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. | |
|---|---|
| Charles Sassara | 7/10/2006 7:36:27 AM |
| Dear Mr. Isobel, I am writing today to express my opposition to the proposed 20' promenade on Delaney Park between I and E Streets. On the surface this promenade is a small project, but when viewed from a wider perspective it significantly changes park usage and suggests a commercial development theme not currently intended. It is my experience that most development schemes in Alaska turn on the question of access. As such, it is my fear that this project is coupled with a larger downtown development plan, which has not been vetted through the public process. At the very least there are significant consequences to this project that deserve consideration. They are: Commercial operations: Easy access and convenient power allow vendor vehicles, trailers, carnival rides, booths, coffees carts and craft stalls to operate 7 days/week. Soundscape: Noise from commercial operations, festivals and events is further directed into the South Addition neighborhood, where there is currently no enforcement of niose permits. Increased traffic and pressure on parking in neighborhoods. Increased opportunity for wind blown litter: Loss of buffer; the Delaney Park Strip cushions commercial activities of downtown Anchorage from residential neighborhoods. I want to emphases that I am not opposed to Delaney Park improvements. Currently, the park is tired and desperately need of enhancements. What I am opposed to is further commercialization and development of the park without proper public comment and planning to address secondary consequences. Thank you for your consideration to this important matter. Sincerely, Charlie Sassara 1007 H Street 230-0849 | |
| Mike Herzog | 7/9/2006 11:36:20 PM |
| I find the proposed plan for the Delaney Park Strip to be one that I cannot support for the following reasons: - The proposed promenade's inside edge will be 50 feet into the space of the park strip. 20 feet of pavers and 30 feet of buffer from the road. This is excessive and neutralizes much of the park from being used in a multitude of ways by the community and families. - the width of the promenade at 20 feet is substantially wider than necessary and the majority of the space will not be utilized. The only reason to have a promenade so wide would be if you have the long term goal of setting up vendor stalls or retail stalls in this area otherwise a promenade of 12 feet is more than adequate. - the choice of pavers for a material means that the surface will be unsuitable for any activity other than walking and because of the uneveness, and durability of pavers presents safety issues and high maintenance issues for the future - A buffer is necessary but one consisting of such depth along with a species of tree known to be a favorite of moose guarantees long term problems and expense in care and upkeep. - The idea of enlarging the crosspath at G is also unecessary unless the plan is again for vendor or retail stalls. This type of use is inappropriate for a park adjacent to residential. I believe the proposed plan defeats the recreational aspects of the Park Strip that make it a great place for community gatherings, families to play and a wonderful open area with a huge variety of uses. It is obvious that there is something else at play here and I can only guess that this area is being targetted for support structures for the new convention center and to raise money for the city through fees. More Importantly this plan has been put forward without the appropriate public process for determining the work and scope of the project before presenting it to the public as a complete plan has not been followed. It has been presented as a complete plan not open to discussion or comment. The guidelines have been followed in lip service only and not with honest intent and decency. | |
| Cammy Taylor | 7/9/2006 10:49:14 PM |
| I am concerned about the 20 foot promenade proposed for the Park Strip. The Municipality assured residents that only small scale improvements would be made before the public process was completed to develop the Park Strip Master Plan. Moving the 9th Avenue sidewalk is a great idea. However, a 20 foot promenade is not a “small scale improvement” to the Park Strip and has the potential to significantly change the character of the Park Strip. There has been no honest dialogue about the need for a 20 foot promenade or its intended uses. While I appreciate the opportunity for the Park Strip to benefit from the generous help from United Way, it should not be used to bypass the public process and unilaterally change a “sidewalk” into a 20 foot promenade. The plan for the path should be modified to something closer to 10 feet if it is truly meant to be a pedestrian promenade. | |
| Laura Bottger | 7/9/2006 6:12:41 PM |
| Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. The United Way's generous offer to devote its 50th anniversary Days of Caring to Delaney Park Strip is a meaningful gift that will benefit the the whole city. In a perfect world, the offer would have come next year, after the Delaney Park Strip planning process had run its course and a comperhensive plan developed, with full public involvement & discussion. But of course an anniversary falls when it falls and I fully appreciate the city's desire to take advantage of United Way's (& its volunteers) gift to us all. But because this project is occuring in the absence of any master plan, it is particularly important that the choices made now do not limit options and discussion later of what the city wants for the whole park. The main focal point of this year's effort is the promenade between E and I Streets. The drawings presented by Jeff Dillon, the Parks director, are quite attractive. I fully agree with the decision to move the sidewalk away from the 9th Avenue traffic. (On 10th Avenue, parked cars provide a buffer between pedestrians and the less significant traffic on that street.) But I am greatly concerned by the proposed width of the so-called promenade. Twenty feet is simply too wide. In fact, when you look at the drawings accompanying this proposal, you can see that while they identify the walkway as being twenty feet, they are in fact drawn at a much more human scale. When you compare the walk to the figures drawn, it appears to be more like ten to twelve feet wide. That is what it should be. A ten foot wide path is more in keeping with community expectations and desires for the park. When I have mentioned this project to people, the most common response is to question the twenty foot width. Most people find that to be far too much pavement for the park. I attended the March workshop as well. Most people there expressed the idea that they enjoy and like the Park now, but that it needs to be better maintained and cared for. (Letters to the editor also reflect that view.) I did not talk to anyone or hear anyone who wanted to radically transform the character of the park. Yet this twenty foot promenade, if built, would enact just such a radical transformation. In my opinion, a twenty foot wide promenade is too urban a choice for this green space. The Park Strip is about the grass. (At its essence it is a strip of green between two avenues.) We have plenty of paved spaces elsewhere. To support current and future uses of the park, a ten foot wide promenade would be more than sufficient. I hope that you will approve the plan and let the project for this summer go forward, but that you will adjust the width to reduce it to a more human scale. My only other comment relates to the staff report. I am a bit confused about references in the staff report to a G Street corridor connecting to the Alaska Railroad depot or the existence of a G Street gateway project.(Rpt at 2) I can only guess that those references should be to E Street. If G Street was the intended reference, that is completely out of left field and should be a topic for more public discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Laura C. Bottger | |
| Lanie Fleischer | 7/8/2006 6:03:26 PM |
| (I thought I submitted remarks on Fri., but I don't see them under "View Comments". These remarks are mostly a cross copy of previous emails to Beth Nordlund.) To Beth Nordlund:Wed. 7/5/06 I am hearing from a number of people these days who are concerned (adamantly opposed?) to the 20 foot width paver-pathway. Most are puzzled as to why that wide and are concerned that 50 feet is almost a quarter of the entire park width, which would dramatically change the look and feel of the Park Strip – in direct contrast to the overwhelming sentiment at the 2-day planning process where a large majority of the comments were – ‘don’t change the overall look and feel of our open, grassy park.’ All of the suggestions at improvement were just that – improve the maintenance and perhaps some plantings along the periphery, etc. but there was no sentiment for a major shift in the character and appearance. (Aside from removing the ball fields on that mid-block.) I myself, like the idea of a double row of trees, but if the path is not between them, as I originally thought was envisioned, I think 20 feet of double trees, as along 10th Ave. there near the G Street path, seems ample. I also think that a 10 foot path would work – which is wider than the Coastal Trail is now. The path at N street accommodates the horse carriages and all manner of foot traffic as it is now. I am mostly concerned about the precedent such a wide “promenade” will set for the rest of the strip as I think it is out-of-scale. I will cross-copy these thoughts to Jeff, but I wanted you both to know there is some alarm re the impact of 50 ft. along one side – and that doesn’t even address plans for the middle and end – are those envisioned as 20 ft. wide as well? . Thanks for listening, Lanie Fri. 7/07/06 Thanks for forwarding Jeff’s thoughts to me, Beth. I realize you are caught in the middle of all this as Jeff rarely seems to be available to soothe our jitters. As it stands now, the almost universal reaction I'm still hearing is horror at the 20 foot width of paving. (People talk to me