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. | |
|---|---|
| Jennifer McSharry | 10/11/2006 11:41:28 AM |
| I urge the assembly to approve this rezone. I live near Muldoon and 6th and currently go to Eagle River to shop Walmart. I think that Walmart has bent over backwards to appease the community. I also would like to see Patterson and Creekside streets extended to 6th avenue. This would alleviate some of the traffic on 6th. Right now most people who live near oklahoma and 6th have to go to the muldoon and 6th streetlight and travel(at great speeds) the length of 6th. For those that live near the muldoon end of 6th it is quite noisy. Again I do wish for the rezone to be approved and would like the assembly to know that many other muldooners agree with me but are nervous about speaking out against the community council. | |
| Clinton R Hodges II | 9/24/2006 6:59:33 PM |
| I urge the commission to oppose this rezone. According to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan the area is designated as part of the town center situated at Muldoon and Debarr Rd. The southern part of the town center contains the new middle school and CIRI intends to develop housing consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for town centers. Everyone developing within the town center, thus far, is building consistent with the plan. Mark Pfeffer has assured the Northeast Community Council that the part still owned by Venture Development will be develop consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for town centers. Wal-Mart is fully aware that they purchased property that is designated to be developed as the northern part of the town center. There are no provisions within the 2020 Comprehensive Plan that allows for the development of box stores within a town center. Speaking to Planning Staff Analysis in 2006-010, which is to support the Wal-Mart box stores. Staff states that Patterson Street has been considered to have a good potential as a collector street. Also stating that prior to 1996, Patterson was designated as a Class 1B collector, but was removed. They go on to state that since the area is being developed as a town center Patterson Street should be reconsidered by the Municipality. Wal-Mart is proposing to build two box stores that have nothing in common with town centers and the Municipality only owns half a ROW. Both are inconsitent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for town centers. Staff goes on to recommend that the Municipality should maintain rights-of-way to 11th Avenue and Patterson Street to 6th Avenue to the north. The recommendations of staff is unnecessary duplication of a major collector street. Turpin is the major collector street presently serving Howard Street, Hunt Street/Circle, 10th, 11th, 12th and Ermine. An additional collector street would serve very few people. Residents near Oklahoma Street, 6th Avenue and beyond will use Muldoon and Debarr Road to access the town center via automible as the prefered route as it is faster and less cumbersome than what Staff is recommending. In my opinion the 1/2 ROW that currently is Patterson Street, between 10th and Debarr Rd, should be developed as a paved trail with attractive landscaping as a transition buffer between the existing DeBarr Vista Subdivision and the future town center. A paved trail will support students attending the new middle school and encourage neighborhood residents to consider other forms of transportation besides the automobile. Staff's recommendation is a smokescreen attempt at generating a traffic corridor for Wal-Mart. Which is already inconsist with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. I urge the Commission to oppose this rezone. | |
| genevieve holubik | 3/6/2006 5:36:43 PM |
| I oppose this rezoning; I oppose WalMart. The basic concepts of both and their overall effects on the community are negative and mock the community's desire for a Town Center and true qualitity of life for its residents. The only part of the Town Center plan that it retains is the questional placing of residential units on the narrow strip of land north of Fred Meyer's warehouse/truck delivery area - no buffer from that view and activity has been offered and the likelihood of that area becoming one of transient renters or a "great place to hang out" is high. | |
| Timothy Pedlow | 3/6/2006 1:39:18 PM |
| In the February 2006 Northeast Community Council meeting, Ken Stout called the Anchorage 20/20 Comprehensive Plan a law. The proposed Wal-Mart development in the Creekside/ Muldoon Town Center is not compatible to that plan. It would eliminate the R2M zoned lands that were established to act as transitions buffer between R1 and I-1 lands and is contrary to the Anchorage 20/20 plan; therefore I am opposed to the rezone. | |
| Timothy Pedlow | 3/6/2006 1:37:32 PM |
| Patrick Robertson | 3/6/2006 12:19:41 PM |
