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. | |
|---|---|
| Hugo Dietrich | 7/6/2006 1:37:55 PM |
| The purpose of our zoning laws are to protect the value of the existing homes and properties. Building huge facilities will change the character of our neighborhoods and definitly lower the values of existing properties, especially here on the hillside were seclusion and privacy is the basic attraction of our homes. | |
| Jon and Leigh Ann Bauer | 7/6/2006 11:33:59 AM |
| It is with great sadness that the church has resubmitted this "new" site plan. After meeting with the church representatives we have found that all of the issues from the last review (that was soundly defeated on appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission)are still present and in several areas the problems are even worse. The fact that the building and total seating is even bigger than the last time and the total clear cutting of the entire lot are very concerning. The church has been unwilling to put in writing any changes or promises....(no school and extra trees, etc.). I can not see how this plan can be approved considering the previous plan being turned down by the Planning and Zoning Commission last year. Please refer to my letter that I hand delivered to your department just before the renotification process took place. Thank You, Jon Bauer | |
| Ruth Marcy | 7/6/2006 8:50:55 AM |
| We have zoning regulations and I can't understand why this Church should be allowed to build the addition when it will impact the residentual neighborhood . It iwill be too much facility for the size of the lot! Ruth A. Marcy | |
| Huffman O'Malley Community Council | 7/5/2006 10:02:27 PM |
| The Huffman/O'Malley Community Council reviewed Case Number 2006-073, Administrative Site Plan Reivew (Rabbit Creek facility)at our June meeting and wish to take this opportunity to comment. Our council supports denial of the Administrative Site Plan Review. This development does not meet the requirements of Title 21 (specifically AMC 21.45.235) or the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan, as demonstrated by precedent cases and subsequent appeals. One of these precedent cases involves this very facility and we are confused as to why it has returned. In fact, the current application does not seem to have solved any of the issues that caused the first denial. Further, the facility has apparently increased its maximum occupancy and number of parking spaces from the first process. This facility requires a high-capacity well and septic system overseen by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed systems as not received this approval, nor can this facility mitigate their impacts to adjacent properties. Additionally, there should be a study of hydrological effects on the adjacent wells with regard to the increased draw from the Class A or B well this site will be utilizing. Supplying water for a school and church of this size will undoubtedly consume considerable amounts of water and produce considerable waste. Furthermore, drainage and snow storage are still not adequately addressed and the capacity of the land is greatly exceeded because of the scope of this project, including the virtual clearing of the entire site and the creation of impermeable surfaces, further exacerbating the drainage and stormwater issues. This facility still has not acquired a Traffic Impact Analysis. The increased traffic flow generated from this facility will have tremendous effects to area residents and all those traveling Rabbit Creek Road. This proposed development is not a community church as intended by Title 21, it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and it will have a permanent negative impact on existing residents. As stated in the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution of 2004-067, dated October 4, 2004: "...As a matter of good public process, when water studies and traffic studies are not done before permit approval, it shuts off the public's ability to review that data. They [the Commissioners] had concerns with parking lot safety and design and buffer maintenance, and stated Anchorage 2020 Polices #7, #46, #48, and #50 would not be implemented by approval of this plan as presented....." The plan has not significantly changed and still falls well within the parameters recognized by the process of 2004. In closing, many of us feel compassion for these property owners. The current application should have not been accepted by the Municipality, but more importantly, the Municipality should not have fostered a situation after the denial of the initial application, where these property owners were enticed into exhausting additional funds toward a project that cannot come to fruition. Thank you, Ryan Stencel President, Huffman/O’Malley Community Council | |
| Brian Looney | 7/5/2006 11:03:45 AM |
| I do not support the plans to expand the Rabbit Creek Church on Snowshoe Lane. The proposed development is too large for the parcel and it does not adhere to the Anchorage 2020 Plan or the Municipal code and will significantly impact this residential area of the hillside. When reviewing this proposed church site plan within an R-6 zoned area, the Planning Department should consider whether this development will have a permanent or negative impact substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development. It seems obvious that this site plan should be rejected due to the negative impacts of traffic, noise, storm runoff, vegetation, light pollution, land cover and property values. | |
| Katie Nolan | 7/5/2006 8:48:55 AM |
