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. | |
|---|---|
| Frank Maita | 11/3/2006 5:45:02 PM |
| Every time I pass this Church I wonder how they can cram another huge building and all of the cars on to those lots in a rural residential neighborhood. Every Sunday cars fill the parking lot and then they park on land that used to have homes. This happens on other days too. They have 75 spaces for 299 people but they are parking over 100 cars there. They don't care what they do to this neighborhood as long as they get their way. Are they going to buy more residential property and turn it into parking lots? Isn't there a shortage for land for housing? If this is true why were they allowed to tear down homes and displace families. I guess they think their "pick up basketball games" and concerts are more important than families. | |
| Wayne Skidmore | 10/31/2006 11:16:07 PM |
| When the Commission ruled by UNANIMOUS VOTE in support of the Bauer appeal in October 2004 they corrected the prior Planning Department error of approving the Church SPR earlier in the year. In their 2004 ruling, the Commission cited a number of very sound reasons for their decision. Very little has changed in the ensuing 2 years. This time around the Church has submitted a new site plan which is in reality not substantively different than the original one. The fact is that the plan is essentially the same and the reasons for denying it remain the same. Notably, Planning Department staff clearly agrees as reflected in their Sept. 11 report. The Church appeal of the SPR denial was seriously flawed. These errors have been clearly identified in letters submitted by the Rabbit Creek Community Council and others. Also, in their appeal, the Church devoted a lot of legalese in trying to make the case that Municipal code, including the 2020 Plan, is vague and difficult to define. It may be true that phrases and concepts like “incompatible use”, “inappropriate visual impact”, “out of scale”, “unique neighborhood appeal”, “preservation of scenic views and other significant natural features” are sometimes hard to define with specificity. I respectfully suggest that the Commission recall that in 1964, the US Supreme Court faced a similarly difficult decision relating to the specific definition of hard core pornography. Justice Potter Stewart said, in this regard, “…...perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly defining ‘hard core’, but I know it when I see it.” The Church may have laudable intent for this facility but the plain fact is that it is TOO BIG, is INCOMPATIBLE, and DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD! I know it when I see it and so should the Commission. Thank you. | |
| Dianne Holmes | 10/31/2006 7:48:20 PM |
| Neighborhoods deserve neighborhood churches. Neighborhoods also deserve protection and the MOA's 2020 Comprehensive Plan mentions such protection many times. The size of the proposed church remodel is out of character with the neighborhood. Also of importance to the neighborhood is maintaining visual quality by vegetative buffering. I believe the site plan for the proposed remodel indicates the vegetation in the southwest corner of the property will be removed for parking. There is scant vegetation there now and I do not believe all the required vegetative buffers were completed according to prior conditions from the last remodel. Of key importance to the neighborhood, motorists and pedestrians is the intent of the church to remove the large and densely vegetated berm on the south side of the property along Rabbit Cr Rd. This berm is the only thing that currently softens the massiveness of the current church. If it were removed the proposed addition would be glaringly out of character with the area that is largely rural and vegetated. The church has obtained a DOT permit to put a driveway access directly through the berm. DOT granted the permit without questioning the visual quality aspect of the site plan or compliance with 2020 policies. That is left to the MOA to do. They granted it because that is what the church asked for. Church officials have stated their desire to remove the berm to make the church move visible. The massiveness of the current church is very visible as it is. If the site plan is approved, please request that the driveway access through the berm be moved to the west or east where there is currently access (at both places). Even the latest Title 21 draft (21.08.010.B) states that buildings make use of natural contours and that residents be afforded privacy and protection from noise and vehicular traffic. Please deny the site plan due to size and in any case maintain compliance with 2020 policies for protection of visual quality and neighborhood character by insisting the vegetated berm be maintained. | |
| Dianne Holmes | 10/31/2006 7:28:43 PM |
