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. | |
|---|---|
| Joan Diamond | 10/18/2007 8:30:47 AM |
| During the P/Z hearing on Oct. 15, a Commisioner asked about how other Anchorage senior housing on PLI land was owned and operated. The only one known is the "Denali" senior living which is an independent housing project at 22424 N. Birchwood Loop, Chugiak, built on PLI zoned land. The Chugiak senior buildings are owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and managed by the Chugiak Senior Center, a non-profit agency. According to Teri Floor, Facilities Director and HUD Housing Manager, the housing is affordable apartments for lower income seniors. The Center operates the housing on grants. She reported that there is continued need for low income housing not higher end developments. The private Eagle River senior development has already been converted for sale to the general public because the private owners were unable to find enough seniors interested in buying the condos. Teri Floor can be reached at 688-2688. | |
| Susan Weston | 10/16/2007 10:07:45 PM |
| A concern I didn't hear voiced at the hearing while I was there is the problem of the difficult choice seniors have to make as they get to the point where they know they should not drive as much. My grandfather gradually limited his driving, first by allowing others to drive when they were available, later driving only during daylight hours, later not driving during icy or stormy conditions, later avoiding busy times of the day and driving only in his local neighborhood, to the store, bowling, etc. This allowed him to drive safely well into his 90s. He never used public transportation but that could have provided another step to allow him to enjoy an independent life. I have read the same thing happens with many seniors. Living close to services makes this kind of transition possible. A problem with senior condos in such a remote location is that people absolutely MUST be able to drive or they're trapped, especially during the wintertime. There will come a point when they know they should not drive as much. But when few alternatives are available, they will be very tempted to push the envelope rather than pull up roots and sell their home. If conditions for selling a condo are poor, and there will be a lot of competition if all proposed units are built, they may be forced to push the envelope by financial considerations. This could result in compromised safety for everyone, especially the seniors themselves. The roads here are already steep, dangerous, and busy. This is of great concern to me. Thank you for your patience in listening to public comments, even late into the night. | |
| Valerie Kenny | 10/15/2007 5:06:24 PM |
| We have lived for thirty years within a few hundred feet of this project. We never dreamed that a development so out of character would be permitted in this area. It is well known that there could be a school built somewhere on this property. But this is out of bounds. I am greatly bothered by the opinion of the Muni’s planning staff and attorney that Legacy Pointe fits under the definition of public institution for the elderly. It is a sham by these developers and is sanctioned by the city. As if there was not enough corruption and misuse of the system in our State. We looked into dozens of “exclusive senior communities” in the lower 48. The vision of Legacy Pointe certainly is not a vision of developers, investors or seniors that we researched. The amenities offered by Legacy Pointe were most often the same as in exclusive senior communities offering apartments. Most defined active seniors as above 55 years old. Most barred residents under a certain age. A few of these communities offered assisted care to residents as they became more inactive. One offered long term care as an amenity. Apartments were upscale in a great majority of these communities. This most likely is a popular option for those who may age out of active communities and did not want to deal with selling their condo or apartment in an uncertain future market. Exclusive communities that sold condos, apartments or casitas were most often full service communities offering options for assisted and long term care. A majority offered golf course country club ambiance. All had amenities far superior to Legacy Pointe. None had the rugged challenge of weather, terrain, lack of transportation, or distance to services that Legacy Pointe offers in such abundance. We believe the Legacy Pointe model is not one that fits well at all in Anchorage. A rental apartment complex would seem to be a better model given the location and amenities offered by Legacy Pointe. We would still testify against it but at least it would make sense from the perspective of the transition from active to less active senior. We may even favor a pioneer’s home as more in honestly keeping to the definition of public institution. The amenities and provisions for transition from active to less active senior in lower 48 exclusive senior communities which sold apartments far exceed the offerings at Legacy Pointe. We can only surmise that Legacy Pointe represents a Trojan horse to our community. It is being presented as something that it is fundamentally not. We know from past developments that once permitted there is very little scrutiny by the Muni. Changes to allow the development to morph into something not explicitly expressed by the original “vision” become more easily accomplished once the project footprint has obliterated flora and fauna native to the site. There are more appropriate sites for the Legacy Pointe vision to be pursued. Valerie Kenny 17016 Aries Ct. Anchorage, Ak. 99516 | |
| Donna Van Flein | 10/15/2007 1:45:44 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to this development. This charade of a site plan uses a definition of “housing for the elderly” and turns it into “high-end exclusive condominiums for active seniors”. If one looks at the legislative history of the term “housing for the elderly” and its definition, it came about to replace the term “home for the aged” There is no way, this was ever meant to create exclusive condos for seniors. The intent of PLI is for the public and be an institution. This interpretation completely waters down the code, the 2020 Plan and its development standards. Thankfully the Commission is bound by the site plan review standards presented in the code under sections 21.15.015 and 21.50.200. 21.15.015 (E) Standards The commission shall review a proposed site selection or site plan for consistency with the goals, policies and land use designations of the comprehensive plan and other municipal plans adopted by the assembly, conformity to the requirements of this title and the effects of the proposal on the area surrounding the site. The project development is not consistent with many goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 13 Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development The Physical Planning Department’s memo addresses concerns regarding Design & Environmental Policies # 48, 49, 50, 53. and water Resource Policies 70 & 71 One of the 2020 Strategies listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. The density, mass and height of this development is certainly not compatible with the surrounding area Strategy listed on page 100 Need for Market Impact Assessment Which states: Market impact assessments help public decision makers to realistically assess long-term risk (costs) to the community resulting from a particular project. An assessment typically examines whether there is sufficient long-term demand for the proposed project, how much of the existing market demand is the project likely to capture and for how long, what are the major sources of market risk and how can such risks be reduced. Targeted uses for such market impact assessments would be large-scale commercial, residential, and industrial developments. Implementation of this strategy will require development of standards and threshold requirements for when a market impact assessment might be required. This assessment seems critical to approving this proposed site plan. 21.50.200 The authority reviewing a site plan shall approve the site plan ONLY if it finds that the site plan: A Meets the criteria for its approval established under this title and B Will not have a permanent negative impact on those items listed in this subsection substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted development: 1. Pedestrian & vehicular traffic circulation and safety. A development with up to 1500 residents proposes a much greater permanent negative impact on the adjacent narrow gravel roads that will be accessed by this development during and after construction than from a low density single family housing community. These new residents will contribute to the safety problems at the intersection of Goldenview & Rabbit Creek Rd The proposed new collector road will help, assuming people are willing to drive south to go north to town. 2. The demand for and availability of public services and facilities. Water & Sewer must be brought to this site. A water tower holding tank is necessary for gravity fed water. Initially the water tower was to be placed in an adjacent neighborhood to deliver water EXCLUSIVELY to this Legacy Pointe development. The holding tank placement has not been determined BUT it is certainly not shown to be on-site for this site plan to service these residents, but will have a permanent negative impact wherever it is built off site. There is no public transportation on the hillside. It will be demanded by a senior community. The Rabbit Creek Fire station engine ladders do not reach beyond two stories. This will be demanded to accommodate this development. 3. Noise, air, water & other forms of environmental pollution. The recontouring and removal of a substantial amount of vegetation on this site to accommodate these buildings as proposed will create drainage problems on site and off as shown by other development (at lower densities) in this area. Visual pollution should be included in this section. From the adjacent properties looking at the side of large terraced buildings, to the view from Potter Marsh will be negative and permanent with this scale and density of this development. 4. The maintenance of compatible and efficient development patterns and land use intensities. There can be no doubt about the lack of compatibility of this high rise high density development on the surrounding low density single family established neighborhoods and its negative and permanent impact as opposed to a low density development. The shell game of height and density and buffers will continue to erode through the Platting phase unless the commission stops it at this level due to lack of conformance to the code. Tonight, If the commission finds that a private exclusive senior community is allowed in Public Lands & Institutions zoning district, than the commission must deny this site plan as not meeting the site plan criteria and recommend a new plan with a layout of single family style cluster housing community of 1 DUA similar to that of the successful elderly community of Mountain Rose Estates in Palmer that would comply with the policies and strategies of the 2020 Plan | |
| Ann Rappoport | 10/15/2007 7:59:55 AM |
| Please accept my comments in opposition to the revised Legacy Point proposal, which is now for 400 units in 10, 3 1/2-story buildings plus a clubhouse, for a Senior Housing Development above Potter Marsh, Planning Department Case Number 2006-142. I appreciate the developers’ attention to several of the concerns that have been raised in public hearings, at Community Council meetings, and elsewhere. However serious flaws remain. As a 22-year resident of the lower Hillside above Potter Marsh, I know this area well as my family and I regularly walk, cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and sled on the subject tract. I have previously written and testified on several occasions before the Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission, Platting Board, and Assembly about the best uses for the land now proposed for development as “Legacy Pointe” and the downhill lands owned by Heritage Land Bank. I will summarize my concerns about the current proposal and suggest an alternative that could better provide something for everyone. While some details about the proposal have changed, my concerns with the proposal as I submitted in comments on August 17, 2007, generally remain. A major problem with the current proposal is that it would result in a density of people that is beyond the carrying capacity of this area with its steep slopes and tricky access. My neighbors and I successfully petitioned the Planning and Zoning Commission a couple years ago regarding a proposal to develop this area at two houses per acre. We documented why the area should not be developed at more than one dwelling per acre and a quarter, which would result in just over 100 dwelling units on the property. With an average family size of four, that would mean adding about 200 drivers to our already overcrowded roads. The current proposal for 400 dwelling units represents about 800 drivers which is twice what the area can really support, even with an additional collector road, and represents a population two times greater than the land itself can support. Additional significant issues with the proposal continue to be that it: (1) is contrary to the generally rural character of the adjacent neighborhoods and designated open space, (2) would destroy the well-used, historic Moen Trail, (3) is at odds with policies and goals established in “Anchorage 2020” and it’s companion document, “Living with Wildlife,” (4) would irreparably fragment and destroy the last open space and wildlife corridor connecting sea level marshes to the alpine tundra and protected ecosystem of Chugach State Park (characteristics that greatly contribute to Anchorage’s economy in the forms of tourism and positive mental and physical health), (5) would further compromise water quality and quantity essential to Potter Marsh in the Potter Point State Game Refuge, and (6) does not confirm coordination on timing of development with an undeveloped parcel to the south so that transportation options for the overall area are not fully evaluated. I am very disturbed by the potential that the collector road that would connect Goldenview to Potter Valley Road would include a connection across a significant chunk of adjacent Open Space designated lands under Heritage Land Bank jurisdiction (collector road option 1). A 1997 study by the Municipality concluded that the highest and best use for these 93 acres immediately west (downhill) of the subject property was as open space, due to a geologically unique cliff that prevented access, the incredibly high wildlife values, and fact that this area and the adjacent Legacy Pointe lands contribute half the water that sustains Potter Marsh, a State Critical Habitat and part of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Only the southeast corner of the Heritage Land Bank property was identified for a possible future road corridor – not a road that would bisect and fragment over half the property. Should that option be adopted, then it should be as a trade, wherein the northern 30 acres of the current Legacy Pointe property would be transferred to Heritage Land Bank as designated natural, Open Space. Both options 1 and 2 require agreements from the adjacent landowner, whose development is lagging behind this one, and thus not similarly committed to a coordinated collector road. I do applaud the developers for maintaining as open space the predominantly wetland and spring, western 29 acres of the property, and for addressing residents and Anchorage 2020 concerns that neighborhood fragmentation be avoided by providing access points and trails as neighborhood connectivity for school children and area residents. I recommend that the Commission send the developers back to the drawing table with recommendations to produce a viable alternative that could provide something for everyone. This should include: * Redesigning the collector road, confirming that it will not fragment a major portion of adjacent Heritage Land Bank lands – a brief section that exceeds desirable slope standards would not be out of character with the surrounding area and what residents are accustomed to. * Building no more than two, high-density senior housing buildings, at the southwestern end of the property, closest to Potter Valley Road to ensure the economic viability of their plan before the road extension and other connector roads are cleared and developed. * Designate the northern portion of the property as an Open Space (NOT Development) Reserve), deleting the four buildings currently proposed here, but possibly considering some large (2 to 5-acre) lots around the edges of the property or clustered off short access points. * Retaining the Moen Homestead Trail to the maximum extent possible, or with some minor rerouting. The Municipality’s analysis documented that it is a stable routing. * Protecting wetlands by not developing the western edge where they are concentrated and using bridges if crossings are necessary. One other point - last week I attended the Hillside District Plan Open House. This is the plan that should precede and be a framework for the Legacy Pointe development. Hundreds of Hillside residents have been providing input and the planners are appropriately considering the area's special topographic features and drainages, existing low density developments, and neighborhood views in crafting this plan. The overwhelming comment during the discussions was that people have settled on the lower Hillside for it’s more rural character, open space, and wildlife. No one wants a dense condo development. Hillside residents have been asking for this plan for years. It’s wonderful that it is finally happening. But too many large-scale developments are in the planning stages or being approved. For the Hillside District Plan to be really meaningful, your commission and the Assembly should pass a moratorium on further development, so that we can bring future developments into line with this plan, and not have a road here or there, and out-of-character developments springing up that are negating the plan before it is even finalized. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. | |
| William Pedersen | 10/14/2007 10:13:04 PM |
| The Woodridge Homeowners Association is adamantly opposed to the current configuration and secondary access via Belarde Ave. proposed by Legacy Pointe. The traffic impact analysis fails to adequately acknowledge or address the impact the proposed secondary access via Belarde Ave. will have on the adjacent neighborhoods. Woodridge subdivision is located approximately 1/2 mile down Belarde from the intersection of Belarde and 172nd Avenue. In addition, the developers and the municipality have not considered the physical attributes of the existing road network into which the proposed access will feed. This road network consists of single lane extremely steep roads that experience heavy glaciation during winter months making them at times virtually impassable. Exiting Legacy Point via Belarde is an unrealistic solution to access and places an unfair burden on the Goldenview RRSA and adjacent residents who maintain these rural roads. The subdivisions into which Belarde flows are low density, rural R6 subdivisions that experience relatively little traffic. The construction of roads in this area will not support another 160 residences identified in phases 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the proposed project. It should also be noted that anyone exiting Legacy Pointe via Belarde will require a vehicle with four wheel drive, studs, and high clearance in order to reach either Goldenview or the Old Seward Highway during winter months. These single lane roads are adequate to serve existing local residents. They were not designed to accommodate the number of vehicle trips generated by another 160 residences. Apparently little attention was paid to existing conditions beyond the borders of the proposed project. The Woodridge Homeowners Association requests that in the event this project proceeds, a fire gate be required at the intersection of Belarde and 172nd Street and that there be no provision for future vehicular connectivity at this intersection. To ensure this provision is upheld, we request that the connection from the interior road in Legacy Point to the intersection of Belarde and 172nd be constructed of gravel only, the width reduced to the minimum necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles, and that the curve leading to units number 9 and 10 be realigned further south outside of the proposed 100 foot vegetative buffer. This reconfiguration would have the added benefit of diminishing the intrusion into the alleged 100-foot vegetative buffer, which because of proposed road alignments essentially ceases to exist in this area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. William J. Pedersen Secretary/Treasurer WRHOA | |
| Rolland Reid | 10/14/2007 1:41:23 PM |
| I strongly recommend that the proposed second access on to Belarde Ave to the norths be eliminated, or reconfigured to a minimum width gravel section with a locked fire gate. The traffic impact analysis fails to consider that Belarde, and connecting routes to either Goldenview or Old Seward are a gravel rural road system with grades in excess of 16%,which heavily glaciate every winter and at times are virtually impassible, and are often heavily rain rutted int the shoulder seasons. Only high clearance 4 wheel drive vehicles with studded tires or chains will be able to navigate this route in the winter. All one has to do is walk the routes and it's obvious it can't work. Additionally, please consider the fact that these roads were designed for the very light traffic loads created by low density R6 subdivisions. It would not be fair or reasonable to the existing homeowners to try and route vehicle traffic from 160 or more housing units through these rural neighborhoods. Also, roads along the route are not maintained by the Municipality. It is not fair to put the additional cost and burden of maintenancd on our RSA caused by the additional traffic loads of an adjacent densly planned subdivision. Considering the density of the planned development, the steepness of adjacent rural roads, and the low density of R6 subdivisions to the north, I believe the only competent traffic solution is to route all public traffic directly to Goldenview Drive. | |
| Peter Hanley | 10/14/2007 4:39:49 AM |
| My wife and I have been residents of the Rabbit Creek area at the above address for nearly 25 years. We are greatly disturbed by the proposal to develop high density high rise (in the context of surrounding residential buildings and visibility impacts) condominium units off Goldenview drive allegedly for senior housing. We are unable to attend the October 15, 2007 hearing due to a long planned vacation. However, we have requested that Ms. Mary Dodge testify on our behalf and summarize these written comments which we submit for your consideration and the record. The actual number of condominium units remains unclear because the developer has not unequivocally committed not to develop the remaining property in its last minute reduction in units from 704 dwelling units (13 buildings) to 432 units ((8 buildings. I question how the Commission can make any decision with this uncertainty remaining. This development makes no sense from socio-economic, land use and environmental perspectives and should be denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Most, if not all of our concerns, have already been stated in comments submitted by the overwhelming majority of Rabbit Creek residents who oppose this project. I would like to comment on the Planning Department’s questionable and incomplete analysis of the revised development proposal in its memorandum to the Commission dated October 15, 2007: 1.The tone of that analysis appears accommodating to the developer while seemingly placing strict requirements on the development. These conditions are hollow in light of the Municipality’s enforcement record with respect to other hillside developments such as Goldenview Park (as pointed out by other commentators). Most disturbing is their recommendation that with the proposed conditions Legacy Pointe’s revised proposal meets the Municipality planning and zoning regulations. The lack of conformance with these regulations and Anchorage 2020 were well summarized in the written comments of Mr. Bruce Seppi dated October 8, 2007. Many of the proposed conditions such as minimum age are unenforceable if not discriminatory. This is another reason why the developer’s assertion and rationale for senior housing is a smoke screen for high density hillside development. 2.The analysis is narrowly focused on technical issues and does not really address the concerns expressed by local residents of local area broader issues related to such impacts as building density, compatibility with adjacent residential development, regional hydrology (particularly with respect to adjacent residences and Potters Marsh). This development is totally counter to the goals of the revised Title 21 and Anchorage 2020 with respect to the quality of life and rationale planning for Anchorage; 3.The traffic analysis is most flawed. I suggest that the Traffic Engineering Department staff spend a couple of hours between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. on Goldenview Drive, during week days in particular, and then try to restate their conclusions that the traffic impact of this development will not be significant. Of most concern is the resultant diversion of traffic from Legacy Pointe through Virgo Avenue (my subdivision) as people seek alternative routes. Other routes alternative to Goldenview Drive. commentators have noted the steep grades and other issues related to impediments traffic in the area. 4.The Planning Department staff makes a significant deal about setbacks and vegetation buffers mitigating impacts on adjacent residences. Such requirements are hollow. One only has to drive down 164th Avenue adjacent to Goldenview Park subdivision to see that zoning requirement to buffers exclusive of utility rights-of-way were ignored and not enforced by the Municipality. It is also inconceivable that the buffers proposed by the Planning Department will have any mitigating impact considering the density and height (4 stories) of the proposed development. 5.The Planning Department totally ignores the cumulative impacts of Legacy Pointe with respect to hillside hydrology (focusing on narrow but important localized impacts) and impacts upon Potters Marsh. Such issues were well articulated in a recent article in the Anchorage Daily News. My specific comments, I will summarize because they have all been captured in factual and incisive of many commentators opposed to the Legacy Pointe development. 1.The development is incompatible with the surrounding low density residential zoning of south of Rabbit Creek Road. 2.South Goldenview Drive and adjacent feeder roads are at their capacity for safe traffic flow and noise impacts to residential properties. 3.The hydrological impacts and environmental stresses to Anchorage’s premier wildlife preserve – Potters Marsh – are significant and have not been considered by the Planning Department. This development has been named “Legacy Pointe”. If the Planning and Zoning Commission allows such a plan to be approved, the name “Legacy Pointe” will be given a brand new meaning in Anchorage with respect to the legacy of a development which ignored the overwhelming opposition of most of adjacent tax-paying community residents. We urge you to deny the current proposal and encourage single family development compatible with local standards and wishes. | |
| Sandra Camery | 10/12/2007 12:36:27 PM |
| First,I question the need for this project. As someone who works with the senior population, I know that the fastest growing segment of the senior population is not the affluent senior. It is the lower income senior. I note that all the senior complexes for lower income seniors have a waiting list. The affluent senior is a very small segment of the senior population. I question the ecomonic viability of the project. Secondly, perhaps the project could work for the younger, affluent senior,ages 55-69, if there were enough of them, which there isn't. But,for the middle aged and elderly senior 70 and up, it makes little sense. This senior is likely to be more challenged in driving and eventually give up driving all together. Instead, they will use People Mover, Anchorrides, and friends and relatives for transportation. The complex is too remote and inconvenient for this senior. Thirdly, Anchorage still has many rickety old houses and run down, tacky, and/or vacant commercial buildings in need of re-development.These areas should be addressed first.One of Anchorages best assets, and the highest and best use of existing the hillside land with its rural ambiance, the wildlife, the view should not be destroyed. People live on the hillside because they don't want to live with the concrete, the asphalt, the lighting and the traffic of suburbia. This development and the precedent it sets will lower the value of the existing hillside land. And that means hillside residents will be petitioning to have their property taxes reduced. The hillside as it exists epitomizes Anchorage's new slogan of a Big Wild Life.Legacy Pointe is big and boring and not reflective of the area. It could be anywhere. It is not needed. It makes no sense. | |
| Carol Fries | 10/12/2007 8:06:33 AM |
| The revised Legacy Pointe proposal is still inconsistent with Anchorage 2020 and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods. In several instances contradictory statements are made in both the developers’ proposal and the staff recommendations. The improved delivery of documents regarding this development on the muni website is well done and clearly appreciated. However, it would have been helpful if the community had been made aware of this much earlier. I stumbled upon this link (http://www.muni.org/planning/index.htm ) only when I did not use a bookmark for the Cases on Line. Perhaps a notation somewhere on cases on line could let web users know that additional information is available. 1.) First and foremost, this proposal is not now and never was “housing for the elderly.” This is an age restricted condominium project, nothing more. The developer’s interpretation of Anchorage Municipal Code appears to have missed the first component of this section i.e. “public”. This is a private development for private gain. 2.) The developer’s contention that R-6 zoning with 84 lots would encompass 18% of impervious coverage is not supported with data. It is merely speculation. 3.) The contention that Legacy Point lies in the lower hillside is not supported. The lower hillside has not been defined. The project does however lie within the area served by AWWU however, there is no area SLATED for public water and public sewer extensions. It is quite a stretch to say that sewer lines have less effect on the environment. Blasting bedrock as we have all noticed tends to seriously change the flow of groundwater and the resulting impacts have been significant – witness Prominence Pointe. 4.) The 100 foot wide buffers are selectively applied. The 100 foot wide buffer on the northern boundary of the project along 172nd street is NOT 100 feet in width. Assuming there is no collateral damage from road building and construction of buildings 9 and 10 the neighbors will be lucky if the buffer is 40 feet. 5.) Anchorage 2020 did NOT define the urban rural boundary. The “line” on the map to which the developers refer is a conceptual idea destined for further refinement and discussion within the Hillside District Plan. 6.) Yes, Legacy Pointe will also have covenants, enforced by the Homeowners Association, just like the covenants of the other subdivisions to which they refer. 7.) The summary of Anchorage 2020 included by the developer is grossly misleading. Legacy Pointe does not comply with Anchorage 2020 as evidenced by the Rabbit Creek Community Council comments previously submitted. 8.) Further discussion regarding retention of natural vegetation states that “open space” tracts, and stream protection easements will only be disturbed during the project for construction of utilities and for road crossings. What exactly does this mean? The open space in Goldenview Park was used for the installation of utilities and every time one of the utility companies installs new lines, the “buffer” of vegetation disappears. The site plan also claims to show “approximate” limits of vegetation disturbance – creating quite a bit of wiggle room. 9.) The traffic analysis doesn’t even pretend to address the impacts caused by the proposed secondary access onto Belarde Avenue. Clearly the individuals developing this analysis are unfamiliar with the roads and traffic flow in this area. Belarde is a very steep one-lane road heading downhill. It merges into Virgo Ave. heading either downhill or north through very rural low-density subdivisions with roads clearly not designed to handle this level of use and grades in all directions that make ingress and egress difficult if not impossible in winter icing conditions. There has been no analysis of the impact on adjacent neighborhoods and in fact this proposed access violates provisions of Title 21 and Anchorage 2020 designed to mitigate the impact of differing densities of development. 10.) The Summary table in Staff’s recommendation (Page 2) also fails to note that the fire gate at Bettijean is apparently discretionary as described in section D. Roads and Drainage, 7., c. (Page 13 of Staff comments). One can only assume that the discretion is the developer’s and based on previous experience (Goldenview Park, Prominence Pointe) there will likely be no fire gate. 11.) Staff recommendation C.3, requiring that supplemental landscaping in the north 100-foot natural open space buffer shall be completed with the completion of Phase 9. Phase 10 essentially obliterates the 100-foot open space buffer along 172nd Street. There is absolutely no mention of any requirement to mitigate the destruction of the buffer. It is disingenuous to pretend that a buffer exists in this area. It is unfair to existing residents and does not afford the adjacent property owners the protections from incompatible adjacent development that they should expect consistent with Anchorage 2020 and Title 21. Phase 10 should be deleted, as it clearly does not comply with Anchorage 2020 or Title 21 protections afforded to adjacent neighborhoods. 12.) Staff comments also reference a 50-foot dedicated right-of-way for 172nd Avenue, which is not identified on the proposed site plan. It is unclear how this 50-foot road right-of-way relates to the 10-foot utility easement and the 100-foot buffer because it isn’t identified or accounted for in any way on the site plan. One can only conclude that this will further encroach on the proposed diminishing buffer and that the illustration is merely relative not definitive. 13.) I fail to understand how Traffic Engineering can conclude that the reduced density design will not have permanent negative impacts greater than that anticipated from permitted development. This statement (Page 4 Staff Analysis) is not put in any context. There is no definition of “permitted development.” Surely no one can disagree that the traffic impact from 400 units is significantly greater than traffic impact from 84 units associated with an R6 zoning or 120 associated with a mix of R6 and R7. In addition, there is no mention of the impact on neighboring subdivisions, RRSA’s and subdivision maintained roads. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I oppose the proposed site plan for Legacy Point for the many reasons previously discussed by those commenting as well as those above. Carol Fries | |