| No Thru from Patterson to E. 6th Avenue. When looking at property in the surrounding area (Creekside Street/ 6th Ave.), the name Jerry T Weaver is listed. Is this the same JT Weaver listed as an employee with MOA in Planning as the Zoning Division Administrator? If so, I feel this is a conflict of interest for Mr. Weaver. He may not be directed involved but…he has influence. If allowed to go thru he will benefit from this monetarily. Old Harbor Avenue many years ago created a cul de sac at the end. We had Patterson removed from the “Streets and Highway” plan. I do not believe making Patterson a thru street will benefit anyone except maybe Mr. Weaver. | |
| S. Carl Tobin | 3/6/2006 7:32:03 AM |
| Though living in an area distant from the proposed Wal-mart/Sam's Club, I am still concerned with my community in general and will go on record as opposed to this re-zoning. Such a blatant move certainly flies in the face of sound zoning in the first place and one must wonder at the "approval" recommendation attached to 2006-010, given the "local neighborhood" flavor of the current zoning and the unanimity of qualified and unqualified opposition currently in the comment registry. perhaps Wal-mart is lobbying this issue with a decidedly "Abramoff" flavor? Predatory big-box competition leaves failed businesses in its wake and is not an example of markets at their most rational. Also, local neighborhoods and their environs are negatively affected, often severely. How is the Planning and Zoning Commission improving our quality of life with this proposed rezoning? Please do not approve 2006-010. Sincerely, Carl Tobin | |
| James Gurke | 3/3/2006 4:18:07 PM |
| I recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission not approval the proposed rezone from residential to commercial use. Until last year, I resided within one mile of the area. I believe that heavy commerical use is contrary to the best interests of the neighborhood and the town-center envisioned for the DeBarr/Muldoon intersection. I must also say I resent the ability of large corporations being able to manipulate the planning process for their own benifit. The neighborhood is already adequately serviced by grocery stores such as Fred Meyers and Carrs. There is no justifiable reason for Wal Mart to locate there except to advance their own preditory competitive purposes. My limited understanding of the Municipalities 20/20 plan would also suggest that the rezone is contrary to the plans goals. I respectfully urge a no vote. | |
| Ray Grey | 3/2/2006 2:13:57 AM |
| Please be informed that I strongly oppose a zone exemption for Wal-Mart to build at the Muldoon site as they are attempting to do. I prefer smaller and midsized businesses more spread around the city that will also keep the profits in the state and tend to treat their employees as community members rather than an expendable resource. I would greatly prefer that the Carr's store on Boniface stay open as well as the other stores in the area that will fall victims to the clout of this chain. The advantages Wal-Mart has with their size and agressive practices with employees and vendors are enough to insure their success so please do not grant them exemptions and advantages at the local level. Thanks for considering my point of view. | |
| Steven McCoy | 2/28/2006 10:16:26 PM |
| Fails policy to remove 16 acres of residential zone with no acceptable plan to replace lost density. Such heavy commercial inconsistent with surrounding uses, schools single family zones. Increase traffic problems not solved and a hazzard for school children. Muldoon is a temperature inversion area where winter air stays in this area. Air polution increase is a hazzard for adjoining school and neighborhoods. | |
| Chris Berg | 2/21/2006 11:31:33 AM |
| I am opposed to this plan currently in place. The reasons are as follows: Traffic Lights expected to follow will slow traffic. The existing plan for a superstore means increased traffic in the neighborhood. Previous practices by Wal-Mart to not pay attention to local expectations such as what is seen at the current Sam's Club in the Northway Mall and the lack of community concern over landscaping. We have enough liquor stores in East Anchorage. Actually too many and this contributs to the increase in DUI's in East Anchorage. I find the fact that given even though one or two people in the Town Center concept decided not to agree to the concept, the city needs to investigate into providing a hybid plan of sorts. | |
| Kimberly Kerlin | 2/18/2006 5:48:10 PM |
| Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. As an Anchorage citizen and Muldoon/East Side resident (3.5 yrs. living in this area of town), I was so excited and inspired by the town center plans for this part of town. I was horrified to hear of such a wonderful plan seemingly falling apart w/ the proposal to put a Walmart in it's place!!??? Unbelieveable. These buildings are utterly horrid looking to start with--as if Muldoon needed more of that. For the following reasons I very much oppose allowing a Walmart or any large "box" store to take the place of the original plans for our community town center. Please consider them carefully and let me know if I can be of any assistance in helping us realize our town center dream: Dangerous for children at nearby schools because of increased traffic. These large 24 hour box stores attract crime. Too much residential space is given to commericial in this town already. 20,000 cars a day will create an air polution problem in Muldoon, an air inversion area. Not in keeping with town center concept because designed to serve a community larger than 30-50 thousand Will create more vehicle use not less, the city 20/20 plan asks that plans to reduce traffic. 600,000 retail square feet at the corner of Muldoon and Debarr is: Too Much, Too Soon, for Muldoon. 16 acres of residential space is lost to commericial and other zones in the rezone. The Anchorage Bowl needs residential much more than it needs business zones. Town center plans ask for an increase in mixed use buildings with residents above business properties, this plan offers no residential space in the commercial development. City policy requires no net loss of residential opportunity in commercial rezones, this plan drops 16 acres of residential property from potential development in the Anchorage Bowl. | |
| John Lillie | 2/16/2006 11:45:14 AM |
| Large global coroporate machines, like WalMart, invades unsuspecting neighborhoods bringing "unreversable" negative changes that only become visible after they have are firmly entrenched! We have more than enough big box stores including Walmarts corporate footprint here in Anchorage Borough. Its time to say "NO" to Walmart Corporation which has a reputation for low prices. Otherwise watch your local neighborhood businesses close, try making a decent living on Walmart wages and benefits, and look at past questionable practices on hiring and workers treatment.Then you will understand how this global corporation practices stealthfully running its business with using money and power to buy out neighborhoods and politicians. No more Sam's Club or Walmarts!! | |
| Judy Billings | 2/13/2006 2:35:44 PM |
| Tim Holder Holder | 2/12/2006 4:59:12 PM |
| Re: the Zone Change request by Walmart on DeBarr near Muldoon I understand the following the following is true: It will create more vehicle use not less. The city 20/20 Plan sets a framework such that developments reduce traffic. 600,000 retail square feet will result in a losss of 16 acres of of land that could be used for residential space or mixed commericial/residential. The Town Center Plans envision an increase in mixed use buildings with residents above business properties. The rezone does not allow for residential space in the commercial development. City policy requires no net loss of residential opportunity in commercial rezones. The rezone drops 16 acres of residential property from potential development in the Anchorage Bowl. | |
| Ruth Fahl | 2/9/2006 3:56:18 PM |
| This rezoning is in opposition to Anchorages 20/20 plan. NE Anchorage was to have a town center and increased residential areas. A regional shopping center across the street from a middle school and towncenter negatively impacts each other. School traffic creates bottlenecks with Walmart traffic. Pedestrians and bikers breath exhaust and are in danger of being hit by a car or truck. Local residents caught in traffic spend more time on the road travelling to and from daily activities. Our 20/20 plan was an attempt to have some control over the development of our city resulting in an improvement in the quality of our lives. Decreasing available residential land and increasing commercial development next to residential areas decreases the quality of life for those that live in the Northeast Community Council area. The cost in traffic jams, air, light, noise, and water pollution is not balanced by any benefit from Walmart or Sams. Our area has been upgrading gradually over the last 25 years into a better place to live. A regional shopping center will encourage those that enjoy walking, biking, gardening, and upgrading their homes, to move elsewhere. NE Anchorage could become the next Mountain View. Please follow our 20/20 plan and do not approve the rezoning. | |
| Shirley Randal | 2/8/2006 8:55:25 AM |
| Please do not rezone case number 2006-010 for these reasons: 1. Large 24 hour box stores attrack crime. 2. It is dangerous for children at nearby schools due to increased traffic. 3. 20,000 cars a day will create an air pollution problem in Muldoon which is in an air inversion area. 4. Town center plans ask for an increase in mixed use buildings with residents above business properties. This plan offers not residential space in the commercial development. 5.City policy requires no net loss of residential opportunity in commercial rezones. This plan drops 16 acres of residential property from potential development in the Anchorage bowl. | |