| Neighborhoods deserve neighborhood churches. Neighborhoods deserve to be protected and that is a central theme of Anchorage's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. But the size of the proposed Rabbit Creek church expansion is out of character with the neighborhood and out of compliance with the goals/policies of the 2020 Plan. Of particular importance is the matter of the vegetative buffer. While much has been said about protecting the neighbors, little has been said about maintaining the buffer towards the south--against the main road. The church design shows it will cut into and remove most of the natural berm that separates the church's massiveness from the road. In fact the church representatives have stated they want to remove the berm to promote more visibility for the church. The size of the current church is very visible from the western side because all the vegetation has been removed in past remodels. The only thing that keeps some of the current structure and most of the proposed structure from becoming a dominate force for travelers and pedestrians along this mainly rural environment, is the berm with its healthy growth of trees. The church has even obtained a permit from DOT to punch in an access driveway through the berm. DOT granted the permit for this location because the church requested it. DOT did not evaluate the issue of buffering for visual or sound quality and does not do so. It is up to the MOA to insist on adherence to visual quality and buffering. In fact, the newest Title 21 draft for chapter 8 (subdivision standards 21.08.010.B) cites the following: "Lots and blocks should provide appropriate settings for the buildings that are to be constructed, make use of natural contours, afford privacy for the residents and protect residents from adverse noise and vehicular traffic. The newest church site plan indicates that parking will take the place of the few trees that exist on the western and southwestern borders. If this is so, along with the removal of the densely vegetative berm, will expose the church, current building and proposed, to the street. Please ensure that the natural berm with its vegetation is NOT removed in any site plan approval and ensure in general that vegetative buffers remain elsehwhere. In some cases the vegetation has not been installed from the prior plat conditions for the last church expansion. If the site plan is approved by P/Z, please also request that the access driveway be moved either to the east where there is no berm or vegetation, or to the west where the current access is. By doing this, P/Z will help maintain the visual quality of the neighborhood and will be in compliance with appropriate 2020 policies. | |
| Gary and Sylvia Merryman | 10/29/2006 6:55:57 PM |
| October 29,2006 Sylvia and Gary Merryman lot 1 Merryman Subdivision re; case 2006-124 We are writing once again to protest the appeal of the Rabbit Community Church to construct a structure which is completely and totally against all of the R-6 Suburban Residential Zoning regulations. We have lived in this neighborhood since 1968 and have made this area our home. Our property adjoins the Rabbit Creek Community Church property.Over the years this neighborhood collectively paid for the road maintenance,in which the Rabbit Creek Community Church did not participate. We have all strived to pay our reality taxes to the city of Anchorage. This expansion will be a tax exempt property. Tax exemption for the original church property is fine, but when a huge expansion is to be tax exempt it takes it to a new level. All of the surrounding neighbors in this community complied by the R-6 regulations knowing this zoning assured us of a quiet suburban type life. Allowing the construction of such a huge complex would certainly have a negative impact on our lifestyle in this area. This proposed expansion is only the beginning of problems for this area. The water and sewer issues as well as the impact of increased traffic along an already dangerous Rabbit Creek Road, and the noise pollution. What does it take for us to maintain our quality of life here . Sylvia and Gary Merryman | |
| David Kilpatrick | 10/25/2006 6:17:40 PM |
| What do you use to determine whether a change in zoning is granted? I have read several of the commentaries that I presume each member of the commission has read or will read. Most are in the negative and relate concerns and allegations principally of: 1) Increased vehicular traffic and effect. 2) Water uses. 3) Increased noise. 5) Deception. 6) Comparison. 7) Petty Peeves. 