| David Boyle | 10/10/2007 4:36:46 PM |
| I have been reviewing the comments and staff analysis of the P&Z department regarding case 2006-142 and submit the following comments for your consideration. Although the developer for this project may have somewhat adequately completed filling all the squares I believe we need to step back and view the project as a whole and its impact upon the hillside community and Anchorage as a whole. Because the developers have submitted this proposal under the guise of PLI, i.e., senior citizens housing, they fall under different rules. Likewise, if another developer who wanted to build a prison (PLI) also filled all the squares, would this project (prison) also receive P&Z staff approval? Like a prison (PLI), this large senior citizens housing project soes not fit into the hillside community even all the planning squares are filled. Thank you for your time. David Boyle | |
| Bruce E. Seppi | 10/8/2007 10:40:21 PM |
| Comments for October 15th, 2007 P&Z meeting- (2006-142, Forest Heights LLC) I am opposed to the latest proposal by Forest Heights LLC to build 10 condominium buildings with 400 units on the hillside. The unit densities are still far too high for the site, and access, as well as a multitude of other issues are still not being addressed. This is still high density condominiums on a steep hillside with poor access- no matter what Forest Heights LLC is telling everyone. The offsite road plan depicts a winding switchback road on steep terrain connecting to Potter Valley Road, and only provides access to yet another development. Potter Valley Road is also a winding switchback road on steep terrain, and takes traffic in the opposite direction of Anchorage. This leaves Goldenview Road, and Belarde/172nd/tideview as the only other access to this development. Goldenview is overtaxed now with traffic – how could anyone pretend that Goldenview could handle all this traffic? Belarde and connecting roads go down hill and are single lane, steep, rutted and often so icy in winter they are dangerous and not usable. I know because I live at the end of Belarde and it is regularly difficult and dangerous getting to and from my house in winter-even with 4 wheel drive and studs. The site plan has two condominium buildings (80 more residences) right at the Belarde Road access to the property, where it is often too icy to get up to Goldenview, and too icy to go downhill to Tideview and the Old Seward. The approval of a plan like this, that uses these roads as access, would be insane. Come out and drive these roads and see for yourself. Lets also not forget this land is zoned PLI-and Forest Heights LLC is using the “housing for the elderly” card to build condominiums on PLI land. Any one with common sense can see a development of this density and magnitude does not fit into the landscape and terrain- as senior housing or not, and does not make sense. The reduction of unit densities to 400 units is just a ploy, a shell game, and an offer from Forest Heights as a compromise for the local residents concerns. It is still high density condominiums, and 400 units is far too many! Approving this plan under the guise of senior housing or housing for the elderly, to build condominiums, is an open invitation for a legal challenge, in my opinion. What about road access, traffic, drainage, wildlife corridors or open space issues? Forests Heights LLC is manipulating and twisting the zoning laws to their benefit, providing their own biased interpretation of the 2020 plan, and still completely ignoring and down playing the concerns of residence who own houses and live in this area. The most current Legacy Pointe site plan is an insult to the community, and the petitioners have the arrogance to suggest they are conserving green space, protecting watersheds, providing wildlife corridors, following the 2020 plan and incorporating citizen concerns. They are not. The amount of on-line comments on this plan is large, goes back nearly one year, and repeatedly addresses the many problems with this proposal. Earlier comments are valid points and concerns applicable to the current plan. The planning and zoning board needs to read these comments and the concerns (they are real and well documented) and deny this ridiculous plan. | |
| John Weir | 10/3/2007 10:45:14 AM |
| I am very concerned about the traffic increase on Bettijean and Belarde... they are not designed for this traffic quantity. Also 172nd is not useable… please look closely at the grading plan. My family does not support this density of development and believe it will have terrible consequences for this rural area. Don’t buy the developer line, “this development needs to support a higher density”… it is not an appropriate development. Also, it seems a bit misguided to believe the seniors will feel safe in this rather treacherous hilly environment… not to mention its remote location from civic services. | |
| LaDonna Westfall | 9/16/2007 8:24:55 PM |
| This may be a duplicate as when I went to send my comments earlier, my screen went blank and I don't know if it 'went' or not. I do not live in the area, but my family has for many years. I am not listing any comments that have not already been addressed by local residents, but comment to show that these items are obvious, even to someone that does not reside in the area. 1) out of character for the area 2) not suitable environmentally for high density housing (especially water and sewar) 3) no immediate access to services (medical, shopping, restaurants) 4) limited or no access to recreational facilities utilized by seniors (smooth walking surface, indoor walking facility, pool...) 5) roads not adequate for high density traffic 6) difficult access and high turnaround time for emergency vehicles 7) narrow, steep, winding roads not suitable for winter driving for seniors especially I think this proposal is ill conceived and the planning commission should look elsewhere for senior housing development that has the services and facilities currently available. | |
| karl johnstone | 8/26/2007 6:31:18 PM |
| I ask that the Commission and its Staff look at the comments very carefully before allowing this project to proceed. The overwhelming majority (almost 5 to 1) of the comments are against this project and they are for the most part very detailed and well thought out expressions from good people who LIVE IN THE AREA that will be affected. On the other hand the small number of comments which support the project almost appear in main to be scripted and over half come from people who do not live anywhere near the affected area. In fact a large percentage come from Kodiak and from cities other than Anchorage. What is that all about? And while it seems that the developers have downsized their project it is very disingenious. They reserve the remainder of the property for future development. They know that once they get the foot in the door they will have a good chance of getting the remaining 300 units shortly. It seems to me that the Mayor and his "Staff" have decided that for political and revenue reasons that this project should be approved. First it must be pleasing to many senior voters that the Mayor is looking out for them. In fact, when the 400 to 700 units can not be filled with the elderly the commission will be asked for a variance which in order to protect the tax assessment on the project will be no doubt granted. Second, this is a large revenue generator that happens all at once and will result in substantial immediate income to the MOA. However, the Mayor should not be so short sighted about this. Even though the Mayor is known to favor development personally, he should know that by starting high density housing in this area, that the make up of the area is changed and eventually the values of surrounding propery goes down with addition of large apartment and condo buildings. And finally it should be noted that well over 200 people attended the first hearing only to be told that it had to be continued to accommodate the new proposal by the developers and to supposedly give everyone an opportunity to look at it again. I expect that there will be even more who attend the hearing in October. Please let them be heard and take into consideration this overwhelming opposition by so many people. Then ask yourselves whether you would permit this type of high density in the face of the 20/20 plan and in the face of all the problems that have so cogently been brought to your attention if it were not labled "housing for the elderly) We are all hopeful that our P&Z commission is an independent body that acts according to law and not according to political considerations | |
| Doug Everhart | 8/25/2007 10:18:10 PM |
| We are strongly opposed to this whole Legacy Pointe "Senior Housing" concept. It's not that we're anti-development but this scheme does not make sense or pass the smell test, as many of my neighbors in this area have so eloquently commented on. The proposed condos are not in keeping with the character of this area or the 2020 Plan. The long term ability of the developers to enforce the age requirements are very questionable and it is likely this will soon morph into the big old condo complex it really is. There are a multitude of environmental and water issues that are being ignored with this ill-planned idea. The dangerous traffic problems this condo complex would add to the south part of Potter Marsh have not been considered. Finally, let's be honest: the whole "Active Senior" thing is just the Developer trying to take advantage of a loophole. Planning & Zoning and the Muni, shouldn't fall for it. Please listen to the comments from the people in this area, not those from out of state. We have many valid concerns and objections. -Doug & Nancy Everhart | |
| Steven Lyons | 8/23/2007 12:52:05 PM |
| As a citizen and permanent resident of Anchorage, I support planned development of my community. As a professional hydrologist, certified by the American Institute of Hydrology (#555), I am concerned about the proposed development of Legacy Pointe, directly above Potters Marsh. Potters Marsh is a legally recognized wetland’s and is a popular feature in Anchorage. It is also a valuable place for education, used by our schools to educate our children about nature and the need to protect our environment. However, Potters Marsh is in a state of accelerated eutrophication. Receiving nutrient enrichment from existing drainage from the developed hillside, the Marsh is in transition from marsh to meadow. High density development as proposed, would affect the water quality, increasing the rate of the transition of Potters Marsh. I base my concerns on the following physical facts; · Thirty percent of the parcel experiences “shallow ground water-seasonal to 1 foot or less below land surface” (Little Rabbit Creek and Potter Valley Stormwater Drainage Plan, 1985). · Thirty percent of the parcel are hydric soils, or commonly known as wetland soil (Hillside Wastewater Management Plan, February 1982). These soils are deep and very poorly drained. These soils are not suitable for development, and must be removed and replaced with mixture of mineral soil and gravel to provide stable footing for structures. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has technically named these soils as Jacobsen-Doroshin Complex. · Fifty percent of the parcel is identified as not suitable for on-site wastewater treatment (Hillside Wastewater Management Plan, February 1982). The soils are silt loam and peat, are poorly drained, and create adverse conditions to on-site wastewater systems. Development of this parcel would reduce the area that now absorbs much of the runoff from the development uphill of this land. Increased runoff accompanied with decreased water quality will significantly impact Potters Marsh immediately downhill of this land parcel. Land in the Anchorage area with similar physical conditions have been developed in the past. However, the critical aspect of this particular petition is its location to an already troubled designated wetland’s area, Potters Marsh. Reviewing the Revised Phase Plan, as submitted August 12, 2007, I note significant “hard surface” area with several “infiltration trenches.” As a retired Certified Hydrologist with 26 years experience in Alaska, the proposed “infiltration trench” concept within shallow wetland soils as identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service will not protect Potters Marsh from significant impacts. Infiltration trenches are only effective were well drained soils are available, which is certainly not the case on these lands. In this proposal these trenches will only direct the concentrated runoff to the natural drainage ways and directly to Potters Marsh. With the large roof areas, outside parking area, and additional road surfaces, a significant amount of concentrated runoff water will occur throughout the year. Spring snowmelt will be of special concern. Is there a snow dump area planned for this development? If so, where will it be located in relation to condo development? A stormwater drain system with a water treatment system must be included in this development plan. Otherwise oils and other contaminants from the new hard surfaces may be the final straw for Potters Marsh. To successfully develop this area, a stormwater drain system, municipal sewage treatment, and municipal water supply must be available to provide protection to Potters Marsh. Until all of these utilities are available, I ask all of you, the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to deny the pending petition. Thank you for your time and consideration. | |
| Tom Young | 8/20/2007 10:31:46 PM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe project presented as "housing for the elderly". The buildings proposed are massive at 54 units each and completely out of character for the hillside and surrounding subdivisions. Prominence Point is already a huge blight on the hillside, park and mountalin viewshed for virtually all Anchorage residents and visitors. Please don't allow even more careless development to occur at yet another site as now proposed for Legacy Pointe. The density proposed is excessive. This land should be limited to no more than 80 residences, one per 1.25 acres, to blend with the character of the adjacent and nearby subdivisons. Each structure should be limited to no more than 2 units and be less than 35 feet high. The 35 feet height limitation is the same requirement other homeowners in the area must comply with. Roads and utilities cannot support the development proposed or the long-term construction traffic. Who will pay the price for road maintenance during the development of the project? How many trucks and how much heavy equipment will be using the existing roads? How many property owners will be forced to sell their property to widen existing roads because of this project? Where will the offsite water and sewer facilities be located? How will electric, phone and cable be routed and through whose viewshed? How can anyone put up with the construction noise for so many years? This project, as proposed, will only benefit the developers and at the expense of all others. When the units cannot be sold to the elderly, what will prevent them from being sold to buyers of any age? What will prevent the elderly owners from selling or leasing their units to others who do not meet the "elderly" age requirement, especially when they are on a fixed income and can't afford to keep the unit? Who will be the "condo cop" and ride herd over such future uses and bale out the elderly owner even if it means leaving the unit vacant? Please consider my comments and act to protect what little rural character remains of the hillside. This area should not be subject to such "urbanization" as proposed for Legacy Pointe. Thank you. | |
| Tom Young | 8/20/2007 8:00:11 PM |
| Edward Yarmak | 8/20/2007 5:47:40 PM |
| The bottom line regarding the Legacy Pointe proposal is that the developers are just out to make big bucks at the expense of the current residents and the Municipality under the guise that they are "helping" senior citizens. I and my family are opposed to the proposal. The proposal ties into 172nd Ave. at Belarde Ave. and into Bettyjean Street. Unless it is blocked off, traffic will come from the proposed development down Bettyjean and up Stoneridge and Ransome Ridge to Goldenview. I didn't see any recommendations for improvements on these streets in the lastest Traffic Analysis. 172nd, Belarde and the south end of Bettyjean are marginal in the summer and quite dangerous in winter. You should not make a decision on this plan until you've driven each of them in the winter. Bring your tire chains and know how to put them on when the wind is blowing about 60 mph and the rain is glazing the road. My neighbors have already commented on the other issues and problems with this proposal, so I'm not going to reiterate it all. It's just a bad proposal that doesn't fit with the area. I would support a large lot subdivision in this area with lot sizes above 2 acres for single family dwellings. If drainage considerations will not support 2 acre lots, go to 3 acre lots or 4 acre lots. Don't sell out the character of the South Anchorage hillside because a team of developers are interested in "helping" seniors. | |
| David Evans | 8/20/2007 5:47:35 PM |
| A) I don't believe anyone can pass the "red-face test" that this development is in keeping with the 20-20 plan for Anchorage. Why do we bother with the 20-20 plan if this sort of thing is entertained ? B) I hear a lot about the age requirements and rules that seniors will have to be living in this place and that the lighting will be subdued, the trees will be left, etc. etc., but I'm very skeptical about that sort thing being written into some sort of enforceable law. I believe a lot of the stuff they tell us is lip-service. Show us where it's written into some sort of law or permit. | |
| michael kenny | 8/20/2007 5:30:41 PM |
| We built and lived on our lot in Susitna View Estates, approximately 300 feet northwest of the parcel’s northwest corner, since 1976. We are opposed to this development on a number of levels but our primary objection lies in our observation of this fact: the “blue sky” vision of developers seeking permits turns more often than not into a degradation of environment, infrastructure, and community in later years. The fact is the Municipality of Anchorage disappears soon after the property taxes start to accrue into the treasury. Rarely have I seen enforcement or investigations in this neck of the woods. Who is going to check out these proposed units for 19 year olds? Who is going to pay for the upkeep of roads 15 years from now when the increased usage leads to wash boarding and pot holes? How difficult will it be to get the developers to fix glaciations caused by poorly designed and built drainages when a particular weather pattern develops in 3 years. I know I am not objective when I say without hesitation that this area bounded by Rabbit Creek, Bear Valley, Potter Creek and Potters Marsh is the finest area in the Bowl. We have seen the results of previous theme park development over the past decade. We have seen right into the back of homes from 164th Street in the “Bridge” development (Goldenview) when the Blue Sky vision promised landscaped buffers. We have navigated the glaciations from the “Gated” development (Prominence Point) when according to Blue Sky the drainage engineering was top notch. But it is sure that this newest theme park development “Senior land” (Legacy Pointe) is the most out of touch with reality. The building amenities sure do not strike us as something particular to the aged. And is 62 years old considered aged? When the 62 year old turns 72 and needs assisted care will there be a market for them to sell their “senior land” investment and move to an appropriate facility in the flatland? Will Legacy Pointe lobby for changes allowing younger family members to move in to assist? We have seen exclusive senior communities in the Phoenix, Arizona area. They are truly communities where a family is able to go from starter home to pricey homes to casitas to first class assisted living with on site doctors and r.n’s. Most often a golf course forms the boundary with other neighborhoods. None of them are located on geographically beautiful but rugged mountainsides. The developers have names such as Marriott and Hilton & can be expected to be around for a while. I share many of the visions the folks at Legacy Pointe bring forward as far as our aging demographics and the economic impact of our retirees staying in the Great Land closer to family and friends. But I can’t help but think that it is subterfuge to enable the development of this prime property. It is very difficult to think of a more inappropriate use of this rugged area. Realize this vision on flatland. Please Be Reality Based And Stop This From Happening…… Michael & Valerie Kenny (907.345.7508) 17016 Aries Ct. Anchorage, Ak. 99516 | |
| Sonia Waller | 8/20/2007 4:17:16 PM |
| A previous request to zone this area for high density housing was rejected. This "new" proposal, is still high density housing with a different name and absolutely is not a long term commitment to housing for "seniors". The commission was correct in rejecting the application the first time. Please do not be confused by the different name (Senior housing). This is still a request for high density housing. The area should be zoned consistent with the surrounding zoning (i.e., R-6) for single family residence only. | |
| Dawn Carman | 8/20/2007 4:01:54 PM |
| Dear Planning & Zoning Commission, I am writing to oppose the Legacy Pointe senior housing development as proposed. It is my understanding the this part of the Anchorage Hillside has been deemed rural residential. As such, the high density housing units proposed are inconsisent with the Hillside residential plan. Similarly, multiple five-story buildings are inconsistent with neighboring single family homes. This high density housing project proposal may be better suited at an alternate site such as the Lake Otis/Abbott area that has a mix of residential and commercial. The proposed development plans to access Potter Valley Road as an additional egress. However, the plan is flawed in that the access would be at a hairpin turn not conducive to safe merging. This turn is apparently so dangerous that the US Postal Services refuses to provide mail service to homes off of Potter Valley Road. I continue to oppose any further development in the Potter Valley Road area until additional egress infrastructure connection with the Hillside becomes available. This is a big safety issue in the event of required evacuation due to fire hazard according to the Anchorage Fire Department. I ask the Planning & Zoning Commission to request more information regarding the site impact study. There are many concerns regarding the proposed high density project's impact on water run-off on Potter Marsh. Similarly, what assurances has the developer provided in the form of market survey data to determine that the proposed project target audience of adults age 62 and greater would be sustainable? I urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to deny case 2006-142, and ask the developers to go back to the drawing board to come up with a plan that addresses safety, environmental, and neighborhood conduciveness concerns. Sincerely, Dawn Carman | |
| Carol Fries | 8/20/2007 3:14:46 PM |
| Please note that on page 007 of the packet, The Property History, the Protest dated 09-15-00 did not request that PLI zoning be retained. The protest objected to a rezone at a density of R3 SL. The protest was very clear. Also please note that on page 27 of the packet, under Staff Recommendations, item 3 Landscaping, item b. The requirement that a "100 foot natural open space buffer on the northside bordering two residential subdivisions shall be left undisturbed (except for any necessary access road..... " has the potential to be very problematic due to a lack of specificity, given the track record of the parties associated with this project at Goldenview Park and Prominence Point. Essentially the developer could make a case that a road is necessary virtually anywhere in order to construct. Please note that the map included in the packet on page 32 of the packet does not acknowledge the lower density R6 subdivisions to the adjacent to and north of the subject parcel having a density of .75 DUA. I recognize the staff recommendations to reduce the impact of this proposal on the adjacent neighborhoods but 416 units are still too many units given the density and character of adjacent neighborhoods. The cumulative impact of this proposal along with the other developments in this area will negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods and as the planning staff has pointed out the value of Potter Marsh to all of Anchorage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Jeff Briggs | 8/20/2007 2:43:08 PM |
| I am completely against the Senior housing development. This area needs to be zoned R6. The developers are going to dump all that traffic onto an already deadly highway. I can't begin to imagine how many more people would be killed on that single lane undivided highway near Potters Marsh. Another aspect of a Senior Housing development is it needs to be in close proximity to EMS. The Anchorage Fire Dept is the key to that and they already have an overburdened EMS system, and only one ambulance in South Anchorage. Developers have already ruined most of this city with strip malls, site condos and too densely overbuilt subdivisions. Don't let them destroy the Hillside also. | |
| Jeff Briggs | 8/20/2007 2:41:18 PM |
| I am completely against the Senior housing development. This area needs to be zoned R6. The developers are going to dump all that traffic onto an already deadly highway. I can't begin to imagine how many more people would be killed on that single lane undivided highway near Potters Marsh. Another aspect of a Senior Housing development is it needs to be in close proximity to EMS. The Anchorage Fire Dept is the key to that and they already have an overburdened EMS system, and only one ambulance in South Anchorage. Developers have already ruined most of this city with strip malls, site condos and too densely overbuilt subdivisions. Don't let them destroy the Hillside also. | |
| Kelly Carman | 8/20/2007 1:17:49 PM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe Development as submitted. I have included a checklist that would sway me to support a project such as this if implemented BEFORE approval. 1. Fix the infrastructure in the adjoining neighborhoods to include additional road access from other than Potter Valley Rd. 2. Ensure more than one fire evacuation route. 3. Ensure ample "green space" and sidewalks. 4. Lower the height of the buildings. Three story maximum. 5. Ensure water availability for all. 6. Ensure water runoff will not affect Potter Marsh. Thank you, K. Carman | |
| Daniel Stone | 8/20/2007 10:54:57 AM |
| I am opposed, as are all my Bear Valley neighbors, to the developers attempt to put high rises on the Hillside. The very idea flies in the face of reason and the proposed Hillside Plan. This is one of the most egregious development proposals we who have lived on the Hillside for decades have faced. Keeping our neighborhoods rural is a neverending battle it seems. As for their arguement that this will be for senior citizens, that is just a smoke screen and everyone knows it, admit it. There is no way for the MOA to hold them to their duplicitous plan. This is not about senior citizens, this is an end around by unscrupulous developers in search of big bucks. | |
| Lou Waller | 8/20/2007 10:33:27 AM |
| This is a bad proposal on many fronts and I and my family urge you to not approve this proposal or any proposal that would lead to high density housing on the Anchorage hillside and especially for the proposed area of development. To begin with, this proposal is contrary to the entire area and thus, creates an incompatable use. It should be rejected on this basis alone. The proposed housing development will create water runoff problems that the developer will not and cannot address adequately. Any disturbance to the vegetation and in particular the tree canopy, will create additional blow down of timber because of the thin soils, poor root systems of the trees and high wind conditions in the area. The resultant is that the area will become devoid of any tree cover. All you have to do is look at the disaster created in the Prominance Point development. The developer is proposing "senior housing" but there are no amenities in the area, or planned for the area, that would lead anyone to believe that is the real intent. A simple covenant change(lowering the age requirement) at a later date makes the development high density housing for anyone. The developer gets rich and the local neighborhood families are left with an incompatable use in their midst. The existing and/or proposed road system is not compatible with this proposal. There is no street lighting and, it is dangerous to walk and even drive the roads in the dark winter months. Huge amounts of money would have to be spent to bring the basic infrastructure up to standards that would lead anyone to believe it would be suitable for seniors. Many others have commented on this proposal concerning the overwhelming issues, concerns and problems associated with this proposal. I am in agreement with these concerns and thus, will not simply repeat what others have already stated. I and my family urge you not to approve this request. I am very much opposed to this proposal. Lou Waller | |
| Beth MacDowell | 8/20/2007 10:25:07 AM |
| I am writing to express my concerns with the Legacy Pointe project. We have resided in this area for over 20 years and have raised (and are still raising) our four children here. The amount of development over the past few years, without consideration for road impact and water run offs, has been disturbing. My concerns about this development are: 1. Safety. Not only is the intersection of Rabbit Creek and Goldenview a concern with the amount of increase traffic this type of development would produce, but having the traffic go past the intersection of Bluebell and Goldenview (considered a dangerous intersection by the community) is just beyond any reasonable thinking. 2. Ethics. It may be legal to develop senior housing in this area but is it ethical? How can you possibly monitor who is buying and residing in these units. Do folks have to show their birth certificates and do a stress test to illustrate their state of active health? This would be some of the least expensive new housing in Anchorage and will not be occupied by 62 plus age folks. Consider the impact of our neighborhood schools as families start to move in to fill the units? 3. Environment. It is not possible that there will not be a negative impact on the Potter Marsh environment with this massive amount of development. A lot of time and money has been put into place to preserve the Potter Marsh area, provide locals and tourist a great viewing site. Looking up at massive 5- story buildings is not attractive and until a known result (study) of the water run off in the area is done, no building should occur. 4. Existing homes. There have already been concerns with existing properties wells and septic systems with the new developments off of Goldenview Road the past few years. The city needs to respect the existing home owners of the area and protect their investments. I would ask the planning and zoning to not approve this development. Yes, the developers have a right to develop their property but it needs to be done in a way that is best for the community and the fragile environment that it is impacting. Thank you. | |
| Jim Picard | 8/20/2007 9:43:19 AM |
| I am in favor of the Legacy Pointe senior housing project. As a 32 year Anchorage resident, a homeowner in the hillside area since 1979, and age 60, I think the concept is both innovative and will address a void for our aging population that historically has relocated to the lower 48 as they reach retirement age. I think that the Not In My Neighborhood folks have thier own self interest at stake, similar to those that fought the extension of the coastal trail. In this particular case, the hillside neighbors also opposed the last, less dense proposed development. My suggestion would be that the neighbors that oppose this project purchase the undeveloped land and proposed project as a group before development, which will allow them to donate to a non-profit land conservation organization who will keep the land in its natural state. I think it is important to encourage investors willing to risk millions who wish to address senior housing, which need not be on flat land next to medical services and shopping centers. | |
| Jeremy Irons | 8/20/2007 2:03:33 AM |