| Shirley Randal | 2/8/2006 8:49:48 AM |
| Betsy Seiffert | 2/7/2006 2:26:08 PM |
| Please do not rezone this. I am a concerned Anchorage citizen and I do not want another Wal-Mart and Sam's Club in my community. This area was supposed to be a town center, where a community could gather and not have to worry about traffic, air pollution and landscape pollution. We have an opportunity to reverse the damage done by origional city planners by giving this town center experiment all the tools to succeed that we can. Allowing a Wal-Mart to move in is akin to giving this idea the kiss of death. Please do not rezone. | |
| Amber Johnson | 2/6/2006 11:52:20 PM |
| After attending the design meetings for the proposed East Anchorage Wal-Mart, I am now even more hesitant to have this large retailer five blocks from my home. Wal-Mart will attract 20,000+ cars daily, which will pass by my house blocking already busy intersections and roads. Wal-Mart & Sam's Club will be built across the street from a middle school and less than a mile from two elementary schools. This is not the type of environment children should pass through on their way to school. I question why Wal-Mart cannot build their superstore near the north-east corner of Debarr & Boniface where a large plot of empty land sits that is already an established commercial area with less proximity to residential neighborhoods. How does a box store like Wal-Mart contribute to the creation of a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use town center? What is being done to protect this town center from becoming another Dimond & Old Seward in Muldoon? Is this really what our community needs? | |
| Gwenn Jester-Haslett | 2/6/2006 5:06:58 PM |
| As a long time Anchorage citizen and someone who grew up on the Eastside of Boniface Parkway I reject the notion that a rezone for Walmart would be of any benefit to our adjacent neighborhoods and to the "Town Center" project that has barely gotten off the ground. Whether or not WalMarts drawings look good their stores are still characterless generic warehouse spaces that are out of all scale to anything resembling a neighborhood. No matter what kind of dress you put on a pig, a pig it will remain. Bigger is not always better . This would be like putting the aforementioned pig in your fish tank. The impact of traffic to and from the proposed store is enough reason to reject this rezone. | |
| Sandy Hargy | 2/6/2006 4:47:59 PM |
| I am emphatically opposed to the proposed rezoning. In fact, I would prefer that WalMart not move onto the subject property at all, because I am concerned about the increased volume of traffic into the area, and the fact that I have not seen any serious analysis of the impacts of that traffic. Increased traffic will bring with it increased air pollution. I also am concerned that having such a development across the street from a middle school will pose traffic and safety hazards as children dash across the street at lunch or after school (although this will likely be an issue with Fred Meyer, as well, allowing a Superstore to move in next door will compound the problem). However, since denying WalMart any place in our community apparently is not an option, I would respectfully request that the P&Z Commission act to mitigate the effects of this poorly-planned intrusion into our neighborhood, and acknowledge the wishes of the residents as expressed by the Northeast Community Council, by denying the rezoning request. This area was supposed to be part of the Town Center, and, design guidelines aside, there is no way that this proposed development can be construed to be compatible with the ethos of the Town Center idea. Far from acting as a pedestrian-friendly retail core, a WalMart Superstore would significantly increase auto traffic and further marginalize pedestrians. Additionally, the loss of residential land increases the likelihood that the high-density residential units that are eventually built would be done so more with an eye to developing the maximum number of units, rather than to aesthetics and livability. There must be other areas on the Eastside or in other parts of town that would be better candidates for this type of development than the subject property. | |
| carol scott | 2/6/2006 4:40:39 PM |
| I do not feel that a walmart in this area will be in the best intrest of the residents in this area . This area is desingnated for a mixed public and civic facility and this will create a regional shopping center. With the development of a new middle school across the street this will impact traffic heavly and create more air polution close to the new school and for the residents in the area. I am concerned that it will create more loitering and crime as parts of this area is a low income area. This does not confrm to the Anchorage 2020 plan. The assembly members need to decide on a Town Center Plan because this is also going to add to major traffic problems and more exhaust. | |
