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. | |
|---|---|
| Eric Shortt | 10/2/2008 12:50:01 PM |
| I was reading comments on the proposed rezoning. Traffic is mentioned as a concern. Since Goldenview middle school was finished, traffic on Goldenview has increased well beyond my expectations when I bought my house nearly 20 years ago. Traffic on Goldenview is often backed up from Rabbit Creek road to the school during the hours when dozens of buses and parents' vehicles drop off and pick up the students. Will we see new traffic lights along Goldenview after the fact when the reality of increased population density with access to Goldenview is fully realized? I understand that concern with evacuation during potential forest fires has been raised, as well as emergency access by ambulance and fire trucks. It would seem that these issues should get as much treatment as individual property owners' concerns with the increasing urbanization of their areas. What significant safety compromises (specifically response time of fire trucks and ambulances not immediately apparent) are "earmarked" with this rezoning proposal? | |
| Mary Cary | 9/19/2008 12:38:18 AM |
| Case Number 2008-090 We live east of the proposed development in Gudveina Estates Subdivision and access our property solely via Cobblestone Hill Road which runs through this property being considered for rezone and platting. This has been our residence for the past 23 years. Both of us have reviewed all of the public comments posted on the Planning Department Website as of Sept 18, 2008 related to both cases 2008-090 & S11680 and for the most part concur with the observations. We support concerns raised in the comments and agree with our neighbors that the zoning should not be amended from R-9 to R-6 (or even R-6 with special limitations applied). Our hope is that the Planning and Zoning Commission will exercise due diligence in reviewing all the relevant information in the packet, taking public testimony, and basing their recommendations concerning this rezone upon strong finding of fact. It is our belief this zoning action will be precedent setting in our community’s future hillside developments and it should be done responsibly. After reviewing the design and reading though all the technical reports related to this development it is our opinion that Rexview Terrace, Tract “B” would best be developed as R-9 cluster housing development with the following conditions: 1) Wetlands not be disturbed or developed. 2) Lots abutting R-9 zoning not be less than 2.5 acres. 3) Minimize drainage impacts and pollution risk. 4) Cluster building sites close together to minimize roads and driveways to reduce impermeable surfaces. 5) Minimize visual impact by maintaining a 75 foot wide vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the development. 6) Apply best practices for development from USGBC: LEED for Neighborhood Development Mary Cary and Greg Frosberg 15401 Blair View Circle Anchorage, Alaska, 99516 September 19, 2008 | |
| Win Beach | 8/28/2008 4:00:21 PM |
| This rezone and the accompanying plat present some interesting issues. The steep-sloped property with a major stream running through it was zoned for a reason. It is hoped the commission could look at the property before making a major decision. The presence of several wetlands is also a factor in the original zoning. It is unfortunate that landowners often assume that a rezone is an automatic next step in development when the original zoning does not provide for the monetary return they seek. Please consider the topography first, not the bottom line, in this rezone. There are some adjustments that might be made with cluster development, but that technique is not automatically accompanied by the right to develop at a higher density especially with this steep terrain, wetlands, and need for stream protection. Please note the presence of a public pedestrian easement upstream from Canyon View and ensure that its connection is carried through to this plat per policies of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. | |
| David & C Heather Sterling | 7/9/2008 9:45:26 PM |
| David & C. Heather live across East 156th Ave, south of this subject parcel Rexview Terrace, Tract B, Case 2008-090, and S11680. We are another long time resident of the area, have lived here for 24 years, raising a family, remodeled a poorly constructed trailer house into a comfortable home, and plan to stay. We join our neighbors who oppose the rezoning of this property from R9 to R6. We are opposed to the rezone request. Our comments on the subdivision are offered to justify the neighborhoods request to not approve the rezoning. We offer these comment items for your review: 1. All the neighbors purchased our properties based on the fact that the subject Tract B parcel was zoned R9. The new owner and P&Z board really do not have a right to re-zone that parcel without consent of the neighbors. 