| I live directly next to the land to be developed, I can see it from my bedroom window. I have lived in Alaska my whole life and in this neighborhood just as long. I enjoy seeing moose, bears and the occasional lynx or wolf from my house and hope to be able to continue to see this wildlife. I think this senior housing plan is a bad idea for many reasons. Sure I'm being a NIMBY for not wanting this development because it would ruin many of the aesthetic joys of my area, but it’s legitimately a bad idea for many other reasons mainly being large negative effects on the environment. High density housing on the hillside is a bad idea all together because of the prominent wetland areas on and around the proposed land. This development will create lots of runoff in other areas, since water does not soak into concrete or asphalt as well as some might think. This will lead to flooding and in the winter it will create glaciers over the trails and roads making it very dangerous for everyone using them. I don't want to be a cynic, and as much I'm sure the slippery trails will appeal to the active senior who likes a good challenge, I don't like driving down my road sideways or taking walks on my backside. The large development would take out a lot of wildlife habitat. The single private housing that mainly occupies the hillside leaves lots of forested areas between and around houses for wildlife to inhabit, a batch of condominiums would take out much more. Environmental concerns aside, the large 5 story condos would be a pimple on the face of the hillside and would fit in like a damp cat at Westminster. Another concern would be, who would actually live there? How many successful senior housing areas are there that are 15-30 minutes away, minimum, from any grocery stores, hospitals or malls. Seniors that need to be in a senior community or can't get along on their own probably also don't want to be that far from such amenities as medical care or food shopping. If and when the condominiums aren't successful, then what happens? Was it just a way to get around zoning laws and have people of all ages move in or will it just sit there, thirteen abandoned five story buildings on the beautiful hillside. Another issue is the excessive traffic it will create. I don't know where they'll fit the 700 cars, because 700 units means 700 seniors or senior couples, and with no bus system running anywhere near here, the seniors have to get their prescriptions and groceries somehow, and nothing is even close to walking distance, so they must all own cars. The increased traffic will be horrible in the winter, there are enough collisions as is on the icy roads and more people means more collisions. The already dangerous roads will become worse. The narrow glacier in the winter, the creek in the spring, and the bumpy ditch in the summer that is better known as 172nd avenue, is listed as a road that will be used for traffic to and from the housing area. The already narrow and steep road is converted into a one lane road in the winter and isn't a huge problem now because you rarely run into another car on it, but with 700 more people this will be a major problem. This road is hardly suitable for traffic as is. As children, my sister and I would call it "The Rollercoaster Road" because of the steep downhill that quickly turns back up hill and then drops back down and feels like a rollercoaster when driven on. This road is maintained from the pockets of the homeowners in the area that use it. If the use of the road is raised to 700-some extra drivers, then the maintenance will be a much bigger job and be needed much more often. I doubt the Legacy Pointe residents will volunteer to help out with the cost much if at all. The already dangerous Rabbit Creek/Goldenview intersection will become insanely dangerous in the winter with the extra cars on it. I've watched many accidents happen on my way to school in the winter as people fly down rabbit creek sideways and plow into other cars in the intersection. Factor in a couple more cars at the intersection at any given time and the amount of accidents would rise greatly. Another problem with several hundred extra elderly drivers is that the elderly have greatly reduced night vision and much slower reflexes which are accidents waiting to happen on the long winter nights and icy roads. I hope for the sake of the land, the wildlife, my view, and my car (because of the greatly increased danger of collisions with the excess traffic on the already treacherous roads), that this plan is not carried out. | |
| Sharon Clawson | 8/20/2007 1:59:14 AM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe request because I am concerned about the height of the buildings, the encroachment of multiple story, big box dwellings in a rural setting right above the Potter Marsh. It is not consistent with the 20/20 plan or the Hillside community. I also am concerned that the developer is not really interested in housing for the elders, but only grasping at straws to get around a zoning limit. Please place requirements on the developer regarding height and green space and if the housing is for the elders, require the facility to be built with that in mind as determined by experts in the area of senior housing. | |
| David Irons | 8/19/2007 11:28:34 PM |
| I am opposed to the proposal for 13, 5-story buildings totaling over 700 units for a Senior Housing Development above Potter Marsh, Planning Department Case Number 2006-142. I am a 22-year resident of the lower Hillside above Potter Marsh, I know this area very well: my family and I regularly walk, cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and sled on the subject tract. I have previously written and testified on several occasions before the Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission, Platting Board, and Assembly about the best uses for the land now proposed for development as “Legacy Pointe” and the downhill lands owned by Heritage Land Bank. A major problem with the current proposal is that it would result in a density of people greatly beyond the carrying capacity of this area with its steep slopes, winter icing, and tricky access. The current proposal for 700 dwelling units represents about 1400 drivers which is seven times more than what the area can really support, even with an additional collector road, and about twice the population that was previously rejected for the area. Additional significant issues with the proposal are that it: (1) is contrary to the generally rural character of adjacent neighborhoods and designated open space, (2) would destroy the well-used, historic Moen Trail, (3) is at odds with policies and goals established in “Anchorage 2020” and it’s companion document, “Living with Wildlife,” (4) would irreparably fragment and destroy the last open space and wildlife corridor connecting sea level marshes to the alpine tundra and protected ecosystem of Chugach State Park (characteristics that greatly contribute to Anchorage’s economy in the forms of tourism and positive mental and physical health), (5) would further compromise water quality and quantity essential to Potter Marsh in the Potter Point State Game Refuge, and (6) does not confirm coordination or timing of development with an undeveloped parcel to the south to complete a collector road. I am very disturbed by the potential for the potential collector road to connect Goldenview to Potter Valley Road to include a connection across a significant chunk of adjacent Open Space designated lands under Heritage Land Bank jurisdiction. A 1997 study by the Municipality concluded that the highest and best use for these 93 acres immediately west (downhill) of the subject property was as open space, due to a geologically unique cliff that prevented access, the incredibly high wildlife values, and fact that this area and the adjacent Legacy Pointe lands contribute half the water that sustains Potter Marsh, a State Critical Habitat and part of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The ruse to make this a development for elderly people is just that, a transparent cover to make the most money possible without having to go through zoning and planning. Yes we need housing for the elderly, but not in areas where there is no public transportation. Today, school buses do not enter this area because it is not safe for school children. This purposed development is using the same falsehood that they did in Eagle River a number of years ago, the developers used the excuse of housing for the elderly to put in high density housing. However, when they could not find elderly interested in buying their condos they pleaded to the city to allow them to change the rules and allow anyone to buy there. This is what will happen here, no doubt! | |
| Dick Tremaine | 8/19/2007 10:58:03 PM |
| The Municipality has proposed no means nor methods of enforcing an age limit on elderly housing while the developers have the legal means and methods to lower it by merely modifying the covenants. In addition, the Municipality should put little to no weight on the validity of the covenants submitted as being permanent. The covenants appear to be a temporary façade meant only to fulfill a legal requirement. • The convents made available to the public and Commission were written in 2006 (Page 46). • They restrict oil and mining operations – a curious restriction on apartments but an indication of covenants blindly copied from somewhere else with little forethought. (Sec 9.1(l), page 20) • They espouse to follow municipal statues concerning age of elderly (age 62, AMC 21.35.020) but then restrict guests under age 55 which is the federal standard for senior citizens (Sec 9.1(a)(iv)(4)(A), page 18). • Units may be leased for over six months, a time period which denotes long term rental apartments (Sec 9.1(d), page 18). • Basketball and other sports equipment shall be “stored out of sight from the street and other adjoining Unit Owners”. This is inconsistent with apartment living and is likely taken from covenants governing single family residences. (Sec 9.1(r), page 23) The only means of ensuring the legal mandate of housing for the elderly is maintained is to institute such restrictions by force of law. If the Commission sees fit to approve this site plan the following plat note should be attached: No dwelling may be occupied without the presence of a person aged 62 or older. Enforcement of the age restriction will be the legal duty and responsibility of the Legacy Pointe Condominium Owners Association or its successor in interest. Each violation of this requirement will constitute a separate misdemeanor. | |
| Christopher Jensen | 8/19/2007 3:05:33 PM |
| As far as I can tell, the majority of those opposed to this project have given some basis in fact, with clear reasons for their opposition. I think it is reasonable to ask that alternate roads, adequate water supplies, public transportation and facilities, and other important infrastructural concerns be addressed. There is also the mention of the waterways and the runoff, which are very important to Potter Marsh and the possible damage to that area. This is not just a "tree hugger" concern, but an economic concern as well as property values decline because we destroyed the attractive value of the area. Having read these concerns, I am opposed to this project as it currently stands. I see only a few people, who don't even live in this area, making alot of money by using a loophole to open up the facilities as an open-housing development. I do not forsee 715 units being sold reasonably for over-55 housing in the near future. | |
| Susan Green | 8/19/2007 1:34:14 PM |
| I am adamantly opposed to the proposed project. This appears to be a blatent attempt to sidestep the 2020 plan for innumerable reasons that are clearly listed in others' comments. It would have a devastating impact on the local wildlife and environment, particularly Potter Marsh. Inadequate road access, inadequate drainage ... there are simply too many reasons to fit into a comment. Please do not allow this development to go forward. | |
| Mike Edelmann | 8/19/2007 1:08:53 PM |
| In response to the comments supporting Legacy Pointe, I would like to ask the following questions: 1. To those that say they would like to own a condo on the hillside when the retire, Have you looked at the real estate listings and seen how many condos there are currently available on the hillside? 2. To those that think the nearby residences are opposing this solely for selfish reasons, I notice that you are supporting it solely for selfish reasons. (i.e. I want my parents to live there.) To which I offer the suggestion that they also look at the real estate listings and see how many condos are currently available on the hillside. 3. To those that currently live out of state, do you realize how far this development will be from shopping, medical services, and jobs? 4. To those that believe this is some form of assisted living, it is not. Recommend that you review the site plan. 5. To those that believe that there will be no one but the elderly living in these condos, realize that there is NO way to prevent the sale of these condos to those under the age of 62. I support the development of senior housing, but believe that this development has almost zero chance of being occupied by seniors. And, the development of private residences on public lands is fully in conflict with the intent of the zoning. | |
| Jennifer Seppi | 8/19/2007 9:39:46 AM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe development. I believe the developers have fooled or confused a great deal of Anchorage and Alaskan citizens. From reading other’s comments it is unclear what exactly Legacy Point is going to be. Is it independent living for “active” senior citizens? Is it semi-assisted or assisted living for those senior’s who are in need of such care? Which is it? The description the developers put out is that it is for active, independent seniors who can live on their own and even maintain a life style of hiking and skiing, which is going to be very hard to do when the project is complete with 13(huge) buildings, parking lots and paved side walks. As of now there are no official parklands for such activities in this area. (I know, I live here.) Or is it assisted living with 24 hour on-call nursing staff for those senior’s who have medical conditions or who are simply too frail to live on their own. My heart goes out to those people who have submitted stories of parents who are ailing or frail and had to move out of state because of lack of facilities in that city/state. But according to the developer “Legacy Point” will not be such a place, which is too bad, because that is what is needed for the city of Anchorage—affordable, assisted and semi-assisted living with on-call medical personnel. I completely realize and understand the need for senior housing and senior care in Anchorage, but “Legacy Point” is a “guise”, a false-hood, a fallacy. The developers of “Legacy Point” aren’t a philanthropic, humanitarian organization bringing affordable senior housing and care. They are a for-profit company looking for a way to maximize profits. Do the math, these 700+ condo’s would have to sell for at least $400K+ in order for them to make a profit if they spend $300 million to develop—not $200K as stated in the recent Anchorage Daily News article. Do the citizens of Anchorage know that they purchased the approximately 120 acre parcel for about $6 million, but have already made $3 million by selling about 13 acres to the Anchorage School District? The developers have already been shot down once by Planning and Zoning with their initial single-family housing development (then called “Forrest Heights”) because of concerns and question about traffic and roads, hydrology and water run-off just to name a few problems that existed with less densities then what they are proposing now. What has happened to all those original problems? Did they just magically go away because the developers are now trying to get in the back door by playing their “Public Lands and Institutions” hand? I don’t think so, the problems, concerns and questions that P&Z originally had are still there, and they are just going to exacerbated by a development of this size on the hill-side, which is already crumpling under the weight of the four large scale housing developments that are happening right now. True, the owners of this land in question have the right to build on “their land”, the people who live next to it (the “NIMBY’S”) are asking that it is done in congruence with the existing homes (by the way, I DON’T mean Prominence Point). | |
| helen armstrong | 8/18/2007 11:46:19 PM |
| I am opposed to this project. As a 25 year resident of this area, I think the proposed project just doesn't fit. The winters can be brutal for elderly folks (let alone folks like me). My husband and I chose my mother-in-law's condo carefully after searching all over Anchorage. We ended up with a condo unit Johns Road. We would not have considered the proposed location. Although she is an able, spunky Alaskan of many years, the icy roads and distance from hospital, church, etc. would not have worked. I think it is interesting from a demographic point of view that most of the supporting comments on this website come from zip codes outside of this area, i.e. those who haven't experienced our winters in this part of hillside. As an anthropologist, I strongly believe seniors should be enabled to live where they want, but the proposed project does not make sense! 700+ units on hillside, and where traffic is an issue, access to care is an issue, etc.? Finally, as one who has raised a family in this beautiful area, this proposed project's aesthetics are totally out of character. Big massive buildings clustered together...it doesn't make sense. | |
| helen armstrong | 8/18/2007 11:45:50 PM |
| I am opposed to this project. As a 25 year resident of this area, I think the proposed project just doesn't fit. The winters can be brutal for elderly folks (let alone folks like me). My husband and I chose my mother-in-law's condo carefully after searching all over Anchorage. We ended up with a condo unit Johns Road. We would not have considered the proposed location. Although she is an able, spunky Alaskan of many years, the icy roads and distance from hospital, church, etc. would not have worked. I think it is interesting from a demographic point of view that most of the supporting comments on this website come from zip codes outside of this area, i.e. those who haven't experienced our winters in this part of hillside. As an anthropologist, I strongly believe seniors should be enabled to live where they want, but the proposed project does not make sense! 700+ units on hillside, and where traffic is an issue, access to care is an issue, etc.? Finally, as one who has raised a family in this beautiful area, this proposed project's aesthetics are totally out of character. Big massive buildings clustered together...it doesn't make sense. | |
| Debbie Dragich | 8/18/2007 10:57:45 PM |
| I am opposed to the proposed Legacy Pointe project. The Hillside area is not the place for high density housing. It lacks the infrastructure and provides Anchorage with an increasingly rare area for natural land features and habitat. The continued decimation of the Hillside, which acts as a natural watershed, is creating escalating drainage, erosion and traffic problems. The topography of this parcel of land is not conducive for elderly housing as it is difficult to access and provides little safe outdoor area for people with limited mobility. Even if this is advertised to be for more "active seniors" the fact remains that as we age, our bodies are less agile, more brittle and balance becomes more difficult. Reflexes are slower and responding quickly to prevent an accident becomes more difficult. In an area with difficult access by motor vehicle (school buses won't even drive up there), senior drivers are at significant risk leaving the area to access necessary services that are not nearby (e.g. groceries, medical care, banking, etc). These facts support the conclusion that a proposal to allow non-seniors to fill vacant housing in the project will likely occur. The municipality already has a history of allowing ill-conceived developments at the tax payer's expense. For example, following the '64 earthquake, the municipality proclaimed they would not support infrastructure in the Turnagain subdivision. Subsequently the residents who rebuilt there had a change of heart and decided the municipality should pay their way anyway. We as tax payers have had to support their poor choices and their lifestyles. We do not want to be left holding the bag for a bad idea again. Senior housing in Alaska is a great idea. Now we need to find an appropriate place for it. This is not it. | |
| karl johnstone | 8/18/2007 11:57:31 AM |
| It is obvious that the planning staff prepared this report before considering the many many comments in opposition. The report is dated Aug. 20 , but was signed at least two days, perhaps more, before its date. Why was that done? Was it to make it look like there was more lengthy consideration of all the comments? When did the report get written and exactly when did the Staff decide to recommend that the development plan be approved? It is a very comprehensive and long report that in my opinion would have taken a long time to prepare with the need for many drafts. Did the staff or supervisors even read the comments, or had they made up their minds some time before the comment period expired? Did any staff member even consider the traffic issue at the intersection of Potter Valley rd and the Seward Highway? Are any Staff or Commision members aware of the existing hazards of turning off Seward highway into the subdivision? The creation of a new road from the development connecting to Potter valley rd at the hairpin turn will, according to the report, put %60 percent of the residents at the intersection of Potter valley rd and Seward highway. And, this according to the projected numbers of times a resident accesses his residenceas per the report, will more then triple the intersection traffic. It appears that this really was not addressed by the Staff in any adequate manner. Why not? After all the times that this project has been rejected, why the rush now to approve it? What is really going on here? | |
| Micheal Driscoll | 8/18/2007 11:06:08 AM |
| I do not support the approval of the Legacy Point Senior Community development. Others comments have detailed the various ways in which the proposed development is not in alignment with Anchorage 2020, is of questionable legality, and is based on weak demand for this type of housing. See, for example, comments by Ann Rappoport (8/17/2007) and Oliver Scott Goldsmith (8/15/2007). I agree with their analyses and am dismayed that the Planning Staff Analysis seems to be based on an unsupportable view of law, planns, and reality. The owners certainly have a right to develop their land, but the development must be within the standards and legal framework we have set for ourselves and to which we been held in developing our properties. The staff recommendation should be rejected and this development should be denied. | |
| valerie van brocklin | 8/18/2007 10:33:42 AM |
| I have read all of the comments on the proposed development and i have read the recommendation of the staff. First i believe that the recommendation to approve the plan was made long before all the comments were made in opposition simply because of its complexity and length. How else could such a long and complex recommendation have been put together in such a short period of time, ie, from the August 10 cut off to the 19th of August, unless it had been decided before the cut off date and the staff did not care what was said by those in opposition. It seems to me that the commission or staff had already made up their collective minds and really did not have time or inclination to read those comments in opposition. Having said that and after reading the recommendation i would like to point out the traffic hazards that will be created by development of a Potter valley road connection. Any one who has had to turn left off the Seward highway into the Potter valley subdivision knows how dangerous it can be, and particularly on weekends when traffic from the Kenai penninsula is coming back to Anchorage. The same holds true for traffic trying to turn onto the Seward highway from Potter valley road. With the existing traffic it is a nightmare to turn off the highway and cars are often lined up for several minutes trying to turn. There is no traffic light and if there was one it would stack up the Seward highway for many miles with traffic not moving at all. So, now the staff recommends a connection with Potter valley road from the new high density development that will likely more then double existing taffic that will be trying to get off or on to the Seward highway. I suggest such idea is dangerous and will lead to severe traffic problems and on site auto crashes. Perhaps those who are making this recommendation should come out our way on sunday afternoon or during rush hour and see for themselves what a problem they are about to create. | |
| David Weed | 8/17/2007 12:50:24 PM |
| Having read the Planning Staff Analysis and individual Case Comments it is clear to me that there are substantial differences of opinion. I do not believe that the proposed use qualifies as "Senior Housing" under the Municipal Code. Recently a stream that runs from Goldenview down the South boundary of Pennington Park and the subject parcel was remapped. Even though the developers knew that the MOA had originally mapped the stream incorrectly, they utilized the incorrect placement for their plans. Why? Because it was convenient and they really do not care about the hydrology anyway. Once they are allowed on to the land with heavy equipment, they will tear the parcel up leaving a mess that will hasten the death of Potter Marsh and cause innumerable runoff problems. The Analysis notably fails to mention any buffering and landscaping along the Eastern boundary with Pennington Park (See pp. 18-19). This should have at least the same 100' buffer that is mentioned for the Northern boundaries. Like several of the people who submitted comments, I believe that the developers know that this project is simply a subterfuge to allow the commencement of development of this parcel. Once they have begun grading and have destroyed much of the aesthetic and natural value of the property they will stop the project and petition for changes. Regarding feeder streets, the Analysis mentions Bettijean, 172nd Ave. and Belarde. Neither 172nd nor Belarde are maintained, and both exist as narrow, rough thinly graveled tracks. Bettijean does not exist at all from Kallander to the Southern boundary of Pennington Park. In discussing this with a member of the developer's engineering firm, I was told that they knew this but that the MOA would build it. Is the MOA going to build Bettijean with the necessary bridge or substantial culvert and a full 322' of new roadway? And, is the MOA going to rebuild or upgrade Belarde, 172nd and related feeder streets to service this parcel? The developer's approach reminds me of Joe Cange promising to provide water to the Goldenview Middle School site years ago. The MOA relied on this promise and found itself fooled later. Each and every promise made by these developers should be bonded before the first shovelful of dirt is moved. This includes the full water and sewer projects, road projects, trail construction, buffering and landscaping projects, and a sufficient sum to rehabilitate streams and drainage. If this is not done, we the tax payers will be left holding the bag. | |
| Tim Kelley | 8/17/2007 12:11:36 PM |
| The owners of this property have the right to develop it. But they should come up with a development plan that makes sense. A sprawling senior housing condominium complex at this location does not make sense. Building massive structures on the side of a mountain, in a location that is hammered by Turnagain Arm winds, where will be no safe place for residents to walk and recreate, or safely drive in the winter … is just plain dumb. To think that the proposed facility at this location would be an enjoyable place for retirees to live - is asinine. A much better location for such a senior facility would be Palmer or Wasilla. Gentler terrain can be found in the Valley where a golf course and walking trails could be included, much like the retirement condo developments found in the lower 48. Plus the cost of a Valley based senior community would likely be a lot less, so more older Alaskans could actually afford to live there. Lower density housing could make sense on this site. Building a steep hillside senior citizen condo complex on this site would rank up there with site-condos in terms of ill-conceived, corruptly maneuvered and irresponsible development in Anchorage. | |
| Ann Rappoport | 8/17/2007 10:08:11 AM |
| I oppose the proposal for 13, 5-story buildings totaling over 700 units for a Senior Housing Development above Potter Marsh, Planning Department Case Number 2006-142. I appreciate the developers’ attention to several concerns raised in public hearings, at Community Council meetings, and elsewhere. However serious flaws remain. As a 22-year resident of the lower Hillside above Potter Marsh, I know this area well: my family and I regularly walk, cross-country ski, observe wildlife, and sled on the subject tract. I have previously written and testified on several occasions before the Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission, Platting Board, and Assembly about the best uses for the land now proposed for development as “Legacy Pointe” and the downhill lands owned by Heritage Land Bank. I will summarize my concerns suggest alternatives that could better provide something for everyone. A major problem with the current proposal is that it would result in a density of people greatly beyond the carrying capacity of this area with its steep slopes, winter icing, and tricky access. My neighbors and I successfully petitioned the Planning and Zoning Commission a couple years ago regarding a proposal to develop this area at two houses per acre. We documented why the area should not be developed at more than one dwelling per acre and a quarter, which would result in just over 100 dwelling units on the property. With an average family size of four, that would mean adding about 200 drivers to already overcrowded roads. The current proposal for 700 dwelling units represents about 1400 drivers which is seven times more than what the area can really support, even with an additional collector road, and about twice the population that was previously rejected for the area. Additional significant issues with the proposal are that it: (1) is contrary to the generally rural character of adjacent neighborhoods and designated open space, (2) would destroy the well-used, historic Moen Trail, (3) is at odds with policies and goals established in “Anchorage 2020” and it’s companion document, “Living with Wildlife,” (4) would irreparably fragment and destroy the last open space and wildlife corridor connecting sea level marshes to the alpine tundra and protected ecosystem of Chugach State Park (characteristics that greatly contribute to Anchorage’s economy in the forms of tourism and positive mental and physical health), (5) would further compromise water quality and quantity essential to Potter Marsh in the Potter Point State Game Refuge, and (6) does not confirm coordination or timing of development with an undeveloped parcel to the south to complete a collector road. I am very disturbed by the potential for the potential collector road to connect Goldenview to Potter Valley Road to include a connection across a significant chunk of adjacent Open Space designated lands under Heritage Land Bank jurisdiction. A 1997 study by the Municipality concluded that the highest and best use for these 93 acres immediately west (downhill) of the subject property was as open space, due to a geologically unique cliff that prevented access, the incredibly high wildlife values, and fact that this area and the adjacent Legacy Pointe lands contribute half the water that sustains Potter Marsh, a State Critical Habitat and part of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Only the southeast corner of the Heritage Land Bank property was identified for a possible future road corridor – not a road that would bisect and fragment over half the property. I do applaud the developers for maintaining as open space the predominantly wetland and spring, western 29 acres of the property, and for addressing residents and Anchorage 2020 concerns that neighborhood fragmentation be avoided by providing access points and trails as neighborhood connectivity for school children and area residents. I recommend that the Commission send the developers back to the drawing table with recommendations to produce a viable alternative that could provide something for everyone. This should include: * Redesigning the collector road, confirming that it will not fragment a major portion of adjacent Heritage Land Bank lands – a brief section that exceeds desirable slope standards would not be out of character with the surrounding area and what residents are accustomed to. * Building no more than two, high-density senior housing buildings, at the eastern end of the property, closest to Goldenview Drive. * Considering some large (2 to 5-acre) lots around the edges of the property or clustered off short access points. * Retaining the Moen Homestead Trail to the maximum extent possible, or with some minor rerouting. * Protecting wetlands by not developing the western edge where they are concentrated and using bridges if crossings are necessary. | |
| Anita Davis | 8/16/2007 4:23:00 PM |
| As neighbors to this property, we are very concerned about this proposal. 172nd is very steep and is not a real street in any sense - yet the development has an entrance/exit on 172nd. Who will pay for improving and maintaining it? Goldenview will be the main road all these people will use (no matter what type of connection they make to Potter Road - NO ONE GOES SOUTH TO GO NORTH!!!). The intersection at Rabbit Creek and Goldenview is extremely dangerous and overused now. It has been determined that it is too steep to put in a traffic light and has been improved as much as it can be. There is more density planned east of Goldenview that is already approved that will add to this traffic problem along with a proposed Elementary School at the south end of Goldenview. How can this one road support all of this?? Anyone who thinks it will be easy and feasible to have emergency egress and access for emergency vehicles to this condo community has not driven up here in the winter. There are no medical facilities nearby. We are skeptical about plans to keep the streams and water viable. We walk the gasline trail often and the glaciation is extreme. We are also very concerned about the height and size of these condos - they are completely out of character and scale for this area. Even with extra buffers these will overwhelm everything around them. While it would have been ideal to have this land be a nature preserve and park - that is a pipe dream obviously. There are lots of dollars to be made here - just please make this a reasonable development in keeping with our neighborhood that respects the wildlife and people who live here. | |