8) Illegality. The Anchorage 2020 plan is appears advisory and does not mandate to the community. Having said this it would appear the RCCC has legally appealed the previous decision, legally. The RCCC has addressed concerns of the surrounding homeowners in committing to a revised site plan at great financial expense within their right and without deception. The RCCC purchased surrounding properties years ago, with two dwellings, not with financial profit in mind but future expansion. These properties each had existing water wells. Sufficient water testing has been accomplished. As Anchorage grows so, will the traffic. Traffic on the weekends would be parked in a spacious parking lot and not along side, the road, as is currently the case at the Apple Orchid and Greenhouse. The lighting of the church parking lot has been further amended in the newest proposal. How do any of us get any sleep in the summer? I am stupefied at the myriad amount of petty concerns over a church expansion. Drive around Anchorage and you will find beautiful structures representing worship centers for Lutheran, Russian Orthodox, Catholic, Baptists, Synagogues, Methodist, Unitarian and others. Each actively used presents a clean building. Nicely landscaped and maintained. The church is a place for individuals with spiritual hurts to find and build relationships, peace and security. It is a place where children have fun in varying activities and are safe. It is a place of hope. Expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church will not be a detriment to surrounding neighbors. Should catastrophe strike Anchorage such as a massive fire or earthquake? Who do suppose will step in to help issues come before you what process,? The local churches are the answer. | |
| Mark & Sharon Dalsky | 10/23/2006 10:13:54 PM |
| We live less than one-half west of the Rabbit Creek Community Church at the 151st Ave. Living down slope from this Church, a facility of 25,000 square feet, we are deeply concerned over our well water, highway congesting and snow drainage. The Rabbit Creek Council and our neighbors have addressed all issues opposing this expansion and we strongly support them. We feel that changing names, school/gym to worship room, school classrooms to meeting rooms does not make a difference to their original plan. We strongly oppose this expansion. Mark and Sharon Dalsky 3200 E 151st Ave Anchorage AK 99516 Pauline Titus 3151 E 151st Ave Anchorage AK 99516 | |
| Susanne Comellas | 9/6/2006 3:00:36 PM |
| This plan is essentially the same plan the Rabbit Creek Church submitted in 2004, and was turned down unanimously by the Planning & Zoning Commission. This plan was turned down by the Planning Department. This building plan increases the occupancy by an additional 100 people making the cumulative capacity of this building 1145 occupants, with a new twist, 174 of the occupants will be a “youth service group”. A “Life Development Center” with a “youth service group” sounds suspiciously synonymous to “school” and “students”. Of course the former high school sized gymnasium is now called a “worship center”, (occupancy 616), but still doubles as a gym and multi purpose room, the 2nd floor of the building, occupancy 230, is filled with “meeting rooms”, not classrooms anymore, complete with espresso bar, cardio weight training room, showers and locker rooms. Not to mention the existing facility with occupancy of 299. Mr. Kingry (comment posted 9-5) thinks this is not obtrusive and compares it to local public schools. At least an elementary school is built on about 15 acres, has ball fields, a playground and skating rinks open to the public, is closed on weekends and 3 months out of the year and has a capacity of about 450 occupants. (Unless he is writing about Goldenview Middle School, even more acreage, soccer fields, running track and 900 students set back from Goldenview Drive by 100 yards or more, still closed weekends and 3 months out of the year. He seems confused about what school is where) This proposed facility, that conspicuously could serve as a school is used every weekend, every Wednesday, daily during the summer for camp, pre-school, bible study and the proposed building can support basketball games, conventions, concerts, retreats, more noise, and whatever else it chooses as there are no restrictions on its’ uses. Filling a 230 space parking lot is a traffic jam and I haven’t even mentioned safety on the steep grade of Rabbit Creek Road that has signage to remember 1 fatality although there have been others. Let’s top that with stripping and re-contouring an entire 2.5 acres that used to have 2 homes on it, replacing mature trees and an earthen berm with cotoneaster and a buffer strip that is less than 8 average steps. What a great sound to wake up to every weekend, cars parking, doors slamming, the conversation of strangers, the occasional car security alarm going off. This is what everyone who buys an acre or more of ground wants to live next to, isn’t it? Do you think this will increase or decrease the value of neighboring properties? Not a trick question. But it gets even better, at least 3 acres of impermeable surface (parking lot) some contaminated with hydrocarbons washing into Rabbit Creek, lighted so we’re sure not to miss it as we drive by and can catch the glow in the night sky and for some of the locals the glow in their bedroom windows. In Rabbit Creek this facility is the very definition of obtrusive and vulgar and smacks of arrogance as they resubmitted essentially the same plan wasting our time, city resources by appealing the Planning Departments’ decision and hiring an attorney. It is anything but residential, it is anything but compatible with what exists and if it were being built by any entity other than a church it would be a classified as a big box store. In 1982 the church came here offering, “...a campus like facility with large open areas that are complimentary to the natural area of Rabbit Creek.” Their words, their promise, are they keeping it? Not that I can see. | |