| carol scott | 2/6/2006 4:02:01 PM |
| Steven McCoy | 2/6/2006 3:38:27 PM |
| This rezone is not good for children, homes, and schools. Muldoon Middle school has many students who will cross debarr road at this site. They do not need an additional 16 cars a minute turning as they cross the street. The plan denys the town center concept serving a population of 30-50 thousand people. This sets up a box store war center, not a town center. We do not want to be Dimond Center. Sam's club under this plan will move from a regional center to a residential town center. Poor planning. This plan would mean there would be 600,000 square feet of retail available in our town center. Too Much Too Soon For Muldoon. This plan creates a net loss of residential density contrary to policy. This plan has a high impact on the schools and homes in the area even prompting connection of Patterson road to debarr putting a high speed collector separating homes from schools, in this case Creekside and the new Muldoon Middle school. To vote for this plan is to vote for putting children in danger. The review committee that met with developers, the community council, and the Old Harbor Homeowners Association have all voted in opposition to this plan. This is also illegal on the basis that the effect of this rezone would be to create more traffic and put people in cars more often than to reduce that traffic. The 20/20 plan asks for development to create less traffic and be people friendly, pedestrian friendly not create more use of cars. AS I read the planning document. They simply do a good job of laying out the legal arguements against this rezone. | |
| Andrea Lang | 2/6/2006 3:31:43 PM |
| I am against this re-zone! This is not in the best interest of the NE Community. The re-zone will create problems with traffic congestion and more traffic issues with the new middle school. It will create pollution from exhaust, noise, loitering, and crime for the residents along the East Side. This project is incompatible with the existing residential area and does not conform to the Anchorage 20/20 plan. This area is designated for a mixed public and civic facility. This plan creates a regional shopping center.....I urge the Assembly members to put together a town center plan....rather than re-zone for a corporation that produces low-wage, non-union employment. | |
| Jason Denman | 2/5/2006 11:45:36 PM |
| I'd like to go on record that I am opposed to this petition for rezoning. As a homeowner in northeast Anchorage, I am concerned about Walmart's plans and their impacts on our neighborhoods. Many in this community have been optimistic about other development plans: the new school, possible towncenter, small businesses mixed with housing, things becoming a little more pedistrian friendly. Walmart's plans for a 24 hour 7 day a week opened supercenter isn't consistent with these. Walmart's box stores have, in many other places, been detrimental to all of the above. We have a chance for some very fine development improvements in this community. Walmart's plans with the never closing supercenter, a second box store and high density housing could undermine not only what is being planned, but what already exists. I therefore ask you to deny this petitioner's request for this rezoning at this time. Sincerely, Jason Denman. | |
| George Gaguzis | 2/5/2006 10:49:32 PM |
| In my opinion, the MOA Staff report is replete with misinformation and errors of omission. The lack of an adequate traffic analysis is but one indication of an ill prepared document which purported to protect the public trust. One of their assertions was the lack of other available, and I might add more suitable, land to develop box stores in the vicinity. DeBarr and Boniface location had similar property and acreage with viable transportation corridors that would not result in any traffic needing to encroach on single family residential neighborhoods to compensate for a seemingly incompetent traffic analysts’ opinions. Their assertion that there is no loss of residential land does not outweigh the obvious adverse impacts to surrounding areas. The proposal would eliminate the R2M zoned lands that were established to act as a transitional buffer between R1 and I-1 lands. B-3 or any derivative is not transitional with respect to the existing neighborhoods to the north and west and contrary to the Anchorage 2020 Plan. The location of a signal at eleventh avenue and it’s apparent connection to the north would promote the driving of large delivery vehicles through single family residential neighborhoods endangering