| Stacey Allen | 8/16/2007 2:33:37 PM |
| I am in support of the Legacy Pointe project. I agree with many of the comments that our Seniors in Alaska deserve more options. Many of them do not want to give up their active lifestyle, standard of living, or move away from their friends and family. I too live near Potter Valley/Old Seward Hwy and also use these roadways for driving, running and biking. This area needs more road improvements regardless if there is another project in the works or not. | |
| Charity Sandoval | 8/16/2007 1:40:52 PM |
| Let give them a safe,secure, clean place to live at an affordable price. | |
| Gary Hansen | 8/16/2007 1:23:21 PM |
| While I am not an Alaska resident, I have been involved with financing of commercial properties in Anchorage since 1972. It has been very satisfying to be a part of the development of Anchorage from the struggling, remote community that I visited in the early 1970's to an attractive modern American city. Legacy Pointe will provide a needed element to provide services active senior residents desire and need. | |
| Brian Scheff | 8/16/2007 1:03:10 PM |
| I current live out of state but I lived in Alaska for 27 years and still own property at Hatcher Pass. I am writing today because I have been shocked at the negative response to this project. It's hard for me to believe that people are so short sighted that they can't see the huge benefits a project like this can afford the people of Anchorage. I speak from personal experience when I say this project is long over due. In the last 3 years I have lost both of my parents and my family has experienced significant hardships because there wasn't an option like this available to them when they retired. My mother, Helen Scheff, and father, Gil Scheff spent 25 years in Anchorage and my Sister and niece still live there. My mother retired from the Anchorage school district and my father was one of the original board members of the Alaska Aviation Museum on Lake Hood. One of the planes he owned current hangs from the ceiling at the airport. Un fortunately, when they retired they had few options in Anchorage that were as suitable as this development would be. As long time Alaskans they were forced to make the tough choice of moving out of state to find a comfortable living environment. Had they been able to stay in Anchorage surrounded by friends and family most studies say they would have lived quite a bit longer. When the time came that they needed more care they were so far away my sister was forced to quit her job and move to the lower 48 to be of assistance. Our story is not an uncommon one. Seniors are forced to move in alarming numbers because of a lack of viable options in Anchorage. The complaints about this project I have heard thus far center around 2 things; aesthetics and the ridiculous assertion that the location is too far from medical facilities. As far as the Aesthetics, I have looked at the planned community and based on what's been submitted for approval there will be far less visual impact from these buildings than if the property was developed for single family homes. In addition, the vegetation is so thick in that area there is very little visibility from the highway to anything below the tree line on the hillside. As far as being close to facilities my experience here in Southern California for the last few years leads me to believe there is a Senior development every few miles. Very few are right around the corner from a hospital and most of the residents have no more mobility problems than the average community. Seniors pay their taxes, take pride in where they live, are typically quiet neighbors and deserve our respect. The people worried about this development seem to be saying this kind of community is okay as long as it's not in my backyard. They act as if Seniors are second class citizens and are treating this project as if it was a proposed jail or half way house. Shame on them and shame on you if you let petty personal beliefs stand in the way of keeping our parents and grand parents right where they belong, Close to home! | |
| Delores Scott | 8/16/2007 11:59:58 AM |
| I have lived in Anchorage since 1974. I have loved the Hillside area, and I am a resident in the area. The last two winters, with 2006 being the worst, I have a grave concern regarding the run off of water that is causing glaciered and hazardous effects on our roads in my area. I drive a SUV with four wheel drive and four studded tires. As I drive down Romaina and Goldenview during the winter months with the glaciered roads, I feel a that I am in harms way for both me and my vehicle traveling over these large affected areas. Until all the development in our area nature had it properly balanced and taken care of. Now we humans, keeping the greed and loop holes out of it, have to respect nature and keep the balance needed in developing our area. I also have experienced, with our one way out onto Rabbit Creek Road on a regular basis, a serious problem with the bottle necking at certain times of the day at the intersection at Goldenview. I also feel a safety concern for our residents who love to enjoy the out of doors,i.e., running, biking, walking,etc.. This area is truly beautiful, with family oriented values, and I will do all that I can to keep it that way. Thank you, and please feel free to call or email me. Sincerely, Delores Scott | |
| Macgill Adams | 8/16/2007 11:36:12 AM |
| I have had a long track record against all the previous high density development proposals for this parcel and continue to reccommend against the current proposal. My main concern lies in the hydrological complications that exist on this steep hillside location. There is water running across this entire parcel. Bulldozing foundations for large condos in this environment will not be without consequence which will likely be shared by those buying into the community, those that live down or across slope from the project and Potter's Marsh. The record is reflected by the two most recent development projects in the area which is from building much smaller scale buildings. This is just a very bad idea. In the past the board has used superb disapline resisting developing this parcel recklessly. As for the current development scheme of senior housing, I feel that this is just a convenient entry positioning rather than fufilling a need for senior members of our community. There may be no doubt that such a proposal could be an asset to our greater Anchorage community, however to be effective and useful it should be located in a part of town more accessible to all the other services these seniors may require like health care, financial planning and legal consulting to name a few. Locating such a facillity here does not turn a horse into a zebra it just makes another bad horse. Once this begins and then proves unsuccessful ( does our down turned housing market really have 13 condos worth of senior citizens waiting to support this proposal), we will see a change in the vision and request to alter the plan. Legacy Point will need its own 'surge' to stabilize the economics of their ill conceived plan and we, the local community, will be paying the cost. That's why weare asking you to say - no way. This is absolutely unrealistic, just look at the drawing they submit, there is no place on that parcel flat enough to have that building sitting there like that without huge retaining walls above and below it. Please use the same disapline you have showed in the past and resist another get rich quick scheme for some of Anchorage's last valuable open land. | |
| Marten Martensen | 8/16/2007 9:51:30 AM |
| It seems today that nearly every development is debateable ie. the development for senior living on the Rabbit Creek Hillside. If the land is zoned for this use why is it being debated? The debate arrises from angry residents that don't want traffic in their area or are afraid that this development will impare their scenic view's from their homes. Well these residents should have considered this when the land was for sale and purchased it for themselves. The developers of this senior community project will develop this property responsibly and should be allowed to proceed. | |
| Oliver Scott Goldsmith | 8/15/2007 7:24:58 PM |
| I am the author of the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research study referenced on the Legacy Point Senior Community website as evidence of the need for “an exclusive senior community” ($1.5 Billion A Year and Growing: Economic Contribution of Older Alaskans, ISER 2006). I am also a “senior” aged 62, a 32 year resident of Alaska, and a current resident of the hillside. I am strongly opposed to the Legacy Point Senior Community Development. Since others have pointed out most of the arguments against this absurd development that does not pass the “straight face test”, I will confine my comments to the fact that the developers have not shown that there is a demand for even a fraction of the 715 proposed units. They have not presented a market study showing where these active seniors will come from. Instead they have simply relied on the notion (that makes everyone feel so good) that we need to do something for our senior population, be it to keep them in the state to be close to relatives, or to keep their money in the economy, or simply to reward them for being old. But if we really wanted to do something for our seniors would it be this development? Not according to the AARP Alaska Member Survey published in 2002 which asked seniors what their main concerns were. The need for an “exclusive senior community” did not make the list, and the only housing related concern was the ability of seniors to stay in their own home as they aged. This of course means the delivery of services to seniors in their homes so they do not have to move into assisted living facilities. And when soon-to-be seniors who planned to leave Alaska were asked the reason in an Alaska Commission on Aging survey in 2000, no one mentioned the absence of an “exclusive senior community”. Leavers wanted a better climate, proximity to friends and relatives, and a lower cost of living environment. Since there is no market study to review, we have to estimate the size of the “exclusive senior community” market, and compare it to the size of this proposed development of 715 units. (Of course the size of the market should be considerably bigger than the proposed development, because this will minimize project risk from things like competitors entering the market with a superior product.) The size of the market depends four factors—1. the number of households (one of more persons living together) containing a person aged 62 plus, 2. the income of those households, 3. the ability of those households to live independently, and 4. the desire of those households to live in a seniors-only condominium community with the characteristics of Legacy Point. If we put these 4 factors together, the size of the potential market, today and over the next decade, is small compared to the size of the project. Although the number of households in Anchorage in 2000 with at least one person 62+ was almost 13 thousand, many involved grandma or grandpa living with the kids (US Census 2000, Public Use Sample). If we restrict ourselves to those households where either the head of household or spouse was 62+ the number drops to 11.4 thousand. We know from the project description that the units in this development would not be cheap, so an income of at least $75 thousand per year might be necessary to be able to afford a unit. Only about 30 percent of those 11.4 thousand households—3.4 thousand—reported an annual income at least that high. And of course many of those seniors reported some disability on the census such as limited mobility or a personal care limitation that would make it difficult for them to live in this proposed development or to live independently. So based on the census there would have been probably fewer than 3 thousand households in Anchorage that were old enough, rich enough, and not too sick or frail, and from whom demand for an ‘exclusive senior community” would come. A lot of these households are composed of people still working and consequently not yet thinking about retirement and possibly moving. Of those who are retired many would prefer a single family home or a condominium in another location. These alternatives are currently available and many seniors seem to be perfectly happy with them. Others might prefer a development that includes a continuum of care from independent living to nursing care because it provides more continuity over time or because they are one of the many single person households. Many others would prefer not to live in a development composed entirely of seniors. Although over time the size of the senior population will grow, does anyone really believe there will be enough demand to fill 715 senior housing units in this development? | |
| Carol Fries | 8/15/2007 4:28:31 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to the proposed Legacy Pointe Senior Housing project site plan. First of all this is NOT senior housing. This is a thinly veiled attempt to insert high-density condominiums on the hillside in the midst of low-density residential neighborhoods with gravel roads and a demonstrable lack of infrastructure needed to support higher density developments. Experts in senior care in our community have clearly articulated the reasons why this development is not a sensible approach to senior housing. There is no supporting infrastructure. Hospitals, medical facilities and shopping are miles away down icy steep roads. There is no public transportation. Emergency services will be difficult to provide in the event of a disaster. The developer’s previous proposal for this site was found to be inconsistent with Anchorage 2020. The current proposal is also inconsistent with the policies, goals and objectives of Anchorage 2020 but to an even greater degree; • Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; • Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; • Policy # 46, The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; • Policy # 49, Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development • Strategy, page 81, The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. Furthermore and perhaps most simply, this proposal clearly does not meet the requirements of PLI contained in code. There is absolutely nothing “public” about this proposal. Not only that, but the developers and the municipality are proposing to take public lands set aside as open space to use for the development of a connector road to subsidize this development. These are quite simply five story condominiums, developed by a private developer and sold to private individuals. We should not be asked to subsidize this development with open space that was set aside through a valid public process nor should we be expected to subsidize this by abandoning the protections afforded by law to existing neighborhoods through Anchorage 2020. Yes, the owners of this parcel have a right to develop their property. However, they should apply for a rezone that is consistent with Anchorage 2020 and develop a proposal consistent with the character of adjacent neighborhoods. Yes seniors should have the ability to stay in Alaska but that is NOT the issue here. The issue before the Commission focuses on zoning, land use planning, the law, and the rights of existing residents to expect some degree of stability and protection within their neighborhoods. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Darcie Salmon | 8/15/2007 4:03:32 PM |
| I am writing to speak in favor of the Legacy Pointe conominium project. I have been a licensed real estate licensee in Alaska for over 23 years and will be 55 myself in November. I have watched as my peers and I have grown older and more set in our ways. This project is just what the doctor ordered for those of us who want to maintain our residency in the great state of Alaska and yet not have the day to day hassles of fingle family residential ownership. The opportunity to have everything centrally located without being responsible for the common area maintenance and having a nice commons area to sit and talk with friends or play games or get a workout without havinig to jump in the car to go somewhere to do so is a refreshing thought. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in favor of a sorely needed prject for the Anchorage Municipality. Darcie K. Salmon | |
| Kevin Branson | 8/15/2007 3:22:54 PM |
| I am in favor of the Legacy Pointe project. I appreciate the time, money and effort the people behind the project are putting into it so it will be good for the community. There appears to be a need for Senior housing. This type of housing would be attractive to me in a few years. | |
| Nichol Wilson | 8/15/2007 11:56:28 AM |
| Legacy Pointe is a great idea. Even though I'm in my late 20's and my husband is just 30 years of age, our parents are retirement age, and we want to keep them in Alaska, close to us and to our children. This upscale project would give our parents a choice - to stay in Alaska! Please vote YES to allow this project to go forward. | |
| Julie Bendle | 8/15/2007 10:12:04 AM |
| Julie Bendle Wasilla, Alaska I fully support the Legacy Pointe project for several reasons. My parents homesteaded here in the 1950’s and I have lived here my entire life. If they had a beautiful place like this my parents would not have moved out of state when they retired over 10 years ago. They were healthy active seniors but had no desire to live in a “Senior Center”. Alaska did not have any senior projects like this available or they would have never left. They did not want the worry of keeping up the house during the winter, or when they traveled. If there would have been a beautiful place like Legacy Pointe then my parents would have stayed in our beautiful state, and been able to watch their grandchildren and great grandchildren grow more closely. Seniors contribute a large sum of money to this state and we should be accommodating them as we do tourists. Without places like this available, we are forcing our seniors to seek places like this in other states which is not a positive situation for our state. I also have every intention of staying in our beautiful state, and would love to have a place like Legacy Pointe to retire to in the future. The area chose is a beautiful area in which will offer all of the amenities that a senior could desire. This is definitely a very positive project for all of us lifelong Alaskans who want to live their dream. | |
| Andy Lundquist | 8/15/2007 9:33:45 AM |
| I live presently on Kodiak Island, I have lived in Anchorage (10 years) and have resided in Alaska for the last 35 years--Alaska is home. I'm 62 years old and this project sounds like something Alaska deparately needs--"upscale senior housing". Opposition to this project is primarily by a bunch of tree-hugger, NIBY type folks--why don't these people pack up their smoke-free, politically correct, Subaru driving asses back south were they came from (they need to take Coffey, Tesche, Begich and a few other similar jerks with them). | |
| Walter Featherly | 8/14/2007 6:36:32 PM |
| I support the Legacy Pointe project. I am 52 years old and have lived in Alaska for over 40 years. My residence is located on the Hillside of Anchorage. I am in favor of the Legacy Pointe project because the impact it will have on the enviromment is signficantly smaller than if the subject parcel were developed into single family residences, which is the way that most of the rest of the hillside in Anchorage has been developed. In contrast to tracts of single family homes, the condominium development for Legacy Pointe will allow most of the subject land to remain as undisturbed open space. Higher density housing, rather than more suburban sprawl, is exactly the type of development we should all want to see occur in Anchorage. The developers of Legacy Pointe should be applauded for designing such an environmentally-friendly project. | |
| Harold White | 8/14/2007 3:32:05 PM |
| As active seniors, who lived in Alaska for over 12 years, both my wife and I are in favor of this well thought out project. Had this project been avaialable sooner, we may well have lived there ourselves ! Hopefully, we'll see a realization of it when we visit Anchorage next year ! Regards; Harold and Lynda White | |
| Michael Tavoliero | 8/14/2007 11:37:57 AM |
| Baby Boomers have revolutionized our culture with every stage of their lives. Through each stage, they have been the most innovative, technologically savvy, and demanding population in our country’s history, and they are now getting ready to retire. This growing population of older adults will once again revolutionize the retirement industry. They are, for the most part, the wealthiest generation yet produced by the modern United States. They are beginning to buy up land in parts of Canada and the United States, sending real estate prices to new highs in areas that have been flat for years. They do not want the sterile, traditional “old-folks’ home.” They do want aesthetics, independence, dignity, service, and respect. They will stand for nothing less. Even though they are aging, they are not going to go along quietly as their parents did. As a nation, many communities now feel the strain, but also the opportunity, of providing for their aging population. Congress struggles to provide prescription drug benefits for today’s 34 million seniors. The cost of caring for older adults will escalate sharply after 2011, when the numbers of retiring Baby Boomers sharply increase. However, this is also a chance for many communities to create a new tax and revenue base. Anchorage has some unique challenges with its growing retirement population. The needs of this group are beginning to tax the existing services, and threaten to stretch our community's as well as our state’s social and economic resources. Anchorage needs to face the challenges and opportunities inherent in this new demographic. If we do not act now to develop a more effective and less costly model for delivering health care and wellness services to seniors starting with active living senior communities such as Legacy Pointe, not only could we be faced with a crisis that tests our state’s well-being, but we could miss an incredible opportunity for establishing a new economic base and source of revenues. I support the proposal to develop the Legacy Pointe Community, a community offering state of the art homes and services for retiring Alaskan residents. This project will also provide opportunities for new growth and development in Anchorage. With Legacy Pointe, Anchorage has an opportunity to offer retirees the quality of active living retirement life they are looking for, and to build a new source of employment and revenues that will last at least 20 to 30 years. | |
| Darlene Wilson | 8/14/2007 10:22:05 AM |
| Even though I do not live in Anchorage, I think this is a great idea. Myself and my children have all lived in Alaska since 1963 (the younger ones since birth). This would be a great opportunity for all. I will pass this msg on to them, as I know my oldest son is planning his retirement and is thinking on these lines. It would be great if plans such as this would spread to the rest of Alaskan cities! | |
| Ed Zehrung | 8/14/2007 8:06:16 AM |
| This would be an awesome project and an opportunity for active seniors (I am one) to live in a community with luxury Amenities like younger people have available. Thank You! | |
| Andrea Bateman | 8/13/2007 8:48:33 PM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe development for several reasons. I do NOT live in the area, so it is not a case of "NIMBY" for me. I would like everyone who thinks this would be an attractive development for seniors to consider the case of the Mountain Rose condos in Eagle River developed by the Petersen group (recently changed to the Harmony condos). This beautiful condos, priced around $300k, are ranch-style, handicapped accessible, nestled in a nice community, just across the highway from Fred Meyers and two medical clinics in development, and close to the rest of Eagle River. After a dismal THREE condos sold after over a year on the market, they were converted from over-55 housing to open housing. So WHY would anyone believe the Legacy Pointe units would sell? As I said, I do not live in the area - but I did (recently moved from Wolf Creek Circle). Why did we move? Dangerous roads, a full 20 minutes to midtown (on a good day), no sidewalks, no parks, no trails. A full 10 minutes down an icy Rabbit Creek Rd to the basic services such as a grocery store, no public transportation, poor enforcement of current codes leading to irresponsible development....need I go on? My active, healthy 60+ parents just moved here from Oregon and they bought one of the Mountain Rose condos in Eagle River and they couldn't be happier...and they agree the Legacy Pointe development is insanity. Let's keep our seniors here (and get new ones up here) but let's do it right. Thank you. | |
| james crawford | 8/13/2007 5:53:30 PM |
| I support this project because as a 55 year old retired carpenter, my wife and I wish to stay in Alaska to stay close to our kids and grandkids. We are looking for a winter spot in warmer climes, but wish to stay here in the summer. This project sounds like a good way to go. Any new option for retirees here in alaska is good. | |
| Micky Crawford | 8/13/2007 3:47:25 PM |
| This is a wonderful idea, and long overdue! I don't think the NIMBY's should be able to dictate totally about the project; seniors have so much wisdom and experience to pass along to our young. Since my husband and I are both (quickly..) approaching retirement, we would hope to be able to have a secure home-base in Alaska, to be closer to our kids and grandkids. Arizona is wonderful -- in the winter -- but a little too hot for us in the summer. Ideal retirement would be to "summer" in Alaska, lock the door after Christmas, and become the snow birds of Arizona, or Florida, or Hawaii -- to allow the sun to bake our old bones. Please allow this project to go forward. Thanks | |
| Lance Sweet | 8/12/2007 11:13:27 PM |
| I received this method of sharing my opinion late but wanted it known that I fully support the Legacy Pointe Development project. There is a trememdous need for housing for the elderly, not only for those locally, but a project like this will draw incredible interest from folks outside as well. The development would also be beneficial to those adjacent the project respective to access and fire and rescue services. I strongly support the project and believe that approval from Planning and Zoning is warranted. Lance J. Sweet | |
| Yvonne Goldsmith | 8/12/2007 2:26:46 PM |
| I oppose the proposed Legacy Pointe senior housing in Goldenview, in its current design, for several reasons. First, the multi-story development does not fit the character of upper Hillside nor the spirit of the “public lands and institutions” zoning. Regardless of what the overall average number of units per acre works out to be, the density of Legacy Pointe is far above what exists in Hillside. Some proponents say that the impact of this development would be much less than several hundred single family dwellings. However, they err in comparing Legacy Pointe to an alternate use that is not allowed under the existing zoning. Second, Legacy Pointe does not truly qualify as senior housing. Most senior-only communities require all residents to be at least 55 years old. If only one person per household is required to be 62, then the true impact of the development, especially with traffic patterns, will be like any other large multi-unit development. Moreover, the small number of seniors will be too few to support the kinds of services that seniors (active or not) want such as transportation to popular destinations and organized group activities both on- and off-site. If a transportation service is not part of the development, the number of seniors who are able to live in the development will be limited. I am not opposed to the concept of senior housing in Hillside, being a Hillside resident, close to retirement and wanting to stay in Anchorage forever. The critical factor that will determine whether or not I stay in my house/live in Alaska is mobility. Legacy Pointe offers nothing for mobility – if I can’t drive I won’t be able to live there. In sum, I ask you to deny approval of Legacy Pointe pending consensus on these issues: 1) tightening the criteria for senior housing and explaining the means for enforcement; 2) reducing the bulk of the facilities (fewer buildings and/or fewer stories); 3) addressing road access to Seward Highway and the safety of the intersection at the Seward Highway; and 4) addressing transportation services for residents. | |
| gary and susan miller | 8/12/2007 7:44:41 AM |
| we want senior condos in our potter valley area, and like the idea of less dense buildings, but not huge buildings in height. Nothing exists on the south end of Anchorage with a grand view like this project. We'd love to move out of our house that's now too big, and enjoy a condo we could use up here. thanks for listening. | |
| Rob Johnson | 8/10/2007 9:27:12 PM |
| I thought the senior development was well thought out. I think the Project is an asset to Anchorage. I liked the Idea and will look forward to the building of the Legacy Pointe Development center. Thanks | |
| Bob Lester | 8/10/2007 7:19:36 PM |
| I have been made aware of the building plans regarding Legacy Pointe Development. I want you to know that I fully support this endeavor and hope the our seniors here in Alaska are able to benefit from such a wonderful project. So much is emphasized on the children, we spend billions of dollars in education, which I also think is important, but let's not forget those that gave us so much. Please consider Legacy Pointe Development as important to Alaska and our seniors as I do. Thank you, -Bob Lester | |
| Donna Alderman | 8/10/2007 6:44:32 PM |
| As our population ages I feel it is necessary to look to the future and provide innovative solutions for senior housing. I am in favor of this project. | |
| Donna Alderman | 8/10/2007 6:42:33 PM |
| As our population ages I feel it is necessary to look to the future and provide innovative solutions for senior housing. I am in favor of this project. | |
| Donna Alderman | 8/10/2007 6:41:09 PM |
| Cheryl Lincoln | 8/10/2007 6:40:41 PM |
| I have lived in the Anchorage hillside(off Hillside Drive)for 35 years.Then I turned 50 and decided to downsize.Senior communities were not available to me in Anchorage so I was forced to buy a townhouse. I wanted to stay on the hillside.I may be 50 but I am not dead!!!Legacy Point will be closer to medical care than most retirement communities in the lower 48 are. In Vegas it can take 45 minutes to get to a hospital.Alaska does not have a real retirement community for active seniors. I will buy a unit in Legacy Point. I know 3 more couples waiting to see how this turns out because they also want to buy. FINALLY, some progressive thinking in Anchorage. 50+ retirees contribute a lot of money to economies in the lower 48,why not here? We have long needed a project like this. Cheryl Lincoln | |
| Dave Weir | 8/10/2007 6:16:30 PM |
| I was born in Alaska and plan on spending many years to come. I do beleive that Anchorage is lacking in senior care. As I am an Associate Broker and have seen the demand for assisted living housing is in high demand. As we grow as a community we need to take care of our aging elders. I hope that when it does come time I have a place like this to go. | |
| Donelle Jones | 8/10/2007 4:50:33 PM |
| I feel we need to do what we have to do to help seniors in anchorage, because they were a extreamly important part of why anchorage is what it is today. | |
| Michael Abeln | 8/10/2007 4:48:56 PM |
| I support any kinda of senior activities in anchorage. These people helped Anchorage become what it is today. They deserve everything we can do to give something back to them. | |
| Michael Moen | 8/10/2007 4:46:30 PM |
| I fully support any project that would make life easier for Seniors in general, especially in Anchorage where land is already disappearing | |
| Douglas Hendricks | 8/10/2007 4:13:43 PM |
| I am in favor of the Legacy Pointe Development. I like the idea that a classy active senior community can exist in Anchorage. Especially in a beautiful setting such as proposed by this development. I have two recent experiences that relate directly to this development. I recently became acquainted with a older couple who had a lovely home on the hillside. Their children had grown, and left to make their own way. This couple realized that their hillside home would eventually become to much to handle, even though they loved the time they had raising their family on the hillside. They made a conscentious decision to sell there property, and relunctantly purchase a condo in town. With the idea that the major property maintenace, and up keep are managed by the association. The in depth research led them to a condo establishment at Northern Lights, and Lake Otis. The criteria included the surroundings, the care of the property, the "type" of current residents, the strength of the homeowner association to keep the homeowner activities in check ("rifraf"). And the connectivity within the assocation as they head in the same direction in their age. My perspective on these fine folks was that they gave up there hillside retreat/home. Had they been able keep up with the maintenance, they would have stayed on the hillside. A view they loved, a place they cherished. They made the best decision they could, with what was available. Keeping in mind that this new residence is not an advertised active senior community. But through the hush, it exist. I believe had Legacy Pointe existed during their change, it would have been a place that would have hit the mark. I believe in exonerating our parents by developing ways to keep them close to home, give them reasons to stay, instead of leaving. This resource will not be everyones cup of tea. But it will be a great value to those who do choose it. And similarily it will add tremendous value to our community. I hope it opens our eyes to more development. That which considers our elders needs. In response to those who are not in favor! A "not in my back yard" mentality. You may not be seeing the forest through the trees, and sometimes you don't know your in one, until you are. The second recent experience has to do with my Aunt who is approaching 90. Her husband has since past. She lives alone and is visited by nearby family. She lives in a very nice ranch style home. She has done well for her age, and still enjoys her independence. My Aunt, and Uncle used to love to ballroom dance together. I remember she talked about going to different senior community centers to dance. I was sad to hear that some of the community centers had to limit the people who could come to dance, due to overcrowding. leaving them fewer places to enjoy the company of active seniors such as them selves. In short she is now considering to leave the ranch home and buy a condo within the community. Not because she can't live alone, she is quite healthy. Frail, but healthy. She looks forward to being active with people her age. The comroderie, the access, the environment. Personally I'm glad, I hope her new home brings her new friends, and together with old friends. I hope it enriches her time. I envision this development as one of the same, and I welcome more just like it. | |
