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. | |
|---|---|
| Larry Flemming | 10/1/2010 8:48:57 AM |
| Since submitting my original comment in opposition to the poposed vaiance, I have reviewed the petitioner's proposed site plan and the staff report on this application. I offer the following additional comnts: 1. I concur with the comments in the HOCC review of this variance application. The conclsion that this is not an appropriate site for the proposed substation is well researched, accurate, and correct. 2. While the petitioner's supplied simulated views of the proposed substation in and of themselves may appear relatively innocuous, they fail to show any comparison with the existing condition. Construction of the substation will require clear cutting of at least 50 mature trees. In addition to all other comments, this represents a significant and irreversible degradation of the current condition. 3. The submitted plans contain verbiage such as, "...screen site from the surrounding community to the maximm extent PRACTIBLE" (emphasis added). The lighing and landscaping plans are characterized as "conceptual". Assuming that the variance approval process relies on the application, we must keep in mind that the representatons made using such qualified language are essentially unenforceable. Additionally, should standards for utility substation security or maintenance change in the future, the vegetative screening and reduced lighting could well be changed. Once the substation is in place, there would be no recourse if lighting were increased to more objectionable levels or if existing trees were removed. The substation would remain, leaving neighbors to suffer additional harm from its presence without recourse. 4. As can be seen from public comments to date, all are in opposition to the proposed variance. Please comply with the will of the public and deny this variance application. | |
| Beth Terry | 9/14/2010 11:50:47 PM |
| Chugach Electric is trying to cram a much too large facility onto a too small lot. The nearby neighbors would be adversely affected and their property values would go down as a direct result of the building of this facility. The new Greek Orthodox Church currently under construction next door would also suffer. Aesthetically, this project would adversely affect everyone who drives up and down O'Malley Road on a daily basis. Four huge transmission lines would immediately have to cross O'Malley Road, combined with construction of a hideous 85 foot tall tower (and more to be built in the future) would make this project a monumental eyesore. Why would Hillside residents want this after working for years to get Chugach to start undergrounding existing overhead electrical wires? If built, this facility would be on the wrong side of O'Malley Road. What happens in an earthquake if these high voltage transmission lines come down across the main transportation artery for the Hillside? Aren't fires common after earthquakes? My understanding is that there are seven or eight other possible sites for this utility substation, all of which are larger, better located, and would have less impact on surrounding residents. It seems that the only reason that this site was chosen was that it was cheap. That is not a good enough reason to change the zoning of a residential lot. Please deny this variance request. There are better options available. Beth Terry Hillside Resident | |
| Jim Rainforth | 9/13/2010 12:10:01 PM |
| My wife and I live immediately south of the proposed site. We have expended considerable cost and effort to restore our home to an attractive residential/equestrian property. When choosing this neighborhood, it was important to us to know that the property would maintain its value, the neighborhood would retain it's residential atmosphere, and that the esthetic quality of the area would be protected. We depend on the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to support our rights to retain the flavor of our community. Our neighbors have also expressed similar concerns for their properties. We expect Chugach Electric to select a suitable site for the necessary services to our neighborhoods. This site is not suitable and is not compliant with the 2020 Comprehensive or the Hillside Distribution Plan guidelines for site selection. We appreciate it that you have responded to our concerns by extending your decision date until this 9/13/2010 meeting. We trust that adequate public opinion has been provided to indicate that this issue impacts an entire neghborhood, community, and city. This is not the selfish opinion of a single neghbor. Please reject the conditional use permit application for the substation at O'Malley and Hane (2010-087), as well as, the Communication Tower conditional use permit application for the same site (2010-105). | |
| Tom Livingston, FAIA | 9/13/2010 10:56:34 AM |
| Having reviewed the plans for the substation and walked this site and surrounding neighborhood, it is clear that the proposed site is much too small for the proposed development. The vegetative buffers proposed are woefully inadequate for this use in this residential zone. And due to the sloping site, the excess clearing and site development needed for this development footprint becomes excessively large. While an electric substation is an important part of our community's utility infrastructure, this proposed site is much too small to accommodate the proposed substation in this rural residential setting. The ratio of "industrial-character" footprint as compared to the site's overall area is excessive for this neighborhood. This ratio of development to land area is not allowed for other developments in this zone-and an electrical substation should NOt be an exception. | |
| Maryann Alfano | 9/10/2010 5:39:52 PM |
| There was very little public notice concerning this issue. Shouldnt the public be informed about such plans in their communities? There are many negative components intrinsic with this project. Please reconsider. | |
| Georgia Westphal | 9/10/2010 4:35:18 PM |
| I think this would be setting a dangerous presidence, reduce property owners rights and lessen property values in affected areas. There are also some people who are not convinced these things are safe to have that close to