children playing near their homes and walking to the elementary and middle schools. Any other realignment of streets in the vicinity would cause some properties to be double fronted with major through streets front and back of the properties. The speculative nature of this development would undermine the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods and diminish the land values by tens of thousands of dollars per individual residential lot. The property allows for a single box unit to be developed on the I-1 properties and it should remain so, as should the other residential zoned properties in this request remain residential. This would allow Wal-Mart to move their existing operation from the Northway Mall location to the Creekside I-1 property without any rezoning of any other properties found in this request. This submission is an extremely poor proposal as compared to others I had seen in the past several months that took the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods into consideration. This is contrary to anything found in the 20/20 plan concerning town center development no matter what the staff report suggests. Regardless of what problems exist from contaminated soil, the surrounding neighborhood properties had nothing to do with creating any of these adverse impacts, and any resulting limitations for subsequent use of the land. The surrounding neighbors did not receive any monetary benefits while the owners of the property were contributing to the contamination and making a profit, but now the neighbors are going to be asked to share in the costs of remediation by allowing incompatible development to decimate surrounding property values. The municipality should be prepared to justify the overwhelming economic boom to the tax base of the community while taking into account the adverse monetary impacts to the neighborhoods. Any reasonable person would assume that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the Municipality of Anchorage by their actions would be liable for these monetary impacts. George Gaguzis Anchorage | |
| Lorraine Alfsen | 2/5/2006 10:36:09 PM |
| I respectfully request this petition for rezoning be denied. Years ago Walmart considered moving into another part of the northeast community. During that time and since then, I have attended several meetings regarding their plans back then, and am an doing the same now because of their future plans. Over the years I have not once heard how their moving into this particular section of town would be beneficial to the residents of northeast Anchorage. The petitioner for this rezoning request has yet to convince me that they would contribute to our community in any positive way. In fact, they have continued to cause more concern over the years as I've learned more and more from those representing them about their plans. I am a strong supporter of the Creekside Townsite project. Walmart's plans don't really fit in with such a concept. I also don't appreciate having a "supercenter" open 24 hours a day in any area residents consider a "neighborhood". I know already I will not appreciate the increased traffic, noise, and potentially worse air quality. I am concerned about the lack of a height limitation on any high density housing. (How interesting that as a city, we place height restrictions on signs, but you might not do so on large buildings like housing.) Whether or not it is a good idea to have a supercenter so close to a school I cannot say, but I have some reservations about that also. My list of objections to this petition could continue. I've voiced my concerns to you, to my community council, and to those representing the petitioner many times in the past regarding Walmart's plans in northeast Anchorage. This request is not made by an opponent of Walmart. I have said many times I would support their initial plan of building a Sam's Club in the area. But when the petitioner added to their plans the desire to build a superstore and also have this parcel zoned for high density housing with no restrictions on how "high" they can build and no information on "density", I had to say, "Whoa!" So, please consider those who will actually live with the consequences should this be approved. And please ask yourselves, if the same were proposed to you, would you want the same done in your neighborhood? Would you support the building of a Sam's Club box store, a superstore open 24 hours a day, and high density housing so close to your own home and in your own neighborhood? Thank you. Lorraine Alfsen | |
| Cecilia Lamp | 2/5/2006 4:23:28 PM |