| Wade Decker | 8/10/2007 3:29:37 PM |
| I firmly oppose the development of the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing. The housing development would transform the character of the hillside, while providing inadequate infrastructure to its planned inhabitants. Steep roads become treacherous during winter months and lacking emergency access for the elderly residents only increase the impracticality of such a location for high density senior housing. | |
| ainslie phillips | 8/10/2007 3:23:02 PM |
| As a realtor, i have many clients who are looking to spend their "golden years" in Alaska and want to downsize to a more simple lifestyle without giving up the luxury of the homes and locations that they now enjoy. Many of these currently live on the hillside in Prominence Pointe, Potter Creek, etc. The development in questions is exactly what this town needs and has a great desire for. I have been asked repeatedly if there are any forthcoming projects like this one they may consider. I applaud that this developer saw the need and is willing to fill it with the grace and elegance they intend. Please look favorably on this project as there are a lot of us baby boomers looking to live there. | |
| Greg KESSLER | 8/10/2007 2:47:46 PM |
| Please consider this letter in support of the Legacy Pointe Development in Anchorage. Anchorage does not now have a senior community like this. Their are many seniors that would like to stay in Alaska but they just dont have the "right" place to stay. Their are many communities like this on the lo 48 but not in alaska. i think it is very myopic not to allow development like this for our seniors. essentially forcing them to move to lo 48 for housing reasons. As Alaska's population continues to age seniors are going to more and more want to live and retire here. I am a number of years from retirment but i will want to live here as a senior and this type of housing may be exactly what i will need. please support the zoning for this project. thanks, Greg Kessler | |
| george gibson | 8/10/2007 2:43:34 PM |
| I think it is highly important to find ways to keep our seniors in Alaska. They need a development that speaks directly to them, with their interests, and their goals! I think that Legacy Pointe could be that development. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| PJ Robertson | 8/10/2007 2:30:02 PM |
| I have worked in the real estate lending business for over 25 years here in Anchorage and I strongly support this project and more like it here in Alaska. I feel our senior population has limited resourses to support them in Anchorage. A project which provides them with a place to live that has been taylored to senior needs, like exercise facilities, shopping, limited medical support, senior community interaction and a safer environment is needed and would keep this age population in Alaska rather than moving out of state. It would be good for our economy and benefit our seniors. We have to stop the migration of seniors out of state. Please support this project with us. It would be a place I would like to live in when I reach an age of maturity. | |
| Jill Witte | 8/10/2007 2:03:55 PM |
| I am 55 years old and very active and would love to move into a condo type senior housing place. However, the thought of being on the South Anchorage hillside, so far away from medical help, bus lines (when I can't drive)and the inevitable wildfire, scares me to death. If these developers are so interested in creating the perfect retirement community, please put this facility somewhere safer for seniors to walk, ride bikes, shop, and have amenities. The hillside is known for its high winds that knock out power during the winter and extreme icy roads, this just looks like a disaster waiting to happen. The city should encourage this development be built somewhere else in Anchorage and I will be the first to sign up. Thank you. | |
| Sharon Hughes | 8/10/2007 1:59:51 PM |
| I am very interested in the new proposed development called Legacy Pointe. I previously lived in Anchorage a total of 30 years, and currently reside in WA. I would be very interested in this project, as my entire family still lives there, and I am just too far away from the Grandchildren! I think the is long overdue for Anchorage, and although I have been gone quite some time, I still call it home. Please, keep me updated....Thanking you in Advance | |
| Beth Farnstrom | 8/10/2007 1:41:57 PM |
| I am OPPOSED to the Senior Housing Development, Planning and Zoning Case Number 2006-142. Why would we want to see our seniors in a remote location? Many seniors have lost their ability to drive. This area is almost 5 miles to the nearest grocery store, gas station, and medical clinic. The closest EMS is located on Huffman or Rabbit Creek.I don't think this is very close for medical emergencies. The hillside isn't any easy place to take a walk, there are no sidewalks here. There is no public transportation, churches or stores in walking distance. We force the residents to drive farther than we do other citizens by having this remote southern location. Their taxi fares would be a burden to their monthly income. There is only one way in to this location and only one bridge to exit should an emergency arise i.e. earthquake or fire etc. This is too high density to support the existing road. Don't forget the other developments at the top of Potter Valley Road are increasing too. Seniors deserve the housing but in an area where they are accessible to the infrastructure of the City of Anchorage. I am opposed. | |
| brock lindow | 8/10/2007 11:31:31 AM |
| I live on the hillside in anchorage and feel we should keep our seniors here in alaska. THANKS | |
| Michael Sorensen | 8/10/2007 10:07:45 AM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development proposal. 1) The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone. The proposed project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. 2) This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 3) The City, thus all us property tax payers, will have to foot the expense for upgrading the roads and infrastructure (fire service, schools, etc.), water & sewer, etc. 4) The developer is justifying this proposal for Senior Citizens only. Is there really a market for 715 Senior Citizens units ranging in price of $200,000 to $500,000 each? The Anchorage 2020 does not support this. Thus when they can not sell that many units to Senior Citizens, they will ask for a waiver and fill with families. 5) Thirteen 5-story building (high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint) are not compatible with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside setting. 6) If for Seniors, evacuation for earthquake or fire will be problematic. 7) Lighted parking lots will light up our night sky of the south hillside. 8) A huge 2 million gallon water storage tank will be required to support such a development. 9) Is this steep hillside a suitable site for senior citizens to walk and be about? 10) Clearly this area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high dense housing. I can understand the benefits to the community for a project like this but I cannot see any benefits to the current home owners of this area nor the location on a Mountainside for Old People. Slippery when icy (7-8 months of the year), more and more bears, far from Hospitals, and destructive to the landscape/environment. | |
| Melanie Cooper | 8/10/2007 10:05:13 AM |
| I fully support the Legacy Point senior housing project. With baby boomers coming into the time of their lives when they are looking at moving to smaller homes with less maintenance, this housing development is the perfect solution. While construction will create an environmental lull, once in place, the development will include trees, and green spaces that add to the aesthetics of the area. | |
| steve allen | 8/10/2007 9:57:49 AM |
| I believe the prospect of the Senior center in South anchorage will bring more business to our end of town and we should try to keep our seniors in Alaska. | |
| Chris Heisten | 8/10/2007 9:53:58 AM |
| I support the Lecacy Pointe Development | |
| Kathy Wisthoff | 8/10/2007 9:03:49 AM |
| I, too, am strongly opposed to the scope, size and location of this proposed project. I am in favor of senior housing, but this project is ill advised and creates many problems already mentioned by many of my neighbors. | |
| Hershel Wallace | 8/10/2007 8:37:51 AM |
| Dear Zoning Committee, I am writing this comment because I am totally against the proposed development. The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone and is inconsistent with the current neighborhood character. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Clearly this area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high dense housing. Senior housing usually requires close access to shopping, medical facilities, recreation. This location is already outside doctors residency requirements due to its distance from Providence, AK REgional, and AK Native hospitals. This location is 6 miles from Dimond Mall making it way outside walking distance. The nearest grocery store is 4 miles. REquest consideration of these and many more homeowners comments before going any further in your planning. A better location option would be North side of Abbott Rd/East of Abbot Loop Rd, south of Service High School and Hilltop Ski area. | |
| kirk currey | 8/10/2007 8:24:19 AM |
| Strongly support a this senior project, on this property. More projects with senior in mind should be considered in the future for Anchorage. This is a private enterprise which is better than government being invlolved. With all of the problems with the building division in this town, government should learn and work with developer of quality projects. Questions that should be asked of NIMBYs, would be- how about a landfill, how about a Baker condo complex, how about your retired senior parents ???? | |
| dave scott | 8/10/2007 8:08:40 AM |
| as an active Anchorage resident approaching age 55, I fully support building a community for active seniors. Alaska has the largest share of baby boomers per capita in the nation who are retiring early and are active. With seniors contributing more than 1 billion to the Alaksa economy each year it only makes sense to build a residential community and address the issue of senior living centers now. | |
| timothy burnham | 8/10/2007 8:01:54 AM |
| i thinks the legacy pointe develeopement is needed un on the hillside. the community has been waiting for an upscale adult developement that will be comfortable living in the hillside without the hassles of homeownership. i believe the developement will fill a necessary niche in a wonderful area. | |
| Brent Eaton | 8/10/2007 6:33:15 AM |
| Please allow the development of Legacy Point. Let's keep our seniors in Anchorage. | |
| Cathy Decker | 8/10/2007 6:19:22 AM |
| As a homeowner in the Potter Creek area, I am strongly opposed to the Legacy Pointe building proposal. The ramifications to the environment alone should be reason enough to question the location of this project. | |
| James Decker | 8/10/2007 5:56:45 AM |
| I oppose the subject project. Reasons for my opposition include the following: 1. Increased Traffic onto Potter Valley Road. 2. Neighborhood light pollution from the project. 3. Vegetation from 104 acres will be cleared, increasing neighborhood highway noise from the New Seward Highway. 4. The lack of a sufficient Senior Citizens' market for the project. The Anchorage 2020 does not support this project. 5. Thirteen 5-story building (high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint) are not compatible with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside setting. 6. A huge 2 million gallon water storage tank will be required in a residential neighborhood. 7. Evacuation for earthquake or fire will be problematic. 8. Taxpayers will be required to bear the expense for upgrading the roads and infrastructure (fire service, schools, etc.), water & sewer, etc. 9. The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020. 10. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. 11. This proposal is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan protecting existing neighborhoods character. 12. This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 13. The area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high density housing. Sincerely, James D. Decker, Esq. | |
| Barbara Kuhlman | 8/9/2007 11:24:22 PM |
| August 9 I am very much opposed to the development of Legacy Pointe Senior Housing. I live just above Potter Marsh off of Potter Valley Road. I do not want this project to go through because it will destroy the area with large, obnoxious buildings. Here are a few more reasons why I feel this project should not go through: as I said above, buildings much too large for the area. The project does not fit into the current development plan for the hillside and does not fit into the building requirements for our neighborhood. It will promote too much heavy traffic on a road not designed for high traffic, not only with all of the proposed residents, but all of the big delivery trucks and all that would be needed for supplying the facility. Potter Valley Road is not a winter road for any senior. It is enough for younger drivers to handle. It would be difficult to get help up to the seniors or get the seniors out should there be some type of emergency. We are on well water here, where would their water come from? The city, digging all along the hillside or a big ugly water tank? If there is to be a parking lot, which will look like a huge black spot on the hillside, there will have to be lighting, this will take away our ability to see the northern lights. Too much land will be cleared. I know they said there would be some left for a buffer, but I do not believe that will be the case. What if not enough seniors are interested in purchasing one of the units. What then, will they be sold to those who have families, so then we have 702 units with multiples of people living in them? That would definitely be too much for this area to support. With having to upgrade roads and such, the funding would have to come from tax payers. We are the tax payers and our property taxes are more than enough now, plus with development going in my property value will diminish drastically. Please, do not let this development be approved. Thank you, Barbara Kuhlman | |
| Tami Vania | 8/9/2007 10:17:48 PM |
| I actually do have an opinion on this development. I have said many times to Mike that when the kids are gone from our nest the next house we buy I would like to have a view and very low maintenance residence. I think this sound like both to me. What a great idea for a senior development. They would be great neighbors to have for the existing neighborhood. It isn't like you are asking to put low income housing. These are people that can and have contributed to the community. | |
| Perry Eaton | 8/9/2007 9:58:11 PM |
| I am very much in favor of this development. It's a very good start at developing a class of housing designed for an aging populace. I believe the hillside suits the housing well. I am 62 years old and would consider living in this type of area as I have always lived on the hillside (30 years) and am not interested in moving to an other area of town. The thinking behind this housing is pretty sound. I would not have to give up my area of town and yet I would be able to downside considerably. The land mass of the Anchorage bowl is such that nothing is really too far from anything. As I understand the road plan there would be very little impact to the area and the ownership profile is such that the 9 to 5 impact would be substantially less than if the property were to be regular single family homes. I like the integration of the community that the project represents. It keeps active people involved with an active community and doesn't isolate or stigmatize a group of citizens. I can imagine that, as with all advanced ideas, this one will have many that will opposed it which is unfortunate as its a very good and worth while project for the people of Anchorage. | |
| Diane Riedel | 8/9/2007 8:47:36 PM |
| I believe this development will benefit many Alaskans. It would be a wonderful opportunity for our seniors to remain here in a beautiful setting enjoying the Alaska they love as well as their families and friends being able to visit. There is nothing available at this point that compares to this. Our seniors deserve another option. I also believe strongly that the road development making more access up and down the hillside for the fire department is a on going safety issue that we mustn't ignore any longer and needs to be addressed. The proposed road work would not only benefit this development but ALL of the hillside residents to make their homes safer in case of an unfortunate fire. It is a very sad day when the hillside residents do not want their alaskan seniors for neighbors who have the wisdom and history to share but are unwelcome. | |
| Richard & Reba Carter | 8/9/2007 8:33:20 PM |
| We are opposed to the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development project. It does not fit into the area that is being proposed. It is too far from shopping, medical services, and transportation to be a true senior community. We have read the comments, both pro and con, already submitted and agree with those that say it seems like a strategy to sidestep the 2020 Plan. We have serious concerns about the impact this high density project would have on the surrounding areas, both environmentally and esthetically. | |
| Debi & Tom Thomson | 8/9/2007 8:11:40 PM |
| We are adamantly against the current proposed senior housing at Legacy Pointe. As residents of Potter Creek subdivision we have seen the effects of inadequate infrastructure. These deficiencies have created safety and quality of life problems. One key reason we selected to live in this area was the lack of high-density housing. Phased construction and increased density has been a constant source of noise and disruption to residential tranquility. We have selected a few points to demonstrate this: 1. Turning left from the Seward Highway onto Potter Valley Road very often has a high potential for fatality, especially on the weekends during the summer. This then demands the required improvements to the Old Seward highway to make a much safer access to Potter Valley road. Accidents on the New Seward Highway have caused traffic to be rerouted onto the old Seward and Rabbit Creek road. Will traffic lights be added at both locations to alleviate the backlog? 2. Resident density is increasing with current on-going developments, in addition to the proposed Legacy Pointe. In our opinion the Potter Valley road entrance to Legacy Pointe where proposed is also one on the worst places it could be put. (Right at the first major curve up hill). This is a Public Safety issue. As drivers age, their reactions diminish heightening the risk for error and reducing reaction time. The residents of Legacy Pointe attempting to enter that development will be facing the residents of the other areas coming down the hill to the curve. This curve has been especially problematic with winter icing. Many automobiles have ended up in the ditch or the guardrail, despite the fact that Potter Valley road is a snow emergency route. In our opinion the entrance to Legacy Pointe would be much better coming off Rabbit Creek road or somewhere other than the proposed Potter Valley road entry. 3. The infrastructure costs will not be fully supported by the seniors living in the area who will be directly benefiting from this development. Tax breaks after age 62 provide this relief. I feel anyone who can afford a $200,000 to $500,000 condo should have the means to pay their fair share, or at least a portion based on a sliding scale. We are unwilling to see our property taxes increase to support this high-density development. 4. Where is the water & sewer infrastructure coming from? AAWU? Local water providers like Potter Creek Water Company, who can barely support itself much less additional development, like Legacy Pointe? What is the sustainability of the current water supply not only for consumption, but also for fire fighting? Who will pay for additional fire protection and ambulance availability? 5. Construction noise and traffic has been a constant and very annoying on-going problem at Potter Creek with the development of Potter Crest, Potter View and the Miller property above us. Heavy dump trucks are damaging the roads and leave debris all over the roadway. I don’t feel a 10 to 15 year plan that includes constant construction phases is conducive to a peaceful residential community. 6. Potter View drainage has scarred the hillside with a rock chute drain off the property, if Legacy Pointe is allowed to proceed, I suspect the same will happen there. This will very likely cause drainage and run-off to be problematic to the residents below and to Potter Marsh. I feel this development, along with current developments in this area are putting the life-sustaining infrastructure (water) at risk and is also jeopardizing the wetlands of Potter Marsh. | |
| gerald johnson | 8/9/2007 7:19:49 PM |
| An audult commuity has been provin time and time again to be a great asset to the commuity that it is in. Look at the Del Web commuities is Phoenix Az. those comuities not only support the commuity it thrives on it. The city of mesa/phoenix influxes 600,000 people in the winter AKA snow birds Anchorage could be the oppoiste of that. Anchorage could influx in the summer and think of the revenue that would bring. I think that the city of Anchorage is over do for and adult commuity. You wouldn't find a better neighbors than senior citizens. Thank you for listing | |
| Lois Hansen | 8/9/2007 6:13:58 PM |
| As residents of Potter Creek HOA, we do not agree with building Legacy Point for the following reasons 1. Traffic will be onto Potter Valley Road. 2. Lighted parking lots will light up our night sky. 3. Vegetation from 104 acres will be cleared, increasing the highway noise of New Seward Highway. 4. The developer is justifying this proposal for Senior Citizens only. Is there really a market for 715 Senior Citizens units ranging in price of $200,000 to $500,000 each? If they cannot sell that many units to Senior Citizens, will they ask for a waiver and fill with families? 5. Thirteen 5-story building (high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint) are not compatible with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside setting. 6. A huge 2 million gallon water storage tank will be required next to our area. 7. If for Seniors, evacuation for earthquake or fire will be problematic. 8. The City, thus all us property tax payers, will have to foot the expense for upgrading the roads and infrastructure (fire service, schools, etc.), water & sewer, etc, causing additional an additional tax burden to the already high mil rate currently in place. 9. The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone and is inconsistent with the current neighborhood character. 10. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. 11. This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 12. Clearly this area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high dense housing. 13. Senior housing usually requires close access to shopping, medical facilities, recreation. This location is already outside doctors residency requirements due to its distance from Providence, AK REgional, and AK Native hospitals. This location is 6 miles from Dimond Mall making it way outside walking distance. The nearest grocery store is 4 miles. REquest consideration of these and many more homeowners comments before going any further in your planning. A better location option would be North side of Abbott Rd/East of Abbot Loop Rd, south of Service High School and Hilltop Ski area. | |
| Eileen Padden | 8/9/2007 5:10:05 PM |
| I fully support this project. I was raised in South Anchorage, and my parents, who are now approaching their mid-sixties, still live there. When they heard of the prospect of Legacy Pointe, their first reaction was, "It's about time!" My parents are healthy, active...but eventually, their home will be too much work for them to maintain, and they will want other options. Key word there--"options." Our senior citizens have few. I want to provide my parents with the very best--afterall, they deserve it. If Legacy Pointe would be an option for them to be comfortable, cared for--not to mention in a location that they have loved for over 25 years--then why not? | |
| Glenn Harvey | 8/9/2007 4:44:57 PM |
| I recently turned 50 and am a member of the AARP. By some standards this makes me a senior citizen though I don't feel like it. That puts me into a group that is growing and growing rapidly. Healthy and active and over 50! My kids are moving out of the house and soon I will have more time to do the things I like to do. Part of that plan might include selling my high maintenance house and moving into something smaller that does not require allot of attention. From what I understand Legacy Pointe is a very attractive alternative for someone like me. I think the proposed location is a great choice as well. Lots of space and a minimum of family housing. I support the Legacy Pointe project and applaud them for addressing an issue that has not been addressed. Alaskan seniors and their specific housing needs. | |
| Matt Steele | 8/9/2007 4:26:00 PM |
| I abolutely believe in this project... if people choose to live on Hillside, let them live on Hillside. The developers are doing a service by creating a community where seniors can stay... Without projects like this, we are simply asking our senior citizens to leave the state and take their money / taxes / experience / elsewhere. Lets support our senior citizens and those who take action to accomodate them. | |
| Nicholas Farmer | 8/9/2007 3:37:47 PM |
| I think that the developement of this type of facility in Anchorage is crucial! Currently we have no such options available for local seniors. Recently my grandmother has gotten extremely ill and is unable to live alone. Without facilities like this in Alaska she is having to relocate to Washington State. With all of our available resources I find it outrageous that she has to be relocated away from the place she call home. I do not understand how people can recieve this idea so negatively, it is plain irrogance that it would interfear with their prestigious hillside housing! Once again I am completely for this facility and you may contact me for my support. | |
| Brad Alexander | 8/9/2007 3:36:27 PM |
| I support the Legacy Pointe development. It's a good program with a noble cause. Let's take care of our seniors. They are a valuable resource and deserve a place of comfort and dignity. | |
| Ron Allen | 8/9/2007 3:27:58 PM |
| There should be no high density housing on the hillside at all not even senior housing. | |
| Rock Reber | 8/9/2007 3:05:37 PM |
| I think it is important that we have options to keep our Seniors in Alaska and this project seems to be a good fit.. | |
| Mike Vania | 8/9/2007 3:01:51 PM |
| The Legacy Point Development project is long overdue. Our seniors need a viable option for housing that is not downtown. Many seniors have homesteaded or lived most of the adult lives on the hillside. Let us not continue with the mindset of "that's a great idea as long as it is not in my backyard". This area is zoned for this kind of development and if done right like this proposal, should be a great addition for Anchorage. | |
| Shelly Allen | 8/9/2007 2:57:52 PM |
| I feel it is important that we keep our Seniors in Alaska and think this is a project that will support them. | |
| Ellen Nicdao | 8/9/2007 11:41:00 AM |
| As the owner of a local financial services company that provides real estate and mortgage banking services, I know for a fact, based on our in-house demographic and financial data bases that: (1.) Most senior citizens cannot afford condo housing in the $200,000-$500,000 price range. Not only will the monthly PITI (Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance) for such condos be too high for senior citizens, but the additional condo fee will make the monthly payment be even more unaffordable. (2.) Senior citizens' housing preference is for one-story, ranch-style homes because their state of health usually precludes going up stairs. Thus, the Legacy Pointe multi-story senior citizen housing does not meet this need. (3.) The high-elevation location of the Project will make either walking or driving to and from the site extremely dangerous for senior citizens especially in wintertime. As a resident of the Potter Creek Subdivision, I also strongly oppose the Legacy Pointe Project for the following reasons: (1.) It will further aggravate the "heavy traffic" problem we are now anticipating arising from recent development projects in our area. Our Potter Valley Road is a narrow two-lane road which will definitely not be able to support anywhere close to the 715 residents of Legacy Pointe when with just our current 130 residents we sometimes encounter heavy traffic. (2.) It is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan which among other things, calls for maintaining the character of the (Potter Creek Subdivision) neighborhood. Instead of the neighborhood being comprised of quiet, single-family homes, the Legacy Pointe Project will give our neighborhood a most unwelcome "commercial"-ambiance due to the thirteen 5-story buildings that are being proposed to be built. I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THE LEGACY POINTE PROJECT FOR THE ABOVE-STATED REASONS. With Kindest Regards, Ellen G. Nicdao 18795 Harlequin Place | |
| Philip Mink | 8/9/2007 8:54:07 AM |
| I am opposed to the scope, size and location of the proposed development. The concept for senior housing is good, the location at the extreme edge of the community away from shopping, medical services, hospital and public transit seems to be not well thought out. Can the senior community support the number and cost of the proposed complex. The project does not fit into the current housing mix in this community. The shear size of the buildings will create sight impairment, impact the fauna and ecology of the surrounding protected areas. | |
| Kelly and Cindy Patrick | 8/9/2007 8:42:39 AM |
| We are opposed to the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development proposal. | |
| Mark and Theresa McCarter | 8/9/2007 7:52:38 AM |
| As homeowners in the Potter Creek area, we are strongly opposed to the Legacy Pointe building proposal. The ramifications to the environment alone should be reason enough to question the location of this project. Please reconsider the location of Legacy Pointe. Sincerely, Mark and Theresa McCarter | |
| Fred Peters | 8/9/2007 7:06:00 AM |
| My wife and I are opposed to the planned development for five (5) high rise condos for senior citizens. As the population ages, it has been proven people migrate towards a more hospitable climate where health and extended care are more accessible. If these units do not sell as planned, the investors will allow access for a reduced age group and that would mean families with children would be allowed to move into the area and thereby negate the intent for a retirement area. More schools would be needed and poperty taxes would rise again. The location planned not only will severely negate the water supply to the community, but will upset the balance between nature and our community. The already taxed road system will impact all who live in our area. If a fire or earthquake of a severe magnitude strikes our area, emergency services/evacuation routes will be severely limited. Alaska has alwys been known for its' beauty and having five high rise buildings above one of the most majestic settings (Potter's Marsh) will be a scar to our city. We hope you will deny this proposal as it is time act responsibly for our community vs allowing a group of investors destroy the beauty of our area by building a complex that will not enhance the wellfare of all residents. | |
| Jeffrey Martin | 8/8/2007 10:47:30 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to the development of the proposed senior housing and respectfully request that the proposed project be rejected in full. | |
| Dale Trombley II | 8/8/2007 10:32:05 PM |
| My wife Nell and I are very much opposed to the proposed Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Project. I have reviewed the proposal and the concerns and agree that the project in out of character with not only our neighborhood but also the overall plans for the South Anchorage Hillside. It is most importantly not consistent with the 2020 plan. Thank you. | |
| Gary Ferguson | 8/8/2007 9:52:59 PM |
| I would like to voice my opposition to the planned Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development. 1.Thirteen 5-story buildings are not compatable with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside plan. 2.The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020. 3. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 plan, including: Policy #7, Avoid incompatable uses adjoining one another; Policy #13, Maintain thr rural character of the neighborhood; Policy #46, The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy #49, Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the ddjacent development strategy listed on pge 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatable with adjacent areas. 4. This proposal is inconsistant with the 2020 Plan Protecting existing neighborhoods character. 5. This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertillizers, herbicides and pesticides. 6. This areas location, road access, water $ sewer, and water drainage render it unsuitable for high density housing. Respectfully Submitted Gary L. Ferguson | |