| Debbie Dragich | 9/5/2006 10:32:34 PM |
| I find it perplexing that we are considering another site plan for the Rabbit Creek Church. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously rejected a prior site plan submitted by the Rabbit Creek Church citing that it would have a permanent and negative impact greater than that anticipated from permitted residential development. Adding additional parking places, decreasing buffers, and increasing the capacity of the building creates even more of a permanent and negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The area is designated a limited intensity area. Allowing this facility to expand will create more traffic concerns for a road system that is not adequate for these demands and does not meet the intent of a limited intensity area. A large building with a capacity of over 1000 is not in keeping with the rural residential nature of this neighborhood nor does it meet the intent of a limited intensity area. Lighting, noise, congestion, septic and water demands and removal of even more trees from the site are not in keeping with many of the Comprehensive Plan's policies. Considering the Planning and Zoning Commission'sprevious decision of a less obtrusive site plan, the decision for this appeal should be an easy one. It is unfortunate that we have to waste community time and funds on this unreasonable request. "No" means "No" and that should be the end of the story. | |
| Larry Kingry | 9/5/2006 1:44:54 PM |
| I support the Community Church's proposed plan to build on their site off Rabbit Creek road. I live off Rabbit Creek and Goldenview roads and travel daily past this site. I believe the Church's proposal to not be as obtrusive to the surrounding area as some have indicated. It will be far less obtrusive than many neighborhood churches in residential areas in Anchorage, and a far cry from the Goldenview elementry school's impact up the hill. | |
| Brian Looney | 9/5/2006 8:39:58 AM |
| I was recently involved with a similar case in my R-6 zoned neighborhood on O'Malley Road near Birch Street where our neighborhood protested the proposed development of a 4.0-acre parcel by a church since it would have been uncharacteristic for the neighborhood and would have had detrimental impacts to surrounding residents. This Rabbit Creek Church proposed development/improvement is very similar to our case. This development would also have detrimental impacts beyond what a comparable residential development would have on the parcel, would create traffic problems, parking problems, drainage problems, and would have inadequate buffers. In a nutshell, there just isn't enough room on the lot to fit all of the proposed improvements while responsibly fitting within the neighborhood. The solution is to scale down the proposed development. | |
| Cynthia Wellman | 8/26/2006 10:34:13 PM |
| In her comments, Ms. Brenda Vincent made several statements to which I take exception and to which I must respond. First, she stated, “The building community HAS listened to the neighbors concerns and has made compromises.” I do not find this to be the case as there has been little or no reduction in building size, the occupancy rate has increased by 100, and the size of the parking lot has increased. I fail to see where the church has listened to the concerns voiced by its neighbors or compromised in any meaningful way; rather I see the church not acting in good faith, intent only on pushing through ‘its vision’. Although the building committee has removed its immediate plans for an on-site school, it does not mean they will not change their mind in the future. Since the school issue appears to be a moot point, why is there a need for an expansion of this size and proportion, especially if the worship area is only about 20% of the entire building? What is the intended use for all of the planned rooms if not for classrooms? Second, Ms. Vincent stated, “There is no ill intent for wanting to grow the church building;” to my knowledge, no one has said there was. Further, she says, “There is a great deal of respect for all concerned, my prayer is that it would be reciprocal,” which implies anyone who is against Rabbit Creek Community Church’s gigantic expansion is not respectful, wishes them ill and does not reciprocate respectfully. Third, the Rabbit Creek Community Church’s love for God and for the people of Anchorage is not an issue, as Ms. Vincent seems to believe. The issue is that the people in the Rabbit Creek Community simply do not want, and have so stated on several occasions, an expansion of the church (or any other building of this size) simply because of the negative impact upon the Rabbit Creek area. Finally, Ms. Vincent said, “This is an issue that goes far beyond having city water or sewer.” I beg to differ with her in that having water and sewer IS an important issue (as is increased traffic and pollution) for those of us in the Rabbit Creek community who would be directly impacted by the proposed church expansion. The reality is that we have neither city water nor city sewer; the fact is the area has private wells and septic systems. It appears to me that Ms. Vincent believes her church’s vision and/or mission is far more important than the health, welfare, and well-being of the residents in the immediate vicinity. I find it rather interesting that we must repeatedly address this issue. In the past two or three years the Planning and Zoning Commission said there would be a negative impact on the surrounding area, only to have the church resubmit a ‘revised’ plan and now appeal the commission’s decision. The church’s attitude reminds me of a petulant child who continues to demand their parent’s decision be overturned or to get special treatment even after being told the answer is no. As a parent, we sometimes have to ask, “What part of no do you not understand?” Therefore, I ask that the Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission deny any request for an expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. | |
| Lois Fedele | 8/24/2006 11:21:45 PM |
| I live across the street from the church. When we first moved here it was small. Then there was a huge addition put on. All we see across the street now is this big building. In the winter the light from it shines into our bedroom window. I don't ever see that many cars there so I don't understand why the need to build an even bigger building. I am a little irritated that we have to take up our time to go through dealing with this issue again. All eight members of the Assembly voted against it last time it came up, the Rabbit Creek Council all voted against it, and none of the neighbors want it to expand. What aren't they getting? how many times do we have to say "No". They say they want to be good neighbors, but they aren't listening to what their neighbors are saying! We don't want added the traffic, I challenge anyone to start up at Bear Valley and come down Rabbit Creek road and try to stay at 45 mph. Then get to the church and stop to turn in. In the winter cars are stopped both ways. There are accidents every year. It is in a dangerous place to try to stop traffic. It is the grade of the road traffic moves faster than it should. It will cause a real traffic hazzard. They are planning to lower their parking lot and take out the burm next to the road. This will cause an even greater lighting situation in the winter months. The whole area will be lit up. They still will not have adequate septic. And the posible disturbance to wells is another concern. The noise will also increase, we hear the singing and music now. It does not matter what the building is used for it is not a good place to put such an increase. My husband and I are against this and see no need for an expansion of this already too large building. | |
| Donna Van Flein | 8/24/2006 3:13:36 PM |
| I have commented previously on this site plan for the expansion of the Rabbit Creek Community Church. I wish the P & Z Commission to review all comments submitted on line before the Planning Dept. I want to reiterate my strong opposition to this church expansion in THIS residential neighborhood. This expansion is to more of a commercial operation rather than a small community church that blends with the neighborhood. The expansion to any size over the current size should be considered in a more commercial area of town with better ammenities including water and sewer and roads that can handle the increase in traffic pattern for the current level of service and the projected level of service that church is planning for. I live up the hill and travel Rabbit Creek Road at least 6 times daily and the increased traffic at this church site is a serious accident waiting to happen. The road is a steep slope where many cars get stuck going uphill and many get out of control going downhill. Adding another hazard like cars turning is contributing to a very severe problem that already exisits. This along with the fact that this expansion is not compatable with this residential neighborhood I urge the Commission to deny this appeal. Thank you. | |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council PO Box 112354 | 8/19/2006 10:23:26 AM |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council P.O. Box 112354, Anchorage, AK 99511-2354 June 15, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission MOA PO Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 On April 13, 2006 representatives of the Rabbit Creek Community Church presented the new site plan proposal for the church expansion to the Community Council. The presentation represented that the new design took into consideration all public hearing comments and the recommendations of the P& Z Commission. After further review and comparison between the old and new Church plans it seems the Church representatives misled the RCCC