| Rural and suburban residential zoned areas meet a particular purpose, as per Title 21. These zoning districts are for areas where large lot single family residences are preferred and to be preserved. By Code, these areas are mandated to be primarily residential. Accessory uses, such as home occupations, and accessory structures, such as barns, are permitted. Industrial areas, high density, and commercial are neither appropriate nor allowed in these primarily residential areas. Huge development under the guise of non-profit or religious facilities are innapropriate in any of these areas of fragile infrastructures. While the goals of the applicant are worthy, this massive development is completely out of character in this suburban large lot residential area. It is impossible to expect this proposal not to cause permanent and negative impact to this established neighborhood. For this reason alone, this proposal should be denied. It is a shame that yet another expensive and time consuming appeal must be done by the existing residents to continue the battle to uphold the intent of Code. | |
| Jackie Morrison-Price | 7/4/2006 7:33:16 PM |
| The size of this facility is not in line with the R-6 zoning requirements nor is it feasible to place on a 4 acre lot with over 200 parking spaces. This facility doesn't belong in an R-6 suburban residential neighborhood because of the permanent and negative impact to those who live in the area. Families have paid premiums for the large lots in in R-6 zoning areas and should not have to re-visit such proposals every couple of years to protect their interests (clean water, sufficient waste management, traffic), and property values. I urge you to deny this plan. Thank you. | |
| Janice and Jack Adams | 7/4/2006 12:50:41 PM |
| How this project got to the phase it's in is unbelievable. It is obvious that the needs of the R-6 zoning area are being ignored, especially without access to public water and sewer. The traffic impact alone should be enough to deny any more additions to an already outrageous structure in that rural area. Who pays for the road damage and upkeep that comes from the huge traffic influx caused by a mega structure of this nature, the tax paying people living in the area! I lived just up the road on lower Locklomond many years and appreciate the beauty and wildness of the area, or at least what it was. There needs to be limitations on community churches to fill the needs of 200 or less people, this would limit structures in R-6 zoning, filling the needs of the community as well as those called to minister. A mega church is actually a commercial enterprise, tax free, bringing stress and ugliness to the areas they infiltrate into. We are in ministry ourselves, we're not anti church. But the needs of the Rabbit Creek community and any other hillside area need to be addressed. It is obvious that greed, power and control are at work here. The facts need to be reviewed and addressed and judgements made on those facts. Otherwise the whole thing is a mockery to the rights of tax paying R-6 zoned residents. | |
| Mary Logan | 7/3/2006 7:02:28 PM |
| I am distressed that the Rabbit Creek Community Church has resubmitted a site plan proposal for expansion of the RCCC. The proposal has not been altered significantly from the first proposal submitted last year. Given the very significant and unanimous opposition of the neighborhood to the previous proposal, this resubmission with minimal alterations smacks of arrogance. The design of the expansion is far out of proportion to the size of the lot, and is in no way in character or in keeping with an R-6 residential zoning area. Alternative uses are allowed in R-6 zones, but only if they approximate the primary use, which is residential homes. Placing a 25,000 sf building with 230 parking spaces on a ?4? acre lot site, with expected traffic on Sundays of over 1,000 people is absurd, and in no way compares to the 3 or 4 homesites that would be allowed on this site if the site were used for its primary purpose. Please be consistent and deny this proposal also. Thank you. Mary Logan | |
| Wayne Skidmore | 7/1/2006 4:52:11 PM |
| When this major project last visited our community as Case # 2004-131 it was thoroughly reviewed by the PZC who heard testimony from a large number of nearby residents at the appeal hearing on 10/4/04. At that time the Commission unanimously upheld the Bauer appeal thereby denying the Site Plan Review. Now, almost 2 years later, the Planning Department is being asked to review this supposedly new and better site plan. The truth is that this plan is not new in any meaningful way and does not substantively resolve the many important issues raised by the neighbors and the PZC in 2004. Specifically, this “new” plan is deficient as follows: 1. It still fails to conform to the requirements of the 2020 Plan, Polocies 7, 46, 48, and 49. 2. Issues relating to drainage, water, sewage, noise, lighting, and other neighborhood impacts and traffic remain unresolved. 3. As cited by the PZC in 2004, this proposal is still out of scale for this neighborhood. 4. The petitioner fails to demonstrate, as required my AMC 21.45.235.1, that the project will not have a permanent negative impact on neighborhood substantially greater than anticipated residential development. 5. The project is still opposed by nearly all nearby homeowners. Put simply, this project absolutely does not belong in this suburban residential neighborhood. This was clearly true in 2004 and is no less true today. I urge you to deny this plan. | |
| Sandra Talbot | 7/1/2006 1:49:16 PM |