| Karl Johnstone | 8/8/2007 7:24:22 PM |
| I am very much opposed to the Senior housing plan and development plan for Potter Valley. Potter valley road is already a problem area because most vehicles go at an excess speed while driving on the road. there are motorcycles that use it for high speed trips up and back and there are many runners and bike riders using it for competitive races during the times that vehicles and motorcycles use it.There is hardly any enforcement in the area and the new development will bring a great many more drivers into the area, many of whom will be seniors whose driving skills are not what they once were. It would cause very serious driving safty issues. In my opinion it is not likely that seniors will be able to afford the prices that will have to be charged for the units and the developers will seek an exemption and then sell to anyone, thus obviating the whole idea of senior housing. there have been no feasibility studies to determine what demand there would be for these units, so it is somewhat speculative to suggest seniors will be able to fill them. The location is not amenable to a senior population as it is too far from facilities that seniors often need and benifit from, including hospitals, doctors, pharmacy, and most important mass transit for those seniors that can not drive. I have spoken to many seniors who are aware of the proposed plan and who say it is not what seniors need or want. I know of no one any where in the area who favors this plan. Please deny the application and list it as ill advised. | |
| Randal Buckendorf | 8/8/2007 3:58:45 PM |
| This proposed land use development plan is fatally flawed and should be denied. First, with no disrespect to the Office of the Municipal Attorney, the proposed development is legally flawed. The land is zoned PLI. The PLI district is intended to include areas of significant public open space, major public and quasi-public institutional uses and activities and land reserves for which a specific use or activity is not yet identified. Under no legal or common sense use of the term can a group of privately owned, residential units be considered anything other than what they are – Residential Use units – regardless of whether or not they would be deed restricted for senior citizens. There is little if any support for calling thirteen large 5 story buildings with hundreds of Residential Units as an allowed “Institutional” use. The proposed use is not for a public or quasi-public “elderly housing” adult care facility, a senior care home, or a large assisted living facility. It is a 700 unit condo complex. The structures will need to follow a residential building code, the units will be purchased and financed as residential units, and the municipality will surely tax them as residential units. Simply put, the proposed use does not meet the letter or the intent of either the current municipal code or the August 5 Public Hearing Draft of Chapter 21 that is currently out for review and comment. If allowed to move forward, I do not believe it would be upheld under judicial review. If the Assembly wants to consider and allow Residential use of this land it should do so in an openly debated manner taking into consideration the 2020 plan and the Hillside District Plan that is currently in the 2nd year of a multi-year development process. Second, the Planning & Zoning Commission must follow AMC 21.15.015. AMC 21.15.015(E) Standards. As such, the commission shall review a proposed site selection or site plan for consistency with the goals, policies and land use designations of the comprehensive plan and other municipal plans adopted by the assembly, conformity to the requirements of this title and the effects of the proposal on the area surrounding the site. It does not take much effort to realize that the project development is inconsistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7 Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13 Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development; etc. This theme is reiterated throughout the above referenced Public Hearing Draft of the land use planning regulations. Nothing about the nature of the proposed development is consistent with the nearby residential development. In fact, these were the very reasons cited by the P&Z Commission in 2005 when denying the rezone application. Essentially they are proposing a 700 plus condo project in an area that abuts lower density larger lots such as R-6 and R-8 areas. If allowed to move forward, this project will negatively impact the current municipal infrastructure serving this area. I also firmly believe this government action would act to decrease home value in the surrounding neighborhoods but it would also negatively impact many of the current roads and services in these areas that are funded by individual homeowner associations. Third, this area is not currently served by nor is it projected to be served by AWWU for water in the near future. As such, they will need to develop an alternative water supply source and for this many units would need an extraordinarily large tank system to store the amount of water that would be needed of over 2 million gallons. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. I urge you to deny the request. In doing so, however, I would ask that development of this area be specifically discussed as part of the ongoing development of the Hillside District Plan. The owners of this property should be able to develop it in some manner that fits the charter of the surrounding land, meets the 2020 plan, and also addresses the overall vision of the entire hillside area that the Hillside District Plan is supposed to address. Specifically, this is one of the last remaining large swaths of land that can be developed for housing. The nature of the residential development in that area, as well as the levels of services for public facilities and services, area drainage and its impact on Potter Marsh, transportation, and the general lack of a municipal park in that entire area all need to be addressed. Best Regards, Randal G. Buckendorf, Esq. 4711 Potter Crest Circle | |
| Roamy Kilmer | 8/8/2007 1:12:59 PM |
| Dear Sirs: I am strongly against the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development. I am a home owner in the Potter Creek subdivision. I am concerned about this project on many levels. As I am sure your time is valuable, I would like to touch on just a few. The project is INCONSISTANT with Anchorage's 2020 plan. The demographics alone do not support 715 units with a price tag of over $200,000 in this area. The damage that will be done to the Potter Marsh, disrupting water flow increasing amounts of fertilizers and herbicides, will drastically decrease the amount of wildlife who need this area. Not to mention the unsightliness it will cause for those who enjoy the pristine naturalness of the marsh and surrounding area. Thirteen five story buildings will appear as a monstrosity on the hillside destroying its beauty forever. The current infrastructure (roads, fire, water sewer, police) of this area CANNOT support this high density development. It would be criminal to allow it to be built (especially for seniors) with no real way to perform a mass evacuation in the event of a catastrophe (earthquake, volcanic eruption or tsunami). Thank you for your time and I sincerely hope to read the denial of this project in the near future, Sincerely, Roamy Kilmer | |
| John Isby on behalf of the Potter Creek Homeowners Association | 8/8/2007 12:10:15 PM |
| The Potter Creek Homeowners Association, which encompasses approximately 130 homes and lots, does not support this development. A development of this density would wreak havoc on the fragile ecosystem just uphill from Potter Marsh and permanently change the character of the Potter Creek area. The PLI zoning status of this land is being exploited by the developers in order to cram the maximum number of units possible onto this parcel of land. The developers need to be made to revisit their original plan of development for this site, which involved detached housing units with a changed zoning status. That plan could easily be improved upon it and transformed into a development that the surrounding community finds acceptable, while still insuring a reasonable return on investment for the developers. | |
| John Erkmann | 8/8/2007 11:51:36 AM |
| My wife Jane and I are firmly opposed to teh proposed Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Project. The project in entirely out of character with our neighborhood,will congest to an even more dangerous degree the traffic on Potter Valley Road, and most importantly is not consistent with the 2020 plan. The scale and density of the project is simply not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. We urge you to reject this ill-conceived plan. John and Jane Erkmann | |
| Kevin Tabler | 8/8/2007 11:27:56 AM |
| I would like to state my opposition to the proposed Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development proposal. In reviewing the long list of comments in opposition to this proposal, it is apparent that very little community advocacy work was performed in advance of such an extensive proposal. Thanks to the attentiveness of my neighbors, many issues are coming to light which have not been properly addressed or rather ignored by the developers for approval of such a divergence from all past long range planning for the area. This proposal appears to be a rewrite of past development strategies by certain developers to circumvent the long range planning system and fly under the radar until the last minute in hopes of using their political muscle and connections to ram this development down the throats of an unsuspecting community. For all of the reasons stated by my neighbors in all associated comments, I am vehemently opposed to this development. | |
| Chee Kong Toh | 8/8/2007 10:57:11 AM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development proposal. 1) The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone. The proposed project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. 2) This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 3) The City, thus all us property tax payers, will have to foot the expense for upgrading the roads and infrastructure (fire service, schools, etc.), water & sewer, etc. 4) The developer is justifying this proposal for Senior Citizens only. Is there really a market for 715 Senior Citizens units ranging in price of $200,000 to $500,000 each? The Anchorage 2020 does not support this. Thus when they can not sell that many units to Senior Citizens, they will ask for a waiver and fill with families. 5) Thirteen 5-story building (high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint) are not compatible with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside setting. 6) If for Seniors, evacuation for earthquake or fire will be problematic. 7) Lighted parking lots will light up our night sky of the south hillside. 8) A huge 2 million gallon water storage tank will be required to support such a development. 9) Is this steep hillside a suitable site for senior citizens to walk and be about? 10) Clearly this area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high dense housing. | |
| Steven Lyons | 8/7/2007 11:15:15 PM |
| I am opposed to the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Development proposal. 1) The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone. The proposed project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7, Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another; Policy # 13, Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood; Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies; Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas. 2) This proposal poses adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 3) The City, thus all us property tax payers, will have to foot the expense for upgrading the roads and infrastructure (fire service, schools, etc.), water & sewer, etc. 4) The developer is justifying this proposal for Senior Citizens only. Is there really a market for 715 Senior Citizens units ranging in price of $200,000 to $500,000 each? The Anchorage 2020 does not support this. Thus when they can not sell that many units to Senior Citizens, they will ask for a waiver and fill with families. 5) Thirteen 5-story building (high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint) are not compatible with the current hillside development plan nor comparable with the present hillside setting. 6) If for Seniors, evacuation for earthquake or fire will be problematic. 7) Lighted parking lots will light up our night sky of the south hillside. 8) A huge 2 million gallon water storage tank will be required to support such a development. 9) Is this steep hillside a suitable site for senior citizens to walk and be about? 10) Clearly this area's location, road access, water & sewer, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for high dense housing. | |
| Susanne Comellas | 8/6/2007 9:36:39 PM |
| Variations of this project have been denied since 2000. 7 years and this is probably the largest nightmare to be submitted for review. The reasons for previous denial(s) still exist. Nothing has changed. The Rabbit Creek Community Council has done an excellent job of detailing the reality of this ill conceived project. While I live 4 miles from this sight I am very much aware of the impact this will have to the area overall. The community will end up financially supporting the addition of a small city at the end of Goldenview Drive by having to prop up the crumbling infrastructure, upgrade fire and medic facilities and incur huge debt for road maintenance all for a project that is driven by a marketing concept NOT designed for the reality of living on South Goldenview Drive. This plan is reckless in terms of its negative impacts on community safety and health. I don’t care how much money they pay Lantech they can’t make chicken salad out of chicken manure or turn the steep, wet hillside of South Goldenview into a retirement community in the sun basked hills of Virginia. As a community we have no choice but to oppose this. It is a dangerous and reckless design for this area, fueled by greed, demonstrating a complete lack of respect for the existing community, our elderly and their health and welfare needs, public safety and our intelligence. It places our Fire Department professionals in harms way as they will be called upon to risk their lives to save older folks convinced by “warm weather photo marketing” to move to an area that puts them at risk. Denying the frailties of old age and marketing a steep, ice covered, rural hillside as the place to “live your active years” is sick, twisted and cruel. What kind of a community does this to their elderly? | |
| Mark Schimscheimer | 8/5/2007 9:51:14 PM |
| As I agree with the majority of comments regarding this project, I do not need to repeat the numerous reasons that the Legacy Point Senior Housing development is an irrational idea. Any reasonable person that looks at this project objectively and with the good of the public in mind should see the merits of the arguments against it. Which brings me to my concern in this whole process: why are our Elected Officials not looking out for the Public’s best interests here? The Public here includes not only the surrounding residents that have voiced their concerns (and will have a significant impact to their standard of living) but every resident up and down Rabbit Creek that will be impacted by substantially increased traffic as well as those in the Potter Valley road system that may eventually also have a similar impact. The Public will also eventually include hundreds of Seniors who will suffer the common Hillside problems of poor access (a significant fire hazard) and a lack of facilities (health, shopping, etc). So who represents the Public interests? Which of our elected Public Officials will stand for doing the right thing? Which elected City Official is on the Public’s side against a Developer that does not have a long-term stake in the area? Is there something more to this situation than is apparent? Until the latest litany of scandals I would have thought this not possible, but now I have to wonder who is really going to profit from this project. Already two lots on Austria Drive, intended for the project’s supporting infrastructure, have raised eyebrows as they were purchased by an entity a year ago for $100,000 and now, under a recent sales agreement to the City, seems to have an offer doubling that amount. Who without inside knowledge could be so lucky? There will always be an element of NIMBY in this sort of issue, but the facts really do show this to be a ridiculous development idea, unless, of course, the City and its Public Official’s agenda is something besides being reasonable and responsive to the Public. | |
| Will Gay | 8/4/2007 8:33:22 PM |
| This project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is basically a side hill swamp, the water table being at the surface or four feet down. When roads, sewer and water are cut it will expose huge amounts of water which will then run off into adjacent subdivisions compromising on-site well and septics and glaciating roadways. The project will fail to sell as seniors will not want to fight Rabbit Creek Road and the treacherous Hillside driving conditions in winter. It will go into bankruptcy and be a blight on the neighborhood. The economy of Alaska is headed for trouble as the oil throughput in the pipeline experiences a 6% compound decrease each year. It is the wrong project for the wrong location at the wrong time. | |
| charles barnwell | 8/3/2007 11:05:33 PM |
| I am opposed to this proposed development for two key reasons: 1) This kind of development, i.e. high density, large buildings and large impervious footprint, is not suitable for this tract of land and this part of Hillside Anchorage. This particular piece of land is beautifully forested, and is prime habitat--one of the key large tracts of its kind in this part of southeast Hillside. 2) The proposed development would forever change this part of Hillside, thus setting a precedent for similar developments in the southeastern part of Hillside. Hillside Anchorage has a unique character that represents what Anchorage used to be. Yes, higher density development is needed in Anchorage, but it should be planned appropriately. A senior housing complex in this part of Hillside is simply not appropriate. My 82 year old mother, who spent 45 years of her life in Anchorage would agree. Large complexes such as this are simply incompatible with the character of the area. In sum, this proposed development has huge implications for the future of Anchorage, and in particular southeast Anchorage. Let’s please plan appropriately for an Anchorage we can be proud of. | |
| John Pinamont | 8/3/2007 1:15:17 PM |
| Let me first state that I do not believe that this is a reasonable development under Public Lands and Institutions (PLI) zoning for this particular parcel. This proposed senior housing is 13 miles from downtown, 10 miles from medical facilities, on sloping hillside lands, in an area that is rural to semi-rural with single family housing under R6 and R7 zoning. This high density housing does not fit into the surrounding developments. Such senior housing developments should be situated close to downtown or the U-Med district. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is not able to deny this site plan for those reasons, then please consider the following modifications to the proposed development. 1. Require deed restrictions limiting ownership and occupancy to persons over age 62 and prohibit renting or leasing to any one under age 62. This should also be part of any resale certificate, should be binding on the condominium association, and legally binding and irrevocable for all time. This would at least prevent this development from becoming another high end condo development over time. 2. Modify the building design by limiting height to 3 stories total. In addition, if this is truly intended to be senior housing, require 1 or 2 units to be converted to long term care facilities and a medical clinic. I believe that seniors buying a unit at Legacy Pointe would want to be able to sell their unit and move into a long term care facility when the time comes. 3. The site design does not seem to provide storage area for RVs, trailers, boats, snow machines, and ATVs. Therefore, one building unit should be replaced by a storage lot for this purpose. Otherwise, over time, there will be pressure from the owners to clear more forested land for this purpose. 4. Restrict road access at Bettijean and 172nd Ave to emergency vehicle use only. This could be accomplished by a locked gate and single lane road wide enough to accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Otherwise the occupants of at least 2 or 3 of the units closest to this access would very likely use Belarde to Virgo to Tideview to Old Seward as the fastest and shortest route to locations north. This road is privately maintained by the 20 some homeowners and this amount of additional traffic would greatly impact them in terms of increased maintenance costs, traffic, noise, and dust. This route is a narrow and steep road subject to glaciation in winter and was not built to current Municipality road design standards. Despite the conclusions of the traffic analysis (which other commentators have pointed out is flawed) I would suggest that the majority of the traffic will NOT head south to Potter Valley and the New Seward Highway. I believe the Rabbit Creek community is not anti-development, and if the developer presented a proposal with R6 zoning and large lots using the site plan’s stream and wetlands buffers and trail reservations with on site sewer and water, that such a development could be accepted. Thanks for considering my comments. John Pinamont 4936 Virgo Ave | |
| Lori Davey | 8/2/2007 9:10:00 PM |
| I was pleased to see the ADN publish an article decrying the insanity of building elderly housing on the upper Hillside of Anchorage. The reasons are many why this is a bad idea. We need thougthful planning for this very fragile piece of land - not "development by loophole" for elderly housing on public land. We are not a civilized community if we allow this development to happen in Anchorage on the Upper Hillside. This housing should happen in Anchorage, just somewhere else - closer to services and with the infrastructure to support the needs of the elderly. The developers and their engineers know that we as a community are in favor to reasonable rezoning of an R6 density, but the idea of high density is simply not compatible with the land or the neighboring subdivisions. There are so many reasons that this wrong: --Inadequate infrastructure to support elderly: roads, public transportation, pedestrian access, emergency access, homestead road system featuring steep roads and ice glaciation. --S. Goldenview is a 2.5 mile cul de sac supporting 450 homeowners. This development alone will increas the density by 250% along S. Goldenview --The proposed density of the subdivision does not conform to Anchorage 2020 and should be denied on this alone. --The developers are purporting to joining ARDSA, rather than the local Road Service Area, which offers 72 hour response for snow removal. This will isolate the residents from access in or out and impede emergency vehichles from accessing residents. The S. Goldenview RRSA has a contract for 4 hour response for snow removal and 2 hour response for sanding. --The developers want to build from the top down and not connect the collector road to Potter Valley for up to 15 years. We already have failing levels of traffic at S. Goldenview and Rabbit Creek intersections. This is a ludicrous request - along with the ridiculous roundabout they originally suggested at for this intersection. --The Traffic Impact Analysis shows a 0% grade for 172nd and they don't consider the death slide road of all, Bluebell as an impact to consider to the resident. 172nd is not maintained by the RRSA because it is too steep to safely take a grader or sander down on nasty winter days - but apparently it is Okey Dokey to send Grandma down it. Please take this plat for what it is, a sham which has no place in Anchorage. Deny this request once and for all. | |
| Donna Van Flein | 7/30/2007 5:44:39 PM |
| I am opposed to the proposed site plan for 13 LARGE 5 story buildings to be built on PLI land for private purposes. This development would be a huge negative impact on this rural community. Under the site plan review for any PLI development the Planning & Zoning Commission must follow AMC 21.15.015. AMC 21.15.015(E) Standards The commission shall review a proposed site selection or site plan for consistency with the goals, policies and land use designations of the comprehensive plan and other municipal plans adopted by the assembly, conformity to the requirements of this title and the effects of the proposal on the area surrounding the site. The site plan application states that “a number of goals and objectives are addressed by the design of this development. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7 Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another. Policy # 13 Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas These were reasons cited by the P&Z Commission in 2005 denying 2 DUA rezone The mass, scale, height and density of thirteen large 5 story buildings with a recreation center, and parking facilities are not consistent with the low density subdivisions surrounding this parcel. This is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan protecting existing neighborhoods character. The internal roads will be connected to the rural R-6 neighborhoods. We pay into a Rural Road Service to maintain our these sensitive roads. This development would get the benefit of these roads (including Goldenview) without paying to maintain them. With the amount of people this development will bring, it is substantial! The site plan application states that this development will leave a lot of open space and natural vegetation, so the footprint of the buildings will be closer in scale with R6 neighborhoods. In reality the statement that “51% of the entire property will be undisturbed by any sort of site grading or construction activity and will be left in its present state.” Is discounted on page 11, under the heading “Natural Vegetation Retention”. The plan states that “the ‘open space’ tracts and stream protection easements will only be disturbed during the project for construction of utilities and for road crossings” and will be seeded with grass seed or other suitable ground cover that is acceptable to the MOA. This by no means is a retention of natural vegetation. The impact of the residents on the roads and services will be substantially greater than R-6. Just looking at the layout of the development will show they have no intention of leaving a “natural” 100ft buffer to the R-6 neighborhoods. The land is zoned PLI. The intent stated in the code for PLI zoned land is: A. Intent. The PLI district is intended to include areas of significant public open space, major public and quasi-public institutional uses and activities and land reserves for which a specific use or activity is not yet identified. “ This is not public or quasi-public “elderly housing” as anticipated by the code. As stated in the Legacy Pointe marketing on their website http://www.legacypointeak.com/, it is an “Exclusive Senior Community” obviously missing the intent of the Public lands designation. There are so many unanswered questions before the P&Z Commission and the community: Is there a market for 715 units of high-end condos for seniors 62 years and older in an inaccessible area with no amenities? This has not been demonstrated as required by the 2020 Plan. This is important data to determine whether this sensitive wet hillside environment will be disturbed for high rise buildings requiring roads and other infrastructure paid for by the Anchorage taxpayers to deal with the fallout of such a large development and its impacts on this low density environment. If there is no market, do they become high end condos for any one? This would cause even more of an impact on the existing neighborhoods. Is the idea of senior housing just an end-run for this purpose? How will the condos be limited to seniors 62 and older? Who governs this? The Municipality? Will they be allowed to rent them to anyone? What happens if the first phase is built and there is no market, yet all the infrastructure is set for a large-scale multifamily development? What contingencies does the city have? What rights do us adjacent landowners have to protect our property? We purchased land in a rural setting with zoning of R-6 and adjacent zoning of PLI, never imagining a commercial scale development in this area. There are no services in this area of the hillside. Certainly not for seniors. The idea that healthcare and transportation and shopping are close, is just ridiculous to those who live here. The power goes out on a regular basis. What happens to a senior on life supporting apparatus in a blackout? What happens to these people in the event of a wildfire? Are they left to die because there is no emergency response to evacuate this many people? The fire station closest has a part time paramedic. Will the Anchorage taxpayers have to pay more in taxes to support additional services for this “exclusive community”? The proposed development is a bad idea all around. It is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan, it is bad for seniors, it is bad for the existing neighborhoods and it is bad for the Municipality. Please deny this site plan. | |
| Donna Van Flein | 7/30/2007 2:05:47 PM |
| I am opposed to the proposed site plan for 13 LARGE 5 story buildings to be built on PLI land for private purposes. This development would be a huge negative impact on this rural community. Under the site plan review for any PLI development the Planning & Zoning Commission must follow AMC 21.15.015. AMC 21.15.015(E) Standards The commission shall review a proposed site selection or site plan for consistency with the goals, policies and land use designations of the comprehensive plan and other municipal plans adopted by the assembly, conformity to the requirements of this title and the effects of the proposal on the area surrounding the site. The site plan application states that “a number of goals and objectives are addressed by the design of this development. The project development is not consistent with most goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan, including: Policy # 7 Avoid incompatible uses adjoining one another. Policy # 13 Maintain the rural character of the neighborhood Policy # 46 The unique appeal of individual neighborhoods shall be protected and enhanced in accordance with goals, policies and strategies Policy # 49 Site plan layout and building design for new development shall consider the character of the adjacent development Strategy listed on pg 81 The scale and appearance of higher density commercial and residential development is compatible with adjacent areas These were reasons cited by the P&Z Commission in 2005 denying 2 DUA rezone The mass, scale, height and density of thirteen large 5 story buildings with a recreation center, and parking facilities are not consistent with the low density subdivisions surrounding this parcel. This is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan protecting existing neighborhoods character. The internal roads will be connected to the rural R-6 neighborhoods. We pay into a Rural Road Service to maintain our these sensitive roads. This development would get the benefit of these roads (including Goldenview) without paying to maintain them. With the amount of people this development will bring, it is substantial! The site plan application states that this development will leave a lot of open space and natural vegetation, so the footprint of the buildings will be closer in scale with R6 neighborhoods. In reality the statement that “51% of the entire property will be undisturbed by any sort of site grading or construction activity and will be left in its present state.” Is discounted on page 11, under the heading “Natural Vegetation Retention”. The plan states that “the ‘open space’ tracts and stream protection easements will only be disturbed during the project for construction of utilities and for road crossings” and will be seeded with grass seed or other suitable ground cover that is acceptable to the MOA. This by no means is a retention of natural vegetation. The impact of the residents on the roads and services will be substantially greater than R-6. Just looking at the layout of the development will show they have no intention of leaving a “natural” 100ft buffer to the R-6 neighborhoods. The land is zoned PLI. The intent stated in the code for PLI zoned land is: A. Intent. The PLI district is intended to include areas of significant public open space, major public and quasi-public institutional uses and activities and land reserves for which a specific use or activity is not yet identified. “ This is not public or quasi-public “elderly housing” as anticipated by the code. As stated in the Legacy Pointe marketing on their website http://www.legacypointeak.com/, it is an “Exclusive Senior Community” obviously missing the intent of the Public lands designation. There are so many unanswered questions before the P&Z Commission and the community: Is there a market for 715 units of high-end condos for seniors 62 years and older in an inaccessible area with no amenities? This has not been demonstrated as required by the 2020 Plan. This is important data to determine whether this sensitive wet hillside environment will be disturbed for high rise buildings requiring roads and other infrastructure paid for by the Anchorage taxpayers to deal with the fallout of such a large development and its impacts on this low density environment. If there is no market, do they become high end condos for any one? This would cause even more of an impact on the existing neighborhoods. Is the idea of senior housing just an end-run for this purpose? How will the condos be limited to seniors 62 and older? Who governs this? The Municipality? Will they be allowed to rent them to anyone? What happens if the first phase is built and there is no market, yet all the infrastructure is set for a large-scale multifamily development? What contingencies does the city have? What rights do us adjacent landowners have to protect our property? We purchased land in a rural setting with zoning of R-6 and adjacent zoning of PLI, never imagining a commercial scale development in this area. There are no services in this area of the hillside. Certainly not for seniors. The idea that healthcare and transportation and shopping are close, is just ridiculous to those who live here. The power goes out on a regular basis. What happens to a senior on life supporting apparatus in a blackout? What happens to these people in the event of a wildfire? Are they left to die because there is no emergency response to evacuate this many people? The fire station closest has a part time paramedic. Will the Anchorage taxpayers have to pay more in taxes to support additional services for this “exclusive community”? The proposed development is a bad idea all around. It is inconsistent with the 2020 Plan, it is bad for seniors, it is bad for the existing neighborhoods and it is bad for the Municipality. Please deny this site plan. | |