because they know I'm on the Park Strip Citizens Advisory Board and they are under the impression I can "keep 'them' from ruining the Park Strip" ...) You said Jeff’s note recommended 12 foot sidewalks along 9th. Is that rather than 20 feet (I hope – even though most of us feel 10 feet is adequate)? One of the aspects that alarms people is the plan for permanent vendor space. Occasional weekends with vendors right now is already stressful for the neighborhood as it fills up with cars - and most disturbing, fast driving and trash thrown into residents’ yards as people walk by. Occasional weekends of this are tolerable, but a permanent, all summer long “Saturday Market style” venue needs to have major community dialogue and a Festival Policy before plans are firm. This will be a very big change for the adjacent neighborhood. Speaking of firming plans…. The South Addition Community Council is under the impression that the Parks Dept. is coming back to discuss the actual plans before they are finalized and before the Council votes on them. The understanding was that the improvements planned for this summer were pretty basic; taking out the ball fields, taking out the hedges and moving the sidewalk inside and landscaping. They in no way understood the strip of planting and paved area would be so much of the park space! People are feeling deceived.. Sat. 7/8/06 This significant a change in the nature of the Park Strip needs a Master Plan and plenty of public process, even though a good, thorough-going public dialog does take time, it is participatory democracy at its best and the eventual outcome is more apt to be supported if the process is respected. It provides the necessary time to sort out goals as well as planning for the potential impact. | |
| Ayse Gilbert | 7/8/2006 10:42:32 AM |
| I have followed with interest the Delaney Park planning process. Mr. Dillon's memo of june 15th came as a great surprise; unpleasant surprise. I would not have thought that any major changes to the strip would be taking place while the plan for the whole strip is in process, and not due to be finalized until this fall. Mr. Dillon's current plan will force the rest of the plan, to follow suit. If the intent of the city is to use the parkstrip as a vendor site for the convention center, then the city should be clear about that in public meetings, and not give the impression that the public process is in place. Mr. dillons plan for a thirty foot border of trees and a 20 foot wide walkway to the south of the border, with a berm, is unthoughtful. A walkway that removed from 9th ave. will not serve the same function as a sidewalk, and will force people to walk on the street, or carve a path way in the bermed area. There are no public walkways anywhere 20 feet wide. It is intended to be more than a walkway by Mr. dillon; a vendor site and backyard for the convention center. The people who have been interested in participating in the planning process are being deliberatly left out. Any major changes to the parkstrip should be stopped until the planning process is complete, and a design has been vetted by the public. | |
| Christine Williams | 7/7/2006 9:47:28 PM |
| This plan looks ill conceived and researched on several levels. The selected sections of code and comprehensive plan policies are self-serving and tossed out like grenades, rather than read as a whole. The analysis is poorly founded and executed. Further, this is a historic landmark that this administration is seeking to develop rather than preserve. This is not the first shot this administration has taken at the parkstrip (remember the parking lot request?), nor will it be the last. What is striking, however, is the blatant disregard for the will of the people. Rather than listening to the will of the people, this plan is forcing the people to accept the will of the politician and that "vision." Notably, and consistent with the lack of foresight regarding this issue, the administration has pushed this plan through with very little public notice and public process. The administration consciously chooses, instead, to dictate rather than work with the community it was elected to serve. Again, this is a historic landmark this administration seeks to develop for political gain, both now and in the future. Caution should be observed when developing, look both to the land use as it is and as you wish it to be. Then understand that it is not a single thrust or marring that gets you there. This change to the parkstrip is not the way of constructive change, but the way of poorly thought out developmental structure. | |
| Marjorie Feldman | 7/7/2006 5:50:42 PM |