| As an Anchorage resident and a former resident of Muldoon I would like to say that I vehemently oppose rezoning the Muldoon location to accommodate Wal-Marts expansion plans. The Muldoon town center area is not the place for a big box store. We should be striving to make our residential areas more livable not less. We as a city finally have the opportunity to correct some of the past development errors in Muldoon. All development is not good development (i.e. Zamarillo strip malls}. I feel that just the increased traffic and pollution in close proximity to the new middle school and neighborhoods is reason enough. Beyond that there is also the overall increase in traffic on both Muldoon and Debarr which will most likely require infrastructure improvements at additional cost to Anchorage taxpayers. Consideration also needs to be given to the increased policing costs generated by Wal-Mart stores and their huge parking lots, not to mention the spill over of property crimes into the bordering residential areas. Why should the citizens of Anchorage and most specifically Muldoon be asked to absorb this? | |
| Marylyn Alfsen | 2/5/2006 1:45:49 PM |
| Our home is located in a quiet subdivision which will soon be impacted by the new Muldoon middle school. While we anticipate increased noise and traffic, it can be argued that a new school is a positive addition to a neighborhood. This cannot be said of Walmart's plans to impose big box stores on the same general area. We have only recently learned of its plans for an apartment complex and are not prepared to comment on it although it appears that portion of its rezoning request is for zoning with no height restriction. Walmart's planned projects in addition to the new school and CIRI's proposed project would cause too much impact on this area. Walmart's huge stores, huge parking lots, huge amount of lighting and increased noise and traffic would change the look and feel of the surrounding neighborhoods forever. Imagine living in a quiet well kept subdivision for many years then suddenly being able to walk from your front door to a Walmart parking lot in less than five minutes. Imagine hundreds or thousands of people each day streaming past the subdivision you moved into because of its quiet charm. We are not opposed to development in Muldoon. Muldoon needs positive, responsible, planned development that also preserves and supports its many established neighborhoods. The overwhelming magnitude of Walmart's planned development makes it unsuitable for the Muldoon sites. If there really is a need in Anchorage for yet another Wallmart store, it should be located on a site similar to its existing Anchorage stores. It should not be located across the street from a school and near quiet neighborhoods with single family homes. We understand that rezoning is not required for part of Walmart's proposed project. So be it. We strongly oppose any rezoning that will allow Walmart to establish an additional big box store, or a larger (supercenter) store, and/or who-knows-how-many apartment units on the Muldoon sites. The outcome of this issue will demonstrate whether Anchorage is a city that values home owners and neighborhoods and is concerned with a quality of life that makes it a great place to live or if it favors giant businesses. Responsible planning and zoning will keep mega stores and sprawling businesses in large commercial centers or at least away from schools and single family homes. Respecfully, John and Marylyn Alfsen | |
| Albert Oakes | 2/3/2006 12:41:15 PM |
| I understood that Wal-Mart deleted a planned tire-change facility, but intended to have one w/ Sam's Club. The analysis lists a "primary tire repair shop" as an excluded use. I oppose opening up Patterson St. to 6th in the future. That will cause traffic to use Old Harbor or 6th Ave to by-pass the traffic signal intersections. An informal trail now exists on the mis-named E. 10th Ave.; let it suffice. Sam's Club wants to have a gas station to compete w/Safeway. Why not just add one at their present location? | |
| Judd Walker | 2/2/2006 1:53:16 PM |
| I would like to comment on the rezoning issues that are addressed in this case. I own Mayflower Circle Park and about 36 acres of vacant property on the northeast corner of DeBarr and Boniface. I have been trying for years to get a large commercial outfit on my corner, which I would need a rezone to accomplish. I had talked to Mayor Begich in February of 2005 about getting his office to approve a rezone on my site for the same large retailer, he told me I had to do a zoning swap and that a rezone wouldn't be in the cards, so to speak. What has changed is a question I would like to know? The Town Center will be a traffic nightmare with a Sam's Club and Wal-Mart added to the picture, what kind of traffic numbers are we talking once the Town Center is completed as well? I just want it to be on the record that if this rezone and site plan is approved for Wal-Mart, it had better apply to my site and all other qualifying sites at a later date as well. This site plan and rezone application is incorporated in the Town Center site to my reading. A Wal-Mart and Sam's Club was not in the