| Art Weiner | 7/30/2007 11:42:06 AM |
| I am opposed to the proposed project for the following reasons: 1. The destruction of the forested area and its loss as wildlife habitat and as a movement corridor for wildlife. 2. Adverse impacts to Potter Marsh resulting from alteration of historic surface and groundwater flows and input of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 3. Increase of traffic on local roads. 4. Incompatibility with existing neighborhoods. • I am a biologist who lives with my family approximately one-half mile from the northern boundary of the subject parcel. For about the last ten years I have hiked and snow shoed across this land (It is not posted to prohibit non-motorized access.). The subject parcel contains a mature forest of paper birch, sitka alder and white spruce with a relatively undisturbed ground cover of native vegetation. The area has not experienced a die-off of all mature spruce from the recent bark beetle infestation. Contractors hired by the Alaska Mental Health Trust removed most of the trees that were killed. I have observed many moose, occasional black bear and a diversity of birds as well as signs of a variety of small mammals. I have also found specimens of the rare wood frog (Rana sylvatica) in its wetlands. The area acts as a wildlife corridor providing a connection between Potter Marsh and the undeveloped uplands of the Chugach Mountains. Construction of the infrastructure and the residential density resulting from the proposed zoning change will, in my opinion, destroy the vegetation community and its value as wildlife habitat and movement corridor. A secondary impact will be the loss of wildlife viewing opportunities for local residents. • The area proposed for re-zoning contains year-round streams and other numerous small water bodies, seeps and springs that drain into Potter Marsh. In addition, the parcel contains areas of wetland soils that provide characteristic wildlife habitat. Topographic alterations that will accompany road and pipeline construction will adversely impact these wetlands, water flows and alter historic drainage patterns. High-density development would result in excessive removal of native vegetation, destabilization of soils, replacement of indigenous vegetation with lawns and non-native landscaping and loss of wildlife habitat and movement corridors. Stormwater runoff containing fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The cumulative effects will be adverse impacts upon surface water, groundwater and wildlife habitat both on-site and within Potter Marsh. • Much of the 120 acres is steep and densely vegetated. Consequently the area has a high risk of wildfire. High-density development with inadequate road access could place homes on this land in jeopardy from fire. Any development here needs to be made accessible by fire trucks that can access the area from either Goldenview Drive or Potter Valley Road. | |
| Bruce E. Seppi | 7/27/2007 10:19:46 PM |
| Since my last on-line comment in December 2006, this development proposal has increased to 13-five story buildings with 715 condominuim units. On 105 acres, thats 6.8 housing units per acre on lands zoned PLI. It would seem there is no limit to how high the housing unit density can go, all without the scrutiny of rezoning. But, the more units to sell, the more money that can be made, and that is what is driving land use planning on this parcel of land. Money. Not road access, traffic, drainage, wildlife corridors or open space issues, but money. Apparently the Mayor and the planning and zoning board agree, if they don't see a problem with this plan. With this proposal, Forests Heights LLC is manipulating and twisting the zoning laws to their benefit, providing their own biased interpretation of the 2020 plan, and still completely ignoring and down playing the concerns of residence who own houses and live in this area. Now, after many months of delays and apparent discussion with the community and city, Forest Heights LLC still has the audacity to bring this proposal to the planning and zoning board under the guise of senior housing. Allowing high density condominiums to be built on PLI lands robs the public of the opportunity to have input on land use in their own neighborhood, especially on housing density issues, an opportunity that is already very limited. The Legacy Pointe site plan is an insult to the community, and the petitioners have the arrogance to suggest they are conserving green space, protecting watersheds, providing wildlife corridors, incorporating citizen concerns and to suggest that other developments should be as thoughtful. This proposal is nothing more than a scheme by Forest Heights LLC to make as much money as possible with very high unit density, and force that scheme upon the city and the residents of the area by using an apparent loophole in zoning laws. In effect, Forest Heights LLC is dictating how this land will be developed, where the road will be aligned, how many housing units will be built, where the road will connect to existing roads and when and where these monsterous condominium buildings will be built. If thats the case, why do we even have a planning and zoning board? Who is in charge of land use planning here- Forest Heights LLC or the planning and zoning board? Its hard to tell. As a taxpayer, homeowner and resident of this community, I expect the planning and zoning board to stand up to Forest Heights LLC and say no to high density condominuim development on this land. An earlier development plan on this land by Forest heights LLC for single family homes with far lower density R-7 zoning has already been unanimously denied by this board. How could an alternative proposal of 715 condominium units be approved with a clear conscience? | |
| Justin Ripley | 7/27/2007 12:05:36 PM |
| As the owner of an adjoining lot on Bettijean I am opposed to this or any development project project which deviates significantly from the rural residential designation of the surrounding area. Clearly this project featuring towering, high density development of institutional appearance does not fit the character of the community. Further, to build such a project on challenging terrain, in an area with documented soil & drainage issues seems madness. I also question the business motivation of the developers. While this sort of high-rise development might work well in densely populated planned senior communities, I cannot imagine what brand of senior would want to take on the driving/walking challenges of this area in order to live in such unremarkable urban style housing. The possibility that the developers simply want to build multi-family structures in defiance of established land use restrictions must be considered & mitigated. I also feel that the traffic plan needs further scrutiny. In particular, I can't imagine anyone driving all the way south to Potter Valley in order to access this area. I hope you will agree that this "square peg, round hole" project does not warrant rezoning of such a sizeable piece of land. In the end, a failed or short-circuited development plan will not yield significant benefit to the municipality, and will result in significant carrying costs to the community. Please encourage the developers to go back to the drawing board by insisting that existing zoning restrictions be complied with. Thank you. | |
| David Rand | 7/26/2007 10:30:42 AM |
| I am opposed to this project as it currently stands for the following reasons: 1. I don't think the additional traffic that will be created by this development can be adequately handled by the current traffic plan. I think the development will create a large and negative impact on the Goldenview/Rabbit Creek intersection. I think that the connection of this subdivision to the Old Seward and/or Seward Highway needs to be more direct and more easily accessible so that traffic accessing this new area will naturally enter and exit direct to the Seward highway. 2. I don't see that the future use of this area will comply with the intent of the zoning requirements. Apparently this area is being sold as senior housing. It doesn't seem to me that this area "sets up well" for senior housing. It is remote and hilly; not very convenient for seniors that might have mobility problems. How can we be ensured that the future use of this area is truly limited to seniors? I don't see how you can hold the developers feet to the fire after the area has been developed and they are not able to sell enough of the units to seniors. If this project goes forward I believe that the zoning board and/or city needs to get firm committments from the developer to ensure that the units will only be sold to seniors. I think these committments should be enforced by either: a. requiring that the developer bond each unit that he intends to develop and that if the unit is owned and/or occupied by a non-senior, the developer will need to forfit the bond OR, b. that the developer or owner of the unit pays an additional annual property tax penalty when the unit is occupied by a non-senior. | |
| Mike Edelmann | 7/16/2007 11:53:07 AM |
| Since posting my earlier comments, I have done some additional research, and still come to the conclusion that this development fails any test of reasonable put against it. (the test of reasonableness is often used in legal and contract decisions. It asks, "Would a reasonable person, with a reasonable amount of information, decide this is a reasonable course of action?") This development fails the test of reasonableness for many different reasons, as outlined below. But, there is one more, very important thing that needs to be brought to light. That is, would a reasonable person see a market for this community? According to the US Census Bureau, (2005 estimate) the senior population of Anchorage is approx. 6.4%, which translates into about 17,800 seniors. That represents a VERY limited market base. (Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/02020.html) OK, so you are marketing outside of the Anchorage area and/or state. Are there many seniors that want to move to Anchorage to retire? Somehow, I do not see that as a large market. Are there a lot of seniors that might want to summer in Anchorage? Well, that is a slightly larger market, but of that number, how many would want to tie up a large portion of their retirement money in owning a summer home in Anchorage? Renting would be more economical. And, of the number of potential buyers, how many of them would be willing to purchase a home that has such a limited market to sell to when they decide to sell? (or their estate decides to sell) This would lead a reasonable person to this conclusion: This is a way to develop PLI land for private gain. Realistically, what are the odds that the developers will be able to sell all of the 700+ units to seniors? Will the developer make any money by leaving the units empty? Nope, so what is their recourse? Leave it up to the condo assoc. to modify the condo bylaws to allow non-seniors to live in the units. (The condo assoc will become the owners of the development after completion.) Sure, it is not zoned to allow that, but once the buildings are in place, and a sufficient number of units are sold, what mechanism in Anchorage legal code will prevent non-seniors from taking up residence? To a reasonable person, this development looks like an attempt to build high density general housing in an area that is not zoned for high density housing. | |
| Lisa Jackson | 6/12/2007 2:26:34 PM |
| After reading the posted comments, I believe the concerns about the senior housing development have been well elucidated. I support the comments regarding seniors living in this harsh environment without necessary supports to accomodate inevitable failing health in the elderly. If I were looking for a location for my senior parent, I would look for access to grocery, pharmacy and health care services, safe environment, availability and frequency of transportation services and the ability to get out, exercise and enjoy the environment. This location is not a safe enviornment. We have clocked wind at over 100 miles per hour in paradise valley leading to power outages for several hours; 100 MPH is a hurricane gale in other parts of the country! The road system which consists of an already overburdened road with the GV Middle School traffic, or other small neighborhood roads can not accomodate traffic from this large development. Sewer and water have already been addressed by others. This is not a logical setting for senior housing and I believe is a rouse for large scale building by a builder/investor at the expense of this wonderful community. Please do not allow this high density housing but instead encourage development of like housing with property of at least an acre, preferably 1-2 acre sites for building. Development and revenues can still be achieved, but in a more safe and responsible manner. | |
| BARBARA WEINIG | 6/12/2007 11:54:52 AM |
| While I agree with most of the comments that I have read, one that seems missing is about transportation to this area for SENIORS. Currently, I believe that there is no senior transportaion offered by the MOA south of about 165th. At the last federal transportaion hearing, which took place at Russian Jack Springs, several years ago, not going south of 165th was implemented. Any project that will primarily house seniors needs to have better access, and public transportation than the proposed project. | |
| Mike Edelmann | 5/10/2007 8:50:48 AM |
| ***** Third of three comments ***** These comments refer to the Narrative attached to the Application for Site Plan Review. Narrative, Page 3: Section: Density ______________________ Comment: Buildings are to be 5 stories high, with 1.5 stories underground. Resulting 3.5 stories are expected to be visible from east. That is approximately 35 feet of elevation visible to existing homes on the east side of Goldenview Drive. This design will impact the existing view of Cook Inlet for current homeowners on east side of Goldenview Drive. Comment: Software exists that will provide a 3-D view of a proposed structure(s) from a point in space. It can provide a proposed view of this project from any vantage point, above, below, or inside the project. Question: Has a study been performed to ensure that any impact to the Cook Inlet and Chugach Mountains views from existing homes is minimized? Study must include elevation of proposed structures and line of site from existing structures. Study should include graphical representations of end state project as viewed from representative lots to east, north, south, and west. Question: What natural landscape buffer is planned for the east and south borders of the project? If none, why not? Narrative, Page 3: Section: Utilities ____________________________ Comment: The utilities work outside of the complex should be sized to allow for future expansion in the area. Question: What is the sizing and capacity of the 4,300 ft of city water line extension? Will it be sized to accommodate future projects in the area? Will it be sized to potentially allow existing homes in the area to connect to city water in the future? Question: Where is the funding for the extension to the existing city water supply coming from? How much of the project is expected to be funded via taxes, or via Anchorage Water and Wastewater? Question: Who is responsible for trenching the extension to the city water supply line? Will it impact Goldenview Drive? If so, who will be responsible for the restoration of Goldenview Drive? Will the restoration of Goldenview Drive include the same amenities (pedestrian and multi-use paths separate from the roadway) as the roadways inside the complex? Question: What is the sizing and capacity of the sewer line connection to the existing sewer serving Potter Valley Road? Will it be sized to accommodate future projects in the area? Will it be sized to potentially allow existing homes in the are to connect in the future? Question: Who is responsible for the extension of the sewer line outside of the proposed development area? Will any of the extension be funded via taxes, or via Anchorage Water and Wastewater? | |
| Mike Edelmann | 5/10/2007 8:47:09 AM |
| *****Second of three comment submittals***** The following comments apply solely to the Application for Site Plan Review form. Application for Site Plan Review comments: Page 4: Section: Public Facility Standards Question on statement one: Proposed usage of property. Please explain how this tract of land can be considered “… conveniently located for seniors.” when the nearest conveniences (shops, healthcare, and the Anchorage Senior Center) are not local, and there is currently no public transportation in the area? Page 4: Section: Public Facility Standards Question on statement two: Proposed design Please explain how the design supports the plan goals of the Anchorage 2020 policy 37 and 38? Have your response take into account the following: • The end users of the property will be seniors • The general slope of the property, and likelihood that seniors will be willing to traverse up/down slopes on a daily basis. Additionally, please explain how providing multi-use trails exclusively within the community supports the overall Anchorage 2020 plan goals as laid out on page 33. Page 4: Section: Public Facility Standards Question on statement five: Connector road between Goldenview drive and Potter Valley Road. Please explain how this project supports the above? Have your response take into account the design of the roadway through Legacy Pointe. | |
| Mike Edelmann | 5/10/2007 8:44:01 AM |
| I am in the process of purchasing a home in the Paradise Valley area. Through that process, my wife and I found out about this project, and have some comments. We recognize that development of this land is inevitable. We are having difficulty recognizing the logic behind the development of 660 senior housing units on this site. Reasons against using this land for a senior citizen condominium include: • Location of health services -- The nearest hospital, Providence Extended Care Center is over 10 miles away, the nearest health care clinic/doctors office, Eagle River Primary Care, is over 6 miles away, near the intersection of Huffman and Seward Highway • Location of shops and other services -- The nearest shopping is also at the intersection of Huffman and Seward, more then a 6 mile drive from that location. That is also the location of the nearest bank and pharmacy. • Availability of public services -- No public transportation nearby. The Anchorage Senior Services Center is over 12 miles away. • Availability of private services -- Varies. But any health care workers, children/grandchildren, and delivery services now have an extended trip to services these 660 units. Also, what amenities like dining areas, meeting rooms, pool/gym, classrooms/lecture rooms, etc… are provided? From my review of the plan, none. • The location is on a hillside -- As much as we, as a population, do not want to admit that we are aging, we are. Our eyesight, hearing, and balance age with us. A body that had no problem climbing a hill at 40, might not be quite as willing to climb the same incline at 62. The balance and reflexes that saved you from a fall on the ice at 18 might not be there for you when you are 71. There are plenty of seniors that would not have any difficulty living on that tract of land. I have every intention of being that fit and able bodied when I reach retirement, but in the event I find I would prefer not to walk up a hill to get the mail, I would prefer that my condo be located on flat ground. And in the event that I would prefer to not drive 6 miles to get a loaf of bread, I would prefer that my condo be conveniently located near shops and services. I have reviewed the Application for Site Plan Review for this case, and have the following specific comments and questions that I would like addressed at the site plan review meeting. In order to reduce the size, and increase the readability of these comments, I will be submitting them under separate comments. Thank you for listening. Mike E. | |
| Bob Besch | 1/24/2007 4:25:28 PM |
| Legacy Pointe, Senior Housing.... This is a joke. I sincerely doubt that many seniors will be living there. Drop the smoke and mirrors on this project. Let's talk about who benefits from such a development. The first one to benefit is the developer. Then, the city benefits from the property taxes that will be collected from all these new houses. Does our neighborhood, Paradise Valley, benefit from any of this? No. In fact, this whole project is a detriment to our neighbor -- ie, the 2.5 million gallon water tank which would be located directly in front my house obstructing my view to provide water to a community 1/2 mile away, the increased traffic pressure on Goldenview which is already in poor condition and suffers from treacherous ice dams. It seems pretty clear to me that it all comes down to the almighty dollar. The developer gets rich, and the city collects the taxes on the property. We, the residents of Paradise Valley, are not anti-development, but I do think that such a beautiful piece of Anchorage should not be allowed to become another Independence Park. If you have to develop the land west of Goldenview, please take into account the home styles in the area. Make all the lots 1.25 acres and have them all put in their own septic and water. We all have moved here because of the quietness and scenic views that the area offers. High density housing should not be a consideration. | |
| Julie Besch | 1/22/2007 10:40:07 PM |
| My husband and I have lived in Paradise Valley for the last five years. We fell in love with the area due to its unique home construction, nice- sized lots, beautiful views of the inlet, and a quietness that one rarely experiences in a big city like Anchorage. Unfortunately, in the past 3 years, members of this community have had to deal with the ice dams occurring on Goldenview Road which were never an issue before Prominence Pointe was developed. Now, with the proposal to build a senior citizen development called Legacy Pointe on this same strip of road seems ludicrous. First of all, which senior citizen that you know would want to live in a multi-level building on the upper hillside, with no sidewalks or bike paths, is frequented quite often by bears (and their cubs), as well as moose and wolves. I wouldn't want my 90 year old grandmother living at the top of a mountain which would require driving 20 minutes to the nearest grocery store and/or 40 to the nearest hospital. There are no senior citizen activities available to this senior group Another very disturbing question: Why would the water supply for this new senior citizen housing development by located 1/2 mile up the mountain to be located smack dab in the center of the Paradise Valley Neighborhood? This neighborhood all has on-property private well and sewage. QUESTION: How can thts monstrous metal can filled with 2.5 million gallons of water HELP us? Answer: It cannot help us in any way, shape, or form. QUESTION: How can this monstrous metal can in our backyards hurt us -- emotionally, financially, spiritually, quality of life? Answer: It will devastate the property value and resale value of all homes within sight of the tank. If the tank blocks natural views of the mountains, inlet, and/or city, a great amount of value will be lost on our properties. Will AWWU recompensate us for our losses? Julie Besch 18110 Spain | |
| Cindy Minier | 1/21/2007 10:40:00 AM |
| I too object to the high density senior citizen site planned for Legacy Point area. The intersection at Bluebell and Goldenview has been a problem for years but nothing has been done to fix it - such as a three-way stop. With additional traffic on Goldenview, the chances for an accident at Bluebell and Goldenview increase substantially. Egress from the hillside during wildfire season is also a reason to insure that adequate feeder roads can get folks off the hillside when (not if as we are told) a wildfire breaks out. The ground water situation is very frustrating up here. Ground water is close to the surface and it seems that the more homes that are built (Prominence Point for example) the more groundwater problems we are experiencing because they are rechanneling the water. Groundwater engineering and prevention needs to be a part of any development on the hillside. | |
| Bennett Jackson | 1/19/2007 9:26:25 PM |
| I live in the area of this sub-division and own and operate a medical clinic in Anchorage. My concerns center around the higher access to public and health services a group of retired individuals will require and the total lack of such services in the area. How many more ambulance trips will be required. What is the person to do in a severe snow storm like we have had this year. What will a handicapped person be able to access in this area. What if they become disabled in their car traveling the long distance to town? There are no side-walks, no bus service, no shoulders on the roads, ice dams are every where. Even the pizza delivery guys won't travel here in winter. I myself, fall on the ice while walking or getting the paper several times a year. My daughter, who is a competitive athelete, fell recently and almost had hypothermia from the walk home. How will we be able to provide for a predominantly elderly population, when we can't provide for the mix that now exists? Now, what is the transport time to the nearest hospital. The golden hour is the time we have to help people survive from critical events. In heart attacks and strokes it is the golden half-hour. After that your probability for survival goes down and morbidity goes up. If you spend 25 min waiting for the ambulance and traveling to the hospital that leaves 5 minutes for the medical staff to diagnose, test and treat you. I leave at 20 till to get to the hospital on the hour. Snowstorms, windstorms, heavy rush hour all make the time closer to 35 minutes. Of all the places in Anchorage to have considered for a retirement center this is the most illogical, improbable choice I can imagine as a medical provider. Have you asked the Public Health Department for imput? Thank you for your time and please reconsider this. In closing Ask yourself this; Is this the best place for my debilitated mother or father and go from there. Bennett Jackson Patients First Medical Clinic 907-345-7882 | |
| marcia hansen | 1/18/2007 7:26:33 PM |
| As a board member of the South Goldenview road service board, I am completely opposed to the proposed Legacy Point subdivision. There are no adequate feeder roads from Goldenview drive, even though a significant amount of traffic will move down Goldenview. Goldenview drive is already nearing maximum capacity. The rabbit Creek/ goldenview intersection is already failing at peak traffic times. There are also not reasonable roads planned through the development to allow maintenance and emergency vehicles. This proposal needs to be delayed until these issues are addressed. | |
| Will Gay | 1/18/2007 5:37:06 PM |
| The Municipality continues to incrementally give away the lifestyle that we have paid higher taxes for all these years. First they allowed the developer of Goldenview Park and Prominence Pointe to gut the hillside with a swath one half mile wide and two miles long,uprooting every tree, diverting streams, dumping drainage on adjacent property owners, with no demands for upgrades to roads. Then they allowed a five unit condo project off Sandpiper that violates the covenants and restrictions of Ptarmagain Roost Subdivision.There are two more projects of 100 acres in the wings in addition to the subject development. It's time to stop the incremental degredation of this area with incompatable development. These four or five people are allowed to make millions and we get left with the problems. This is obviously an incompatable use of a side hill swamp. Just say no for once!! | |
| Mark Slaughter | 1/16/2007 11:26:24 PM |
| First, I would like to state that I concur with the issues raised by the Rabbit Creek Community Council and the other citizens comments. I believe that the currently planned development should not be allowed until the Hillside District Plan is completed. The MOA should undertake a transportation study for the undeveloped lands between the southern end of Golden View Dr and Old Seward and for the areas behind Potter valley and Paradise Valley. A similar such study, Hillside Sub-Area Transportation Study, was performed by USKH for the undeveloped lands south of Bear Valley Elementary. Until a comprehensive evaluation of the cummulative impacts of all the proposed development in the area is performed and adequate infrastructure developed none of the various developments should go forward. Additionally the AWWU's proposed water tank on Austria Drive is to serve future build outs including this project in whichever form it may take, not existing the neighborhoods. The developer has lands available for locating a tank on their property and should provide funds, land and easements for the ancilary facilities and infrastructure. Additional development should address drainage and run off issues as currently Goldenview, Romaina and several other roads in the area have significant glaciation issues. Finally how will this development address preservation of historical trails? | |
| Emily Slaughter | 1/16/2007 10:32:08 PM |
| I would like to add my hearty agreement to the thoughts expressed in opposition to the "senior" housing development Legacy Pointe and the proposed site for the 2 mil gallon water tank. Clearly this area's location, road access, and water drainage issues render it unsuitable for dense, multi-family housing. And as for the water tank, the location on Austria is too small to house such an eyesore. The proposed lots on Austria have time and again failed to perk as they are very wet and contain standing water most of the year. I've seen pictures of the water drainage problems caused by the Prominence Pte. development and shudder to think of the additional issues which will result if the tank is situated in such an unsuitable location. If the ill-located senior units do go in--at least make the developers place the water tank on their own land or tie into the Prominence Pte. tank. | |
| Shannon Brodie | 1/16/2007 4:43:43 PM |
| My daughters call 172nd "The Roller Coaster". Very steep! How would traffic (vehicular and/or foot) flow on this road? Both 172 and Bettijean are narrow dirt roads which, with the most recent snowfall, became one lane. I can't imagine the amount of traffic that would be created by something as large a "Legacy Pointe". Where would cars go? Too steep to go down. Too steep and narrow to get out on Bettijean and UP 172nd. Would there be a stoplight at the bottom of Rabbit Creek Hill where Old Seward comes out? Would there be one in in the middle of the hill where Goldenview and Rabbit Creek meet? The traffic flow is hard to imagine. Also, if we are looking to accommodate elderly people it needs to be in a setting where they can get out and walk on flatter ground, near hospitals, entertainment and other accommodations. There is nothing out here... just families who enjoy their private, single family homes among the trees. | |
| Melody Broacha | 1/16/2007 10:49:34 AM |
| Like many of my neighbors who've only recently realized the impact a development like Legacy Pointe would have on the South Goldenview infrastructure, I can only be glad there are so many well informed people living in the area. I heartily agree with and endorse all of their comments. I happen to live on one of those fragile connecting roads off of South Golden View, a road designed for only the lightest of residental traffic. I shudder to think what years of heavy construction traffic would do (12 buildings, 5 stories high, with 55 units apiece -how many tons of material is that?) to Rabbit Creek and S. Goldenview, much less 172nd and Betty Jean. No no, to any such high density development, no matter how cleverly its packaged. | |
| Lou Waller | 1/16/2007 10:18:03 AM |
| Rather than repeat the very valid comments from others who live in the area, I would simply state that, for a long list of reasons (environmental, social and political), this area is NOT the best place to even think about a high density housing development. In fact, it is probably close to the very worst place for such a proposed development. Such proposals should be rejected outright. | |
| john gunther | 1/16/2007 10:03:35 AM |
| Senior housing should be located in settled, well-serviced neighborhoods. It is poor policy to encourage older people to live in the relative isolation of the Goldenview area by providing preference housing there. Creating one cluster of high density housing far away from commercial, medical, and transportation services is not a good way to start reversing Anchorage's history of complete urban sprawl. This sort of development needs to be in or adjacent to downtown. The developer's commercial interests must not trump the community's urban needs. | |
| Michael J. SCHNEIDER | 1/16/2007 8:45:02 AM |
| I join in the comments of the Rabbit Creek Communtiy Council. I doubt that the intent of the "senior housing" element within the current zoning scheme was to provide high density condos for the relatively wealthy in otherwise low density neighborhoods. The 2MG water tank and the issues surrounding the siting of the tank are another reason to "just say no" to this project. | |
| Jane Schneider | 1/10/2007 12:28:24 PM |