| I previously submitted comments to Jeff Dillon on 6/30/06 when I first learned of the planned 20’ width of the park strip path. After months of meetings and numerous representations that changes to the Park Strip would be low impact and would not be made until a Master Plan was developed, the plan to install a 20’ path was first mentioned on June 15 and the drawings that circulated were not drawn to scale. I hope that you will consider my comments and those of the many concerned residents of the south addition. This plan and the ultimate goals of the Municipality regarding the park strip usage will severely impact the quality of life for residents of our neighborhood. I am not opposed to improvements to the park strip, but I am strongly opposed to the 20' promenade. The path should be no wider than 10' at best. Obviously, the 20' promenade is not necessary for the July 4th festivals & current park usage. Installing a 20’ promenade will drastically change the character and, no doubt, the uses of the Park Strip. Its capacity to serve as a buffer between the business district and a long-established residential area will be severely reduced. Please do not let commercial interests destroy the neighborhood we work very hard at maintaining. The 20' promenade will allow for commercial usage that belongs downtown, or in the Ship Creek area. The Park Strip has long been a buffer between the downtown district and the oldest neighborhood in Anchorage. Please help us keep it that way | |
| Jeff Feldman | 7/7/2006 11:58:13 AM |
| I am opposed to the portion of this plan that calls for a 20' "Promenade" for the following reasons: 1. Such a wide, bricked or paved area will drastically and adversely change the appearance and use of the Park Strip. It clearly is not needed for pedestrian traffic since it is substantially wider than any existing pedestrian walkway in Anchorage, including the coastal trail. 2. The 20' wide Promenade is inconsistent with the MOA's prior representations to the public onthis project. The public was told that the installation would be a path. Now it's proposed as a "Promenade." In reality, an area 20' wide is a plaza. In addition, the public was told that the changes to the Park Strip would be "low impact," which this is not. And the public was told that significant changes to the Park Strip would not be made until a master plan for the Park Strip was developed. No master plan has been developed and circulated for public comment to date. The Park Strip should not be developed piece meal, by way of a process that affords the public insufficient notice, information, and opportunity to be heard. 3. The Park Strip is a community resource. It also is a necessary buffer between the commercial portion of downtown, north of the Park Strip, and the residential portion of downtown, south of the Park Strip. It needs a thoughtful, comprehensive plan that fairly takes into consideration the needs of all users and affected citizens and the residents of the area. This plan does not do that and, instead, attempts to impose substantial changes that are opposed by the residents of the area and were not fairly and openly subjected to public review and comment. Indeed, the 20' proposal was not mentioned at all, in any public presentations or documents produced by the MOA, until mid-June, just a couple of weeks ago. The MOA's plan should either be modified to include a more normal walkway of not more than 10' in width, or it should be rejected. | |
| Siri Moss | 7/6/2006 10:24:35 PM |
| -----Original Message----- From: Nordlund, Beth L [mailto:NordlundBL@ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:40 AM To: sirimoss@acsalaska.net Subject: RE: I to E Street Walkways Siri- Lani had the same concerns. Here is an email I sent her. I’ll try to contact you later today. Lani- Rest assured we are truly interested in the Park Strip being good neighbors. We have been listening to you Siri and Marge, and it seems like you have a good idea about what a "good neighbor" means. Friends of the Delaney Park Strip can be a great tool for that. My use of the tern event flexibility had no hidden meaning (this is hard by email don't you think?). Nothing has changed from our talks about informal non-organized activities and relaxation. I think we are still on track for making the park good neighbors! Jeff is going to give me some info on the 20 foot promenade later today. _____________________________________________ From: Siri Moss [mailto:sirimoss@acsalaska.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:19 AM To: Nordlund, Beth L Subject: I to E Street Walkways Dear Beth, Attached is the note I sent back to Jeff this morning. We really need to get a meeting together to talk about this, this is a big problem for us! Thanks, Siri Dear Jeff, I was really distressed to read Beth's reply to my e-mail to you on Friday. Essentially, you are planning to install a festival venue on the section of the Delaney Park Strip between I and E Streets. This is being done without 1) A reasonable festival plan in place, with City commitment for enforcement, 2) A master plan for the entire Delaney Park Strip put forward for public consideration, 3) Any prior indication from you that this was the actual intent. You have been less than forth-coming about the nature of your plans for this section of the Park Strip, and that's not right! This action will have a huge impact on neighborhoods in the immediate area for years to come. With no published master plan that the public has seen and had a