| It is distressing that, although the Planning & Zoning Commission already denied an earlier attempt to expand the Rabbit Creek Community Church, a “new” site plan has been submitted that is not substantially “new”. It is even more distressing that community residents must again go through this process of public comment, when it was abundantly clear this expansion was NOT supported by members of the community during the first attempt. As before, the footprint of the proposed expansion is clearly inconsistent with the R-6 neighborhood, although the current structure is consistent with its nature. I have lived in this community for 20 years and plan to live here for the following 20 years, and treasure its peaceful, rural-like setting. Informal discussions with neighbors confirm they also treasure these community characteristics. If the Rabbit Creek Community Church is interested in erecting a structure similar to the Baptist Temple, it should consider relocating to a commercial location that would be more complementary, and would place the structure in a community that would welcome what I consider a monstrosity. AMC 21.45.235 1. states that the site plan must not have a permanent or negative impact on those items listed in this subsection substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development. Since residential developments in R-6 zoning are 1) inconsistent with development of a structure of the magnitude proposed by 2006-073; 2) would not affect uphill residents by blocking views; and 3) would not affect immediate neighbors with increased traffic, noise, lighting or other perturbations that are clearly unwanted by inhabitants of this rural-like setting, I suggest this plan would likely permanently and negatively impact the area, and does not adhere to Municipal code, the Anchorage 2020 Plan, or, as demonstrated by previous public comment, the wishes of the community itself. | |
| Mary Clemens | 6/30/2006 9:05:37 PM |
| I recently bought into the Rabbit Creek area for the larger property sizes and low density population. Putting a "high density" facility in this area negates many of the reasons people live "out of town". Improvements on an unobtrusive level enhances property. Clear cutting and paving over property to accommodate large numbers of people in an accepted low density area is NOT acceptable or desirable. The impact on the area would be negatively overwhelming. I thought this project had already been voted down. I'm against this proposal. | |
| Donna Van Flein | 6/28/2006 2:49:51 PM |
| The “new” site plan proposal has not changed substantially in size, design and internal structure from its original plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission already unanimously denied the previous site plan after an extensive public hearing. This neighborhood Community Church expansion is out of character with this rural R-6 neighborhood The footprint of the existing structure of 10,173 sqft with natural vegetation surrounding a modest parking lot fits in with this neighborhood and does not disturb the rural character. Adding another building with a footprint of 16,796 sq ft that is one foot lower in overall height but because it is on higher ground will have a towering effect over the existing structure. The expanded lighted parking lot over two additional lots adjacent to the existing church will add to the commercial enterprise feeling of this facility rather than a rural community church. If this church would like to have a big Baptist Temple type of worship center, than relocating to a more commercial location would allow this facility to expand. The Church still does not address the fundamental problem with this plan. According to AMC 21.45.235 1. The site plan must demonstrate that the church will not have a permanent or negative impact on those items listed in this subsection substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development. There is no way a residential development in R-6 zoning could build something of this magnitude on Rabbit Creek Road and Snowshoe Lane and not affect the uphill residents and the immediate neighbors of this facility with traffic, lighting, viewscape, noise, and overall disruption of the rural setting of the area. Please do not accept this proposed expansion. It does not adhere to the Anchorage 2020 Plan nor the Municipal code and will significantly impact this area of the hillside. | |
| Ed Goldmann | 6/24/2006 7:48:30 PM |
| It would appear that locating large institutions in limited density areas is a desireable concept to large institutions but not the residents that have decided to reside in these areas. These residents pay a premium for land, water and processing waste water. Their property rights to the limited density occupancy is threatened by clauses allowing larger facilities to be sited within these communities. These clauses should be used for the benefit of the residents. When the adjacent owners do not support the development, these are obviously not in the residents best interest. The very concept of locating high density institutions in limited density residential areas is contrary to the Anchorage 20/20 plan and sections of Title 21. It is understandable that an institution would want to develop 100% of their land for efficient use. But then it is equally understandable for an individual to purchase several acres of land and build high density apartments. Both are very attractive options because the prey on neighbors and those located further from a high density road system. Both situations allow the high density entity to be "attractive" to the market because they are sited in a more attractive environment. That 'environment' being limited density development. Zoning laws prevent many from converting single family residences to a multi-family dwellings, even though this would be a far more profitable use of the land. But isn't that also one of the benefits of zoning laws. New high density institutions should not be permitted development in limited density areas without 1st re-zoning to an appropriate standard. This requirement would ensure due process and respect the rights of adjacent property owners, not erode them. | |
| Debbie Dragich | 5/22/2006 11:50:02 PM |
| I am dismayed that the Rabbit Creek Community Church has resubmitted a plan for a large building project that was already rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The decision was clear that this proposed addition was not in compliance with AMC 21.45.235.G.1 in that it will certainly have a permanent and negative impact in many regards greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development. The proposed development is far too big for the parcel intended and needs to be placed in an area with the space, community characteristics and infrastructure to support it. This large facility is not simply a church. Rather than Sunday services offered as most residental area churches offer, this will be a very big recreational and teaching facility. A gym is still a gym (bleachers removed from the first floor plan can be added at anytime later without municipal approval) and classrooms are still rooms for teaching, no matter what they are now called on the latest plan. Resubmitting a rejected plan (and even enlarging its capacity) under the guise of a new plan that still doesn't comply with many of the comprehensive plan's policies or Title 21's boundaries, is simply not acceptable. It wastes municipal and community members' time and money and should be dismissed outrightly from consideration. | |