| I have read the comments submitted with regard to the proposed senior housing development and rezoning proposal for the Legacy Pointe Subdivision and whole-heartedly agree with comments submitted against this development. This proposal should be vehemently denied by the Planning & Zoning Board. The issues listed in comments by Bruce Seppi, Matthew Scully,the Rabbit Creek Community Council and others should be taken very seriously. There is limited road maintenance as it is on the existing roads, we have ongoing glaciation and drainage problems from other new developments in the area, and many of the roads are very steep and dangerous. In addition, the proposed 2 million gallon water tank to support this development placed smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood complete with covenants allowing only single family residential housing is absolutely absurd. | |
| Bruce Seppi | 12/31/2006 12:02:21 AM |
| Bruce Seppi 17140 Belarde Ave Anchorage, AK 99516 In November of 2005, Forest Heights LLC requested a rezone of this property from PLI to R7 to construct the roads and infrastructure for a housing development of about 160 single family homes. A large number of concerned residents from the local area, Anchorage and Eagle River provided testimony and documentation and voiced their concerns about issues pertaining to the development. These issues included difficult access, limited road maintenance on existing roads, steep icy and dangerous connecting roads, hydrology and drainage problems, glaciation, traffic congestion and safety and wildlife habitat impacts. That request to rezone to R7 was denied by the planning and zoning board for lack of regard of these issues by Forest Heights LLC. To me, the logical result would have been a new development proposal from the developer that seriously considered all of these important concerns, and resulted in a proposal with much lower densities, open space, and large lot sizes that are at least consistent with the surrounding R6 neighborhoods. But there is no logic here. This new proposal simply changes its name, increases residential densities four fold to 660 units in the form of condominiums, and pretends to have a newfound interest and concern for seniors and the availability of senior housing in Anchorage. In reality, this proposal is simply an attempt by Forest Heights LLC to circumvent the rezoning process, quadruple residential densities, limit public input and make more money. As for the issues presented by the public; they are simply being ignored by Forest Heights LLC, and pushed onto the local existing residents, and the municipality to deal with in the future. Allowing 660 condominium units to be built on this land is beyond comprehension, and completely counter to seriously addressing the issues that local residents are so concerned with. The construction of 12, 5 story condominiums, a new road and water and sewer lines would destroy this property and leave no open space or natural areas, regardless of what Forest Heights LLC may promise. Slope limitations, shallow bedrock and drainage issues would require the entire landscape to be dug up, resulting in a complete removal of the forest. High density condominiums for elderly people, built on an icy, windy mountainside with limited access and difficult driving conditions is not in the best interest of anyone, especially seniors, and is wildly out of character with the landscape and existing neighborhoods. This proposal is simply not within the intent of PLI land uses, and the proposed densities are far too high for the landscape. The roads connecting to the property (Belarde, 172nd, Virgo, Kallender, BettiJean, Randsom Ridge) are currently the only access to Goldenview Road, and are completely substandard, very poorly maintained and because of steep slopes are dangerously icy and one lane wide during much of the winter, and rocky, rutted and dusty in summer. Yet, this developer expects to conveniently use these roads for access to 660 condo units. That is absurd. A new road connecting Goldenview road to Potter Valley road does not solve this issue, because Goldenview Road is still the shortest and most direct route into town. A road to Potter Valley is just a road to more housing developments and in the opposite direction of Anchorage. Very real problems with traffic congestion, safety and access on Goldenview Road exist right now, with regular occurrences of accidents at Goldenview and Rabbit Creek roads. I can only imagine the additional traffic congestion and increased accidents that 660 more households will create, and that doesn’t include the traffic that other large proposed developments in Potter Valley and upper Rabbit Creek Road will create. I strongly urge the planning and zoning board to deny this proposal. An alternative proposal with single family housing densities that are consistent with the surrounding R6 zoning is far more appropriate for the natural character of the area, will have less impact on the landscape, leave the character of the area intact and reduce traffic, drainage and road infrastructure issues. Don’t allow Forest Heights LLC to play games with the planning and zoning process and use senior housing as an excuse to avoid the scrutiny of the rezoning process and build condominiums. | |
| Matthew Scully | 12/21/2006 8:49:32 AM |
| My comments are related to the proposed subdivision, requesting that it be insisted that the subdivision, if approved, also include on its site the provisions for its water supply. Currently, there is a proposal to build a 1 or 2 million gallon water tank in the middle of the existing residential Paradise Valley subdivision in south Anchorage in the Goldenview drive area. This tank would be used to serve the new Legacy subdivision. I find it rather absurd that an entity ( AWWU) would consider building such a system on residential lots in a long established area that would not even been served by the facility. The beneficiaries of the installation would be the proposed new development about a half mile away. That new development has ample room to have their water and wastewater needs installed in their own area, just as Paradise Valley residents have had to do. The new development should do the same. The developer can provide some of his land to AWWU for the installation, or just have a private community system. Aside from that most basic reasoning, the present proposed tank location is on lots that are often very wet with small streams of water, and I've no doubt that the construction of the tanks would serve to divert all that water to areas and lots ( most with existing houses on them) that are , for the most part, downhill. Indeed, hydraulically, water that ends up stopped from coming up where it now comes up could very well end up effecting water tables that are on lots even above the tank's location. It's not at all inconceivable that existing local septic systems will be affected by the installation of the tank Additionally, the "relocation" of that water will no doubt add to the existing frequent problems of glaciation that already occur on local roads such as Romania and Goldenview. And, of course, the purchase and construction on those lots will be exorbitantly high (relative to assessed and market value) for Anchorage Waste Water Utility. Finally, who knows what future maintenance issues they might face with such a large tank on such a soggy area. I can think of no good reason for the tank to be built in the proposed location. Not even one that might be said to be “for the benefit of the larger community". There are more viable, less environmentally damaging and safer alternatives to the proposed water tank location in the Paradise Valley subdivision. | |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council PO Box 112354 | 12/20/2006 1:14:19 PM |
| Rabbit Creek Community Council P.O. Box 112354, Anchorage, AK 99511-2354 Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department Mary Autor – Senior Planner Traffic and Engineering Robert Kniefel – Municipal Traffic Engineer Re: 2006-142, Legacy Pointe Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. The Rabbit Creek Community Council has many concerns regarding the Legacy Pointe Senior Housing development. These comments are limited to the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the developer. The USKH Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for Legacy Pointe dated July 2006 is inadequate and should be revised in draft form. The RCCC provides comments on some of the more egregious errors in the July Draft. We believe the MOA Traffic Department should not sign off on this project, based on the flawed data provided in this TIA. We look forward to being able to comment on a revised draft version. 1) The study incorrectly categorizes trip generation per dwelling unit per day and grossly under estimates total impact. • The TIA utilizes 4.28 trips per unit per day (Section 4.1, Table 5). • Municipal code at 21.85.050 mandates that multifamily housing exceeding two units use 7.3 trips per unit per day when determining average daily trips for the subdivision. • ITE Trip Generation Manual specifies 8 trips per unit per day for Land Use 251 (cited as the appropriate community in Section 4.1 of the Analysis) 2) Legacy Pointe will be a significant contributor to the service Level F intersection at Goldenview and Rabbit Creek Roads. • Extrapolation from the under-estimated number of trips suggests that Legacy Pointe will contribute approximately 10% of the trips at this intersection. • Level of Service F is not acceptable under Municipal standards. • The TIA at Section 6, Table 10 clearly shows that Legacy Pointe will be the driving force to increased traffic at Goldenview and Rabbit Creek Rd. Using corrected daily traffic volumes this impact is even greater. • This will significantly increase the public safety risks by increasing the possibility of collisions at this dangerous intersection. • The TIA incorrectly assumes the project will be completed by 2008. The site plan application states 5 to 7 years for full build-out, which means that the immediate traffic impact will be directly on Goldenview and the surrounding rural streets of Bettijean and 172nd Ave. and not the “60% utilization of Potter Valley Road” for at least 5 to 7 years. 3) Revised traffic counts for Legacy Pointe show that the main connection road between Potter Valley Road and Goldenview Drive must be built to Collector standards. • The TIA should properly estimate at least 4,818 trips per day originating just from Legacy Pointe. • The study shows that traffic will be distributed between Potter Valley and Goldenview at an estimate of 60/40% (only after full build-out of the property). During construction Goldenview will be the most likely route for construction vehicles, adding to the already overburdened roadway. • The study does not account for through traffic from other subdivisions which should find Legacy Pointe a faster route than traversing Goldenview to Rabbit Creek to the Seward Highway. • Collector roads are defined by the Municipality as those with an average daily traffic count of 2,000 – 10,000 vehicles per day. Obviously with Legacy Point alone, this is a necessity. 4) The TIA states that Legacy Pointe will force the upgrading of Goldenview Drive and Potter Valley Road. • Goldenview Drive with Legacy Pointe must become a minor arterial street under municipal standards. o The TIA at Section 6, table 10 shows that the project will increase traffic on Goldenview Drive by over 10%. • Potter Valley Road must be upgraded to collector arterial status. o The analysis at Section 6, Table 10 and text clearly shows that Legacy Pointe will more than double traffic on Potter Valley Road. 5) The streets are not designed for public transit or school bus travel. • The TIA at Section 2.4 states that the site is far removed from any transit service available within Anchorage. • The TIA further states that “the lack of transit is not expected to be an issue.” • We are unaware of any similar residential developments of 660 multifamily units that are not served by public transit. The developers should be required to adequately document such other non-served facilities as they occur in northern climates. • Persons 62 years and older will require some public transportation at some time, whether shuttle, taxi, ambulance or helicopter for themselves or their caregivers. • These developers sold a portion of this property on Goldenview for a potential elementary school site to accommodate the growing population in Potter Valley and the immediate South Goldenview area. School buses MUST be able to use this collector road. 6) The improvements proposed for Goldenview Drive and Rabbit Creek Road are not in line with comments made by the Alaska Department of Transportation. • At the time of Rabbit Creek Road upgrading the ADOT-PF stated that a signal was not possible at the intersection of Goldenview and Rabbit Creek due to grades and winter conditions. • Contemplation of a roundabout when grade and winter conditions do not allow a signal is counter intuitive and any such consideration requires documentation of existing structures elsewhere in northern climates. • Improving this intersection will not relieve the impact of this dense subdivision in this area. There are other solutions to traffic impacts including development of low density subdivisions and building an attractive alternative collector road through this property to relieve Goldenview Dr. 7) The base assumption of speed on Rabbit Creek Road used for Warrant Three evaluation is incorrect. • The TIA at Section 7.1.1 assumes a speed of 40 mph on Rabbit Creek Road although the current and State of Alaska specified speed limit is 45 mph. 8) The TIA states that 172nd Ave., Bettijean St., and Belarde will be secondary access to this development • 172nd is listed as an “unimproved trail” by the MOA. It is not part of the South Goldenview LRSA and was never intended to be a road. It was built as an easement for the high pressure gas line that serves the area. Conditions in the winter are extremely dangerous. Undisclosed is the fact that 172nd has a grade in excess of 20%. • Similarly, Bettijean St. is a rural dirt road with trees as its base. Many years of grading have deteriorated this road and those uphill to Goldenview into sub par roads. Designating these as secondary access is unconscionable for the elderly—or any large development community. • In the “Technical Appendix A LOS Summary worksheets” The TIA states that 172nd has a 0% grade and is a level service A. 172nd has a very steep grade, up to 20%. Many commercial and residential vehicles cannot travel 172nd in the winter and it is questionable at times in the summer due to the lack of maintenance and deterioration by weather. • In fact, a review of all of the data in this LOS Summary show 0% grade for all access points. In this steep area, this is patently false, as we are sure the Traffic Department is aware and should be sent back for accurate data. 9) The Legacy Pointe Development does not intend to join the South Goldenview LRSA • By creating secondary access to this large development on the already deteriorated roads of Bettijean St., 172nd Ave., Belarde Road, Kallendar, Stone Ridge, Ransom Ridge, not to mention Goldenview which are all maintained by the LRSA, the developer has an obligation to join the LRSA for the impact these residents will have on these already deteriorating roads. • The LRSA cannot improve these roads under its’ structure and the impact of this development by construction vehicles and residents will further degrade them at a cost to the LRSA members. It is patently unfair unless the developer is required to improve these roads at the time of construction. 10) The Hillside District Plan • Many of these infrastructure problems will be more fully addressed when the HDP is completed. The MOA should allow this plan to guide infrastructure as intended in the 2020 Plan instead of by piecemeal development without contemplating the area as a whole. Summary The Legacy Pointe Senior Housing development will significantly increase traffic in the South Goldenview/ Rabbit Creek Road area. This will be the single project that forces upgrading service status of Goldenview Drive and Potter Valley Road. The developer should be required to upgrade both roads rather than cost-shifting the burden to Anchorage taxpayers for this developer’s sole profit. In addition, a full collector road should be built prior to any development from Goldenview all the way to Potter Valley Road with each landowner as a full participant in the plan, including the Heritage Land Bank. We know the MOA has been working on this plan, however, we believe that there should not be any approval of a new subdivision until it is completed. This is a crucial link to the circulation problem in this area and a high priority of the Community Council. The Rabbit Creek Community Council urges the Traffic Department and the Planning Staff to require an accurate Traffic Impact Analysis from the Legacy Pointe developers before any decision is made on the merits of the site plan. What is provided in draft form is inaccurate, incomplete and is unacceptable to this community. Traffic is one of the major issues in development of this part of the hillside for life/ safety and access for the residents. Careful consideration with accurate information is a must. Respectfully, Susanne Comellas Rabbit Creek Community Council – chair sent via e-mail December 5, 2006 | |
| Mark Ward | 12/15/2006 2:02:16 PM |
| Proposing a "Senior Housing Development" on this part of the hillside is an outrageous proposition. Asside from being completely out of character for the area, it does not meet some of the basic obvious requirements for such a facility. It's isolation from necessary services ranging from grocery stores and medical care and emergency services, to community activities (appropriate for seniors), etc. make it incompatible for such a facility. Long driving distances to anywhere else in town make it extremely inconvenient to Anchorage area residents. In addition, the winter weather and severe wind conditions would not be something I would EVER consider subjecting my own parents to. I have lived in Paradise Valley Subdivision for 15 years and am quite familiar with the remote character of the area including unique the extreme weather conditions we experience on a regular basis. These can include winds of 120MPH and I'm not talking occasionally. These kind of winds wipe healthy young people off their feet and would result in an explosion of hip injuries, tramua, etc. These winds coupled with the weekly winter cycle of freeze-thaw that we get (resulting in extreme ice and glaciation) would be catastrophic to seniors. The only conlusion one can come to from this "Proposal" is that it's merely a sham and cover-up for just a regular high density housing "project" - which is perhaps even MORE out of character and unwelcome in this area. You can expect a full battle from the surrounding neigbors on this - citing the many obvious violations of "the 2020/Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan" as well as Title-21 and incompatible use violations. I strongly urge you to DENY this request. Thank you. | |
| Charles Zekus | 12/13/2006 2:41:44 PM |
| Any multi-family development on this part of the hillside is not in keeping with the rural character of the area. This proposed condominium project would forever destroy our neighborhood. Only single-family dwellings on multi-acre lots should ever be considered here. Virgo Avenue and Belarde are narrow unpaved roads maintained by the local residents; they are treacherous in winter and dusty in summer. The whole area is rural, frequented by wildlife, and used by horsemen and hikers. The traffic, noise, dust and problems created by any multi-family use would doom our property. A nearby proposed single-family development would already create problems feeding into Potter Valley, Goldenview, Belarde, Bettijean, 172nd, Kallendar, Ransom Ridge and Virgo. The potential of thousands of additional daily trips per day would clog the Old Seward Highway extension, Virgo and Rabbit Creek Road making them hellish urban streets. | |
| Brian Spink | 12/9/2006 3:41:57 PM |
| High end condominiums is not an appropriate use for PLI land. Looking at the current plans, it is clear that they are not designed for seniors. Senior housing needs to be near shoping, public transporation, and medical facilities. Additonally, the "Legacy Point" project would place a large number of people in an area that the Municipality has already said is in high danger from a fire. Access is already taxed in this area. An additional 600+ living units will make evacuation impossible. | |
| Robert Johnson | 11/27/2006 7:41:24 PM |
| I've lived in Alaska for over 50 years and it always amazes me that someone wants to put a slum in your back yard when your not looking. This is my straight oppion about a condo project down the street. In all the years I've seen these units in Anchorage they never add to the area. Whats wrong with the R6 zoning that everyone else on the hillside has? Thanks-RJ | |
| Katie NOLAN | 11/20/2006 4:15:46 PM |
| 21.40.020.A. Intent. The PLI district is intended to include areas of … major public and quasi-public institutional uses… 21.40.020.B. states that permitted principal uses and structures may include: (B.15) Housing for the elderly; and (B.20) Adult care facilities with 16 or more persons. 21.40.020.D. Conditional uses include (D.20) Large residential care facilities. A development of luxury condominiums for sale to the public is not a public or quasi-public institutional use, nor is it an “adult care facility“ or “housing for the elderly“. It is a private luxury residential development. Adults only luxury condominiums are not “housing for the elderly”, nor are individuals age 62 generally regarded as “elderly”. “Adult care facilities” are assisted living rental units or group living spaces, both with monthly fees depending on level of services offered. These services range from partial to full care. They are not privately owned luxury condominiums. “Residential care facilities” are not privately owned luxury condominiums. In short, if there is ownership, if the property can be willed, it is private, not public. Therefore, it has no business being an allowed or conditional use in PLI zoning. | |
| Joan Diamond | 11/16/2006 10:37:45 AM |
| I am very familiar with the needs for senior housing as my mom is 89 years old and needs daily care. The senior housing while sounding good is not suitable for this area nor does it meet the demand for senior services in Anchorage. Senior housing must be closer to the hospitals and tailored to the many needs of elderly people. It also does not have any provisions for continuous care after independent living becomes impossible. It appears to be a way to use PLI property for luxury condos. In addition, this is one development among several developments impacting both the north and south end of Goldenview traffic in the Rabbit Creek area (AMATS Hillside Sub-Area Transportation Study). I have lived on the corner of Rabbit Creek and Goldenview since 1983 and am very familiar with the public safety problems of the "GV cul de sac". With only one way out, the public safety is already dangerously compromised in this rural area as cars, bicyclist, walkers are moving along the road. With the early morning traffic for work and middle school traffic, the steep single outlet challenges the best drivers. In addition, the senior housing project will add to the current problems with drainage and wetlands as it competes for space with Connie Yoshimura's Potter Investments projects. | |
| Barbara Epperson | 11/10/2006 5:13:39 PM |
| I just became aware of the proposed Legacy Pointe Senior Housing Project off Golden View Drive and have seen a site plan and a rendering of the proposed building design. I am 65 years old and have lived on the Hillside for 36 years. I am always on the look-out of possible living arrangements for myself and my husband ( or whoever survives) whenever the time comes that the upkeep of our home and yard becomes to difficult. I also have for the last 20 years coordinated and supervised the care of my now 97 year old mother-in-law in a senior housing facility. The location of this proposed facility excites me in a positive way since the plan seems to leave enough open space for undisturbed natural areas and the possibility of a view of the Inlet and/or mountains is also attractive. 660 units might be to many for the character of the neighborhood, while I think the additional traffic will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that seniors do not spend all their time on the road. Those are the positive points, on the negative site it is my understanding that no amenities are planned and that does not work for senior housing where one hopes to age in place and not to have to move again. There need to be housekeeping , laundry and maintenance services available as well as dining facilities in each building with all the meals provided as a matter of course or as an option. There need to be rooms for activities, such as exercise suitable for seniors,lectures and other entertainment, card games and general socializing. Also as people age or their health declines , personal care attendants and personell to supervise medication intake are needed. There needs to be a beauty /barber shop in at least every other building and transportation (van service)to medical appointments, shopping and certain events is also a must. For this many people a swimming pool is also desirable. Services must be provided in each building since I believe the slope of the property and our long winters will make it difficult for people with walkers and wheelchairs to negotiate the walks and roads and to attend things in other buildings on a regular basis. Senior housing without services is just an other condo complex. With services available it will be possible to go from independent living to assisted living in the same place and that is the true meaning of senior housing .I hope my thoughts will be considered. Barbara Epperson | |
| Jeff Friedman | 11/9/2006 9:30:57 PM |
| Expensive condominiums is not an appropriate use for PLI land in Anchorage. Affordable senior housing and assisted living homes are needed, but not condominiums. That is not the intended use for PLI zoned land. In addition, it makes little sense to place senior housing miles away from shoping, public transporation, and medical facilities. This proposal also does not fit the character of the surounding neighborhood. Nor will it be likely that the development can be build with increasing the already severe drainage problems in this area and it will further burden the already overtaxed Goldenview Road. | |
| Edwin Heffernan | 10/24/2006 1:41:08 PM |
| Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing to register concerns about the above development plan (2006-142). I am a physician recruited by Providence two years ago to provide palliative care to our growing senior population in Anchorage and vicinity. My wife and I moved into our home on Bettijean Street, on the edge of this proposed senior development, in August 2004. We have been aware of community concerns regarding development of this land, but we have not been actively involved in prior opposition to this developer's plans for this land. We recognize that development is inevitable as internal migration to Anchorage increases. We are not opposed to development per se, as long as it is reasonable and well-considered, consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. I am afraid that this proposed development violates these principles. We have viewed the map of the 12 proposed "senior housing" buildings, as well as the artist's conception of the 55 unit condominium complexes, as well as the traffic analysis. We cannot speak knowledgeably concerning issues of the watershed, erosion, the effects on wildlife, though reasonable people might wonder about such a massive development's effects on these. However, we can address other issues as homeowners, and as professionals with some knowledge of senior needs. One of the potential uses of PLI land apparently is "senior housing". One can't help but wonder whether the developer's claim that these condos will be for "seniors" (apparently defined as above age 62) is in fact an attempt to circumvent previous limitations imposed on their plans. Their previous plans apparently called for high-density high-end single family homes. One has to wonder how they suddenly became interested in the plight of our seniors, and how sincerely. As a physician caring for these folks, I can tell you that what Anchorage does need, and will need in the years to come, is not high-end condominiums "for seniors", but well-designed assisted living homes and true skilled nursing facilities, such as the Pioneer Homes or Mary Conrad Center. If the use of PLI land is truly intended for community benefit, then these sorts of projects could be an appropriate use of such land. I wonder if condos masquerading as "senior housing" really address the underlying intent of PLI land use. And even if it does, what guarantees will the developers make that only "seniors" will be allowed to buy into this development. If the complex if not filled, will they open it up to all comers, becoming simply a massive condo development? In their recent presentation to the Rabbit Creek Community Council, they stated that the condo association bylaws would limit ownership to seniors, but did not address whether such bylaws might be changed over time. My guess is that there is no guarantee they couldn’t. If they are allowed to build these units on the basis that they are senior housing, then the community should be guaranteed that this remains the case. Although the developers are trying to take what appears to be a moral stance by proposing this condo development as “needed” senior housing, it is unclear to me that they have fully considered the health and safety issues that will affect such a population at this site. As one who works with geriatric populations, I can tell you that if this development really houses a senior population, an on-site clinic will not come close to providing what would be needed for their medical safety. Seniors will need access, and urgent access, to full-service emergency care and transport to our major hospitals, all of which are at least 12 miles away, with emergency vehicles using steeply graded roads often compromised in winter, and also potentially compromised at times by the massively expanded traffic. As you well know from other comments, traffic in this area is already problematic, and is sometimes dangerous, due to the existing and expanding Prominence Pointe development, Goldenview Middle School, and the new elementary school, particularly in winter. The potential addition of upwards of 500-600 more vehicles in this area would significantly increase the risks of both accidents involving seniors, and difficulties in providing emergency care. Beyond these difficulties for present residents and the proposed seniors themselves, there are additional potential safety issues. Hillside is a high wind (winds to 90-100 mph are not uncommon) and high fire risk area, and the area in question has only one significant escape route at present (Goldenview to Rabbit Creek). Imagine a Hillside fire with an additional 500 senior-driven vehicles attempting to flee, trapped or stymied by traffic, with firefighters attempting access. There is no guarantee the proposed road to Potter's Marsh would not be compromised as well in such a situation, given the volume of traffic that would be required to evacuate this area. At the very least it seems to me that the traffic, access and escape route issues need to be addressed, solved and implemented before development begins, not after. Otherwise these plans are a recipe for tragedy. At the recent meeting, we were struck by the developer’s implied position that such development can proceed ahead of necessary infrastructure (access, road plans and expansion, etc), with infrastructure dealt with at a later date. The implication was that it was not, in the end, the developer’s obligation to ensure adequate infrastructure; it would be up to local citizens to “make this happen” by petitioning the local and state governments after the fact. If we are to have such massive development in our area, the infrastructure should be agreed upon and put in place first, or at least concurrently. Otherwise there is no guarantee that, given the vagaries of local government funding and priorties, that it will ever happen. Failing to do so now at the very least assures us of years of safety issues arising from this lack of planning and forethought, as the development proceeds. We were also struck by their implication that the infrastructure improvements --- and the costs --- necessary to make such a development viable are not the developer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the municipal government and existing taxpayers. The negotiations, planning, organization, implementation and costs are expected to fall to us, in order to support their development. This appears to be an egregious form of cost-shifting, from the private sector (who are creating the need for the infrastructure) to the public sector (having to paying for the needed infrastructure). The existing neighborhood consists of singlefamily homes, generally on an acre of land. Such use is appropriate to the natural qualities and features of this hillside, wooded land. It is the home of a variety of Anchorage professionals, including police, national guardsmen, investigators, lawyers, engineers, nurses. The introduction of over 600 condominium units into a limited section of this environment is wildly out of character for this community, and threatens to alter it beyond recognition. It is just this sort of neighborhood that attracts private sector and government professionals to Anchorage, makes it worth living here for such professionals, and aids in their recruitment for our businesses and organizations. For us who have come to love this area, it is hard to believe that anyone could look at this land and this neighborhood and honestly believe that this development would be appropriate in size, in intent, or in impact. We would hope that members of the Planning and Zoning staff and commission will consider viewing this neighborhood before making any final determination; to do so would seem to me appropriate due diligence. We believe most appropriate use of such land, keeping in character with the existing neighborhoods, would be single family homes on approximately one acre of land; failing that, if senior housing were really the goal, well-situated, modest low density assisted living homes might be appropriate. We intend to be present for the hearing before your commission in December. Thanks for considering my remarks and our concerns. Yours, Edwin J Heffernan MD | |