chance to comment on, we have no idea of your intentions for how and when other areas of the Delaney Park Strip will change. Since there is no working festival policy in place, the area between I and E Streets will become the choice location for virtually every event that takes place on the Park Strip. Will other areas of the Park Strip be developed as festival venues? What are the long term plans for the Park Strip west of I Street? Since the City simply rubber stamps every request for an event permit, and since there is absolutely no enforcement of noise or parking violations on the weekends when these events take place, your proposed 'Promenade' around the E to I Street section of the Park Strip will doom our neighborhood to weekend after weekend of noise and congestion through every summer season. The Vendor Viaduct would be a more appropriate name! At this point we need to step back and do master planning for the entire Park Strip. A festival policy that allows events to take place in appropriate locations along the entire Park Strip, with adequate enforcement commitment from the City, should be developed and put in place. It is only fair and reasonable that actions which make such sweeping and permanent changes be done carefully and with due consideration for the long term impacts they bring to pass. Sincerely yours, Siri Moss Friends of Delaney Park Strip | |
| Siri Moss | 7/6/2006 10:22:23 PM |
| -----Original Message----- From: Nordlund, Beth L [mailto:NordlundBL@ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:41 PM To: sirimoss@acsalaska.net; Dillon, Jeff Subject: RE: E to I Street Promenade Siri- I have one bit of good new for you! The promenade will be done with pavers. There is no crushed granite source in AK for us to use. It will cost more, but the great news is that we found a source of funds for materials. On the 20 foot promenade... I spoke with Jeff about that today, and he mentioned that a standard one person path should be 5 feet, and we want this one to be for 4 to 5 people. The hardscape space will allow for vendor & event flexibility, while maintaining the open and green feel of the space. I did not check a textbook…but I did double check with my Park Superintendent who concurs that 20 feet is a very good and appropriate width. I have a feeling this email is not going to change your mind on the width…I hope you can still feel good about the project as a whole. We are working hard to make everyone happy, but that can be a tall order! Beth Nordlund Dear Jeff, Thanks so much for taking the time to meet with Lani, Marge and me last month, and for including us in the meeting with Mayor Begich earlier this month. We appreciate the inclusion in the planning process and the opportunity to voice our opinions and concerns. Lani gave me a copies of the plan and perspective sketches for the E to I Street upgrades. She attended the CAG meeting last Monday. In looking at the sketches, I am struck by the proposed width of the walkway inside the allee of trees running along I Street, 9th Avenue and E Street. It is too wide! I can understand the need to use 30' for the double row of Norway maples you are proposing, but the width of the walkway is out of human scale and eats too far into the width of the existing grass area. My AIA architectural graphic standards textbook from college days sets out min/max widths of 7'4"/8'0" for a two-way walkway, which allows four adults to walk abreast. The min/max for a two-way bike path 7'/8'. The proposed 20' can contain all of those widths with 4' remaining! If the surface is to indeed be crushed gravel, I fear the result will look somewhat like a sub-division access road, not a pedestrian walkway in a park. Finally, the 30' of the allee, plus the 20' of the walkway uses 50' of the 275' parkstrip width. That's too much. I propose pulling back the width of the walkway to a maximum of 14'. This is appealing as it is approximately half the width of the allee planting bed, yet will still accommodate groups of foot traffic traveling three to four abreast with room for bicycles and traffic moving the opposite direction. This width will be much more pleasing to the eye and produce a more comfortable walking experience. In a perfect world (awash with $$) I would also prefer to see these walkways upgraded with pavers at some point. Gravel is not a great long-term solution for pathway surfacing. Winter snow removal will ultimately deposit most of the gravel into the grass and planting beds along the sides of the walkways. The only other change I would make would be to double the number of seating pockets on the 10th Avenue side. I see people really using the existing benches on 10th on nice days, and the extra lighting would be a welcome addition in winter. Otherwise, I'm pleased with the proposed design and look forward to the United Way Day of Caring. When it's finally planted, and has matured a little, the allee of Norway maples will be such a striking feature in the downtown landscape. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Siri Moss Friends of Delaney Park Strip | |