| Susanne Comellas | 5/7/2006 6:49:02 PM |
| It gives me no pleasure in writing the following comments about the alleged “new” plan the Rabbit Creek Church has submitted. First of all the “Notice” sent by the municipality is materially inaccurate. The plan submitted by the church is actually for a building 26,970 square feet not 16,796 square feet. There has not been a decrease in size. Actually this plan is 1100 square feet larger than the plan that was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The occupancy information submitted on the plan is inaccurate. By adding together the capacity of the Worship Center (formerly known as the gymnasium), meeting rooms on the second story of the addition (formerly known as classrooms)it actually holds 846 people (the numbers are on their plan), 101 more than the last plan. When added, the 846 person capacity of the new building and the 299 person capacity of the present facility total a cumulative occupancy of 1145 people. Parking is entirely inadequate. 228 spaces are in the drawings while 286 spaces should be required to accommodate both facilities. The Planning and Zoning Commission hearing case #2004-131, that rejected the first plan stated “(the Commission)…would want to look carefully at the proposal on a parcel that is even two or three times the size of the parcel on which this church is situated…” It is quite disingenuous to call this a new plan. It saddens me that the representatives of this church are clearly willing to sacrifice their integrity, mislead their neighbors and the planning department, wasting valuable city resources to promote a plan that has just repackaged all of the objectionable characteristics of the first. At the Rabbit Creek Community Council meeting they insisted they would not develop a school however would not put that in writing. They also agreed to add trees and more vegetative screening along Rabbit Creek Road and preserve the earthen berm that helps screen the facility from the road however again they were not willing to put it in writing. How can the community or planning department trust the representations made by this organization? I am deeply saddened by this. Our neighborhood is once again subjected to having to go through an ugly process to protect our peace and again remind this church of their promise to us when they first built a 6,000 square foot facility, “…to provide a campus like facility with large open areas that are complimentary to the natural area of Rabbit Creek.” What they have proposed compliments nothing and is a lot line to lot line clear cut of all natural vegetation, highly visible and unsightly parking lots surrounding 45,000 square feet of buildings that simply do not fit into this area. The planning department has no alternative but to deny this plan as it has not changed from the plan that was soundly rejected on appeal. | |
| Cynthia Wellman | 5/7/2006 4:41:54 PM |
| Is the proposed 16,796 square foot addition a true representation of the actual size of the proposed building? I have heard that the size of the proposed new building is closer to the building size originally proposed a year ago. Only last year the Rabbit Creek community rejected all proposals by the church and Rev. Hill as being incompatible with the prevailing land use, which is low-density residential use. I have the same concerns and reservations as I have had all along regarding ANY expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church, which I feel have never been properly addressed by the Rev. Hill (i.e., water and sewer, traffic control, land use and landscaping). I do not want any large building structures, including, but not limited to schools, businesses and/or churches in the area. Like the same basic proposal last year, this year's proposed construction of the new addition is for a huge increase of the building, ergo the church on two levels. A classroom is a classroom, be it used for school or meetings and to call it differently is trying to stretch the truth. Currently, there are neither city water nor sewer available and, to my knowledge, there are no plans to extend these costly amenities into the area. I find it interesting that the church has only a holding tank, which needs frequent pumping, instead of an approved, proper septic system. In addition, I believe there have been no proper traffic controls and/or impact studies done reflecting these proposed additions. Snowshoe Lane is a small, one-lane road that has not been upgraded in decades and simply cannot support the increased traffic. To say, let alone imply, that those who live anywhere on Snowshoe Lane do not use the road but instead use the church parking lot to gain access their property is simply bogus. Let's face it, the impact, not just on the adjacent area but the surrounding community as well, is simply too great. The area cannot support this type of land use and growth. Why must we go through this again? I therefore ask the Planning and Zoning Department to reject the church’s request for any type of addition to the existing church and its property on Rabbit Creek Road. | |
| Joan Diamond | 4/19/2006 10:04:22 PM |
| I heard the presentation regarding the revised site plan for the church at Rabbit Creek. The minister said that the old section of the church would be for the youth. I just want to make sure that he is not planning to make it into a school which was voted down by the community council. | |