original plans for the Town Center as I remember. I was also informed that this Wal-Mart site is going to help subsidize the building of the Town Center. Why in the world are we going to bail out a concept that has already been sudsized on broken promises? I don't want to see more money being set off to the side in a seperate revenue pool to avoid being part of the tax cap. Let the founders of the Town Center pay for it, not the public. It just increases my tax role in the long run. I am totally against this Wal-Mart site being used to fund a Town Center site that has already received huge tax incentives and nothing is being done about this. Is Wal-Mart going to pay back the back tax incentives that were promised to the original developers of the Town Center? Every old mobile home park should be entitled to those same incentives provided for by the Town Center scheme. I do support this rezone, provided it doesn't have it's own seperate revenue pool for the Town Center. I think it is a poor choice being across from a school and the traffic nightmare it will create, but if this is the case and approved, it makes it hard to argue against my site in the future. I give this support only if it is going to affect all sites equally in the near future. | |
| Dean Syta | 1/24/2006 11:03:34 PM |
| 1. As part of the development, Wal-Mart and Lounsbury agreed with the NECC community council to establish buffers along the north and west sides of the property. These buffers are shown on the Wal-Mart site plan, and are listed in the proposed zoning, but they have not been shown on the plat drawings. Buffers of this type are generally a property use condition, and not necessarily a zoning matter. In order to ensure that those buffers are actually reserved, permanently, they must be included on the plat. This should be a condition of approval. 2. There has been some discussion of Tract F being used for the relocation of the Patterson Fire Station. Confirm that the 1.612 acres shown for Tract F is sufficient for a fire station. 3. John Miller is listed as the petitioner for this action. However, at this point I believe the land has actually been sold to Wal-Mart. Because of this, John Miller will not actually be the party complying with the conditions of this rezone / platting action. Therefore, this application should be corrected to reflect the true owner / petitioner, Wal-Mart, and they must be the signatory on any documents formalizing the rezone / plat. 4. As part of their application for rezoning, Lounsbury needs to explain how the requested zoning and land development meets the intent of the towncenter plan / land use designation. They have stated "the large retail development will act as anchor stores drawing smaller business and services into the core area...". I do not believe that the towncenter concepts ever relied on "large retail development", and in fact this type of development was largely excluded from the towncenter. A more appropriate justification for the rezoning should be required. 5. Lounsbury, in their application letter to Tom Nelson has basically stated that the zoning will require that the residential areas in northeast Anchorage that remain after the Wal-Mart development is completed will be developed as high density housing to ensure that overall there is no loss of housing in the area from the numbers specified by the 2020 plan. I believe that the 2020 plan actually calls out for mostly medium density housing spread through most of this location. As such, the proposed concentrated high-density housing is a major departure from 2020. Originally, the housing was likely to be spread over the Miller Property and the former Alaska Village trailer court. However, with the Wal-Mart zoning claiming half the available land for retail development, now the housing units are all going to be crammed into the old trailer court land. This is 1/2 the area, and per the proposed zoning ordinance, will have to be developed at double the density, somewhere around 12 units / acre to meet the 2020 plan housing unit numbers. It is not appropriate to force this type of development upon the community and the rest of the property owners in northeast Anchorage. The questionable benefits a Wal-Mart might offer to the community do not offset the considerable social and community impacts and costs inherent in the resulting high-density multiunit housing developments. 6. Tract E, which is the 5 acres north of Fred Meyer should really be zoned to a residential standard, as this is the intended use, not to the "Only Residential uses of the B3" district as Lounsbury had proposed. Thank you, Dean Syta, P.E. | |
| Lloyd Rowe | 1/3/2006 2:09:43 PM |
| What is the expressed intent of the proposed rezoning of the Creekside Park area? With Old Harbor Ave between there and the larger "proposed project," how do the woods around Creekside Park fit into the mix? | |