2. Water problems - There are enormous above and below ground water challenges for any construction to overcome. East 156th Ave is usually called "Glacier Hill" by the neighbors because of the water problems. Some years Cobblestone Hill Road is in worse condition. At spring breakup the area and roads are reminiscent of a glacial morraine. Year round streams daylight on our property and the subject tract is equally wet. We maintain winter drainage by voluntarily heat tracing ditch channels and culverts on our part of East 156th Ave. We also provide winter ditch pull out and overnight parking services for uphill neighbors who find out how slick "Glacier Hill" can be at times. 3. On the four soil test holes in the community septic reserves areas, the standpipe groundwater elevations in June 2008 are substantially higher than when tested in Oct & Nov 2007. Being a PE Civil/Structural Engineer, I would question the intent for community septic in this ground for adequate absorption. The septic reserve areas are corralled by designated wetland areas. Unlikely they will support the amount of wastewater from 7 homes at one location and 5 homes at the other location. Also I question the alternate leach field locations as all being suitable to accommodate the quantity of wastewater. I recommend the engineering analysis be reviewed for correctness. Since this system becomes a commercial septic system, I question that DEC requirements are met. The septic reserve lot B leach fields are probably too close to the open water of Little Rabbit Creek to meet DEC requirements, considering the cliff elevation drop to the creek. 4. The existing East 156th Avenue is physically out of the road easement boundaries. Too far to the south. It was built in the late 1950's early 1960's as a courderoy road, tree logs used as a subbase, that are now penetrating the road surface. During thawed conditions the road bed has artesian spring groundwater surfacing right in the middle of the road, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It takes long extended cold weather before the road springs seal off for the winter. Another reason the road is known as "Glacier Hill". The road will not physically take additional traffic without rebuilding to Municipality standards. Straightening should also be required for this road. The Hillside District Plan Draft Transportation map identifies East 156th Avenue as a Primary (New) Road. For any development, the developer should be required to upgrade this road to meet those requirements. 5. The south side of Little Rabbit Creek has 10 of the 12 proposed lots located on designated wetlands. Development on wetlands has restrictions that have no indication of being met. The only way to squeeze houses onto those lots is for major gravel fill, clear cutting of existing vegetation. We are opposed to both in our neighborhood. 6. The Hillside District Plan attempts to maintain neighborhoods in their as-zoned or existing condition. We recommend the owner and the MOA consider subdividing this Tract B, following the restrictions of the current R9 zoning. We note that at the Rabbit Creek Community Council Meeting of June 12, the owner's representative was concerned that the rezoning was requred to make this development project possible. We disagree! Profitability of a development project is not grounds for the government to force re-zoning of an area on adjacent neighbors. The new owner should have based their purchase and project financing on the project being financially feasible with R9 zoning and the 7 to 8 lots obtainable at that zoning classification. 7. Our land is zoned R6. Our property is almost a 2.5 acre parcel, eligible to be split into 2 lots. We have elected not to subdivide because our lot has so much area that is wetlands. Our neighbors to the north should follow suit. Thank you for listening to our point of view. We will add to these comments before the hearing as we study the situation. Blessings! | |
| Joan Diamond | 6/19/2008 9:11:46 AM |
| Canyon View Subdivision is asking for a rezone to increase density into an area that has long established drainage problems. Tony Hoffman from LanTech reported at the Rabbit Creek Community Council, 6/12/ 2008 that water from Canyon View LLC development would be diverted into Little Rabbit Creek to prevent runoff onto adjacent roads at Goldenview Drive and 156th. We are the first downstream property owners from the proposed development and are very concerned about downstream impact. Potentially, the most southern lots in the plat can cause soil erosion from increased water flow that can adversely effect our property. Drainage analysis and downstream impact studies should be required before a rezone is considered. These studies will indicate true allowable densities for this parcel of land. | |