existing neighborhoods. • I am a biologist who lives with my family approximately one-half mile from the northern boundary of the subject parcel. For about the last ten years I have hiked and snow shoed across this land (It is not posted to prohibit non-motorized access.). The subject parcel contains a mature forest of paper birch, sitka alder and white spruce with a relatively undisturbed ground cover of native vegetation. The area has not experienced a die-off of all mature spruce from the recent bark beetle infestation. Contractors hired by the Alaska Mental Health Trust removed most of the trees that were killed. I have observed many moose, occasional black bear and a diversity of birds as well as signs of a variety of small mammals. I have also found specimens of the rare wood frog (Rana sylvatica) in its wetlands. The area acts as a wildlife corridor providing a connection between Potter Marsh and the undeveloped uplands of the Chugach Mountains. Construction of the infrastructure and the residential density resulting from the proposed zoning change will, in my opinion, destroy the vegetation community and its value as wildlife habitat and movement corridor. A secondary impact will be the loss of wildlife viewing opportunities for local residents. • The area proposed for re-zoning contains year-round streams and other numerous small water bodies, seeps and springs that drain into Potter Marsh. In addition, the parcel contains areas of wetland soils that provide characteristic wildlife habitat. Topographic alterations that will accompany road and pipeline construction will adversely impact these wetlands, water flows and alter historic drainage patterns. High-density development would result in excessive removal of native vegetation, destabilization of soils, replacement of indigenous vegetation with lawns and non-native landscaping and loss of wildlife habitat and movement corridors. Stormwater runoff containing fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The cumulative effects will be adverse impacts upon surface water, groundwater and wildlife habitat both on-site and within Potter Marsh. • A low-density subdivision on this parcel could be made compliant with the requirements for on-site wastewater disposal systems. On building sites with compatible soils, conventional septic systems could be utilized, as is the case in nearby subdivisions. On sites with poorly drained soils, advanced on-site septic systems could be used. Many of these modern systems have already been approved elsewhere in the Municipality. Utilization of on-site septic systems would eliminate much of the topographic disturbance that would result from construction of pipelines that connect individual residences with the municipal sewage system. • The road system in this area is already overburdened. Goldenview Drive supports traffic generated by neighborhood residents and the Goldenview Middle School. Additional traffic from the new Goldenview Park, and Prominence Point subdivisions as well as infilling of other subdivisions is adding to this load. During the morning and evening peak traffic flows, the intersection of Goldenview Drive and Rabbit Creek Road is congested. 172nd St., Bettijean St., Belarde Ave., Virgo Ave. and Tideview Drive are already in a substandard condition and are maintained by a Limited Road Service Area. During much of the winter, these roads are dangerously icy. Additional traffic emanating from the high-density development on this parcel will exacerbate traffic problems and accelerate the degradation of the unpaved secondary roads. There is currently no agreement with the landowner to the south, Potter Heights Dev. LLC that would allow for a road connection between Forest Heights and the Potter Valley Road. • Most of the land adjacent to or near the petitioner’s parcel is already platted or built out to a low density. The Heritage Land Bank's acreage adjacent to this parcel is undisturbed open space. The 96 acres of R-3SL land to the south is, as yet, undeveloped. Consequently, the proposed zoning is incompatible with that of surrounding neighborhoods and will result in a development that will irrevocably alter the character of the existing community. • Much of the 120 acres is steep and densely vegetated. Consequently the area has a high risk of wildfire. High-density development with inadequate road access could place homes on this land in jeopardy from fire. Any development here needs to be made accessible by fire trucks that can access the area from either Goldenview Drive or Potter Valley Road. • Several high-density residential developments have recently been built in this area, i.e. Goldenview Park, Prominence Point. In these projects, most of the native vegetation has been entirely removed, streams have been diverted and wetlands have been obliterated. Wildlife habitat is now non-existent. Vegetated buffers between these developments and adjacent neighborhoods either no longer exist or have been significantly degraded. | |
| Gretchen Specht | 10/18/2005 8:28:07 PM |
| I would urge the board to keep the 120 acres of land in this proposal zoned as public lands for the following reasons: 1) Anchorage is rapidly closing off the wildlife corridors from the Chugach mountains to Turnagain Arm. As we push further into the territory of moose and bear we create more needless animal deaths, and human fatalities. Once the Potter Valley is fully developed this beautiful piece of land will be the only natural buffer and safe haven for animals in this area. 2) Walking, biking, skiing and sledding the Historic Moen Trail is an activity all of Anchorage can enjoy. There are plans to extend this trail, which will create full access from Goldenview Drive all the way to the Seward Highway. It would be a benefit to everyone to add an improved and lengthened Historic Trail to Anchorage’s list of attributes. In the event that this parcel, home to birch and spruce trees of amazing stature like I’ve not seen in Anchorage before, will be re-zoned to allow residential buildings I would offer reasons to allow re-zoning at R-6, rather than the more dense R-7 which is being requested. 1) A rural environment, low-density housing, and chances to see wildlife in our backyards are why the majority of people live on the Hillside. Communities like Bridgeview and Prominence Pointe have negatively impacted our community by destroying the character of the Hillside with high-density housing, treeless lots, increased light pollution and traffic congestion. 2) Clear cutting the lots creates erosion issues, water quality issues for the residents on wells who live below these developments, ice damming and flooding problems; in addition, these major developments are an eyesore which can be seen from the Seward highway and from the air. Building on larger lots allows room for more natural vegetation and trees and leaves a buffer between houses. 3) Larger lots with natural vegetation also afford more wildlife access and potential corridors. 4) We have an existing traffic issue on Goldenview Drive with traffic from Goldenview school and now the Prominence Pointe subdivision; adding 300 more cars to the mix will only increase accidents, especially on Rabbit Creek when the BridgeView residents access Rabbit Creek. The developers for this tract, who expect to build 130 houses on the first tract, if all re-zoning applications are approved, have no other means for these residents to gain access to Rabbit Creek or the Seward Highway, other than Goldenview Drive. 5) R-6 zoning provides a win-win solution between development and the aesthetics of our community. A mosaic of forest and homes would be more easily integrated into the character of the Hillside. R-7 is indistinguishable from any neighborhood in any suburb. We have a wonderful opportunity to shape the character and feel of our city. We also have an opportunity to save the last pieces of land on the Hillside, or at least develop them responsibly, preserving the rural character of the earlier neighborhoods. Let’s keep it looking like Alaska, not develop it into Los Anchorage. Thank you. | |