and neighbors about the differences in size and scope of the new proposal. On May 11, 2006 the neighbors attended the Council’s monthly meeting and after much discussion and analysis the RCCC voted unanimously to deny support for the new site proposal. The proposal has not changed substantially in size, design and internal structure from its original plan. Here is a brief analysis of the two plans: NEW OLD SqFt 25,886 25,538 Height 45 ft 44 ft Occupancy 745 846 Total Occupancy 1044 1045 Parking Spaces 186 230 The layout of the parking lot and landscaping actually lowers the buffer to Rabbit Creek Road and denudes the entire 4 acres and the hillside directly adjacent to the neighbors which will impact their view-scape. This new site plan proposed by 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: a. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and safety. There will be a significant impact of vehicular traffic with a doubling of the current size of this church on both Rabbit Creek Road and Snowshoe Lane and all residents who use these roads, which certainly is greater than that permitted with residential development b. Demand for an availability of public services and facilities. The more people traveling to this “community” church will certainly have greater impact on the roads and maintenance. Churches do not pay property taxes and therefore are not contributing to the pool of money for maintaining roads which is certainly greater than that of residential development. c. Noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution and other forms of environmental pollution. The noise pollution will be substantially greater than the existing church by increasing the occupancy of the current site by 846 and the parking lot by 155 spaces. The light pollution will have a negative impact on the adjacent neighbors due to the lighting requirements of parking lots. These will be greater than for residential development. d. Furtherance of the goals and policies of the comprehensive development plan and conformance to the plan in the manner required by Chapter 21.05. The proposed structure and large parking lot are not in keeping with the 2020 Plan (policies 7, 46, 48, 49, and 50 which promote maintaining the character of adjacent property, enhance and preserve scenic views and other significant natural features, avoiding adjoining incompatible uses and retention of healthy trees. The size and height of the proposed structure and its adjoining parking lot would disturb and overwhelm this low-density, R-6, residential area and be inconsistent with the 20/20 Plan This neighborhood Community Church expansion is out of character with this rural R-6 neighborhood. The footprint of the existing structure of 10,173 square feet with natural vegetation surrounding a parking lot barely fits into the neighborhood character. The addition of another building, two stories high 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 and massively impact the surrounding area. For the above reasons and those stated previously by the Council on the prior site plan review, the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to reverse the Planning Departments’ approval of the almost identical design submitted on the prior site plan review we do not support this site plan. Rabbit Creek Community Council | |
| Brenda Vincent | 8/4/2006 4:00:06 PM |
| I was unsure if this comment section was reserved for community council members where the case is pending, but I see there is a posting from a couple outside the boundary so as an active member of Rabbit Creek Community Church for 4 years I would like to add my thoughts. There is no ill intent with wanting to grow the church building. As Anchorage expands southward, so does the need for there to be a place to serve the surrounding community. Rabbit Creek Community Church has a love for God and for the people of Anchorage. The building committee HAS listened to the neighbors concerns and has made compromises. There is a great deal of respect for all concerned, my prayer is that it would be reciprocal. Our pastor and staff have an open door for anyone interested in knowing more about what the goals of the church are regarding the building plan. This is in issue that goes far beyond having city water or sewer. I would ask anyone in the community to search out both sides of the case thoroughly before deciding what you think would be best for Anchorage. | |
| Janice and Jack Adams | 7/31/2006 9:50:45 PM |
| For the Rabbit Creek Church to submit another so called plan, renaming portions of the church to sound better and actually expanding the people capacity is outrageous. Does this pastor and board think people are blind and stupid? This facility is already too large for the land mass as well as not having public water and sewer! It makes us wonder what the motives are toward the community this is impacting. It also sounds like this church is not listening to the voice of the people of this area. We think this should be denied. | |
| Janice and Jack Adams | 7/31/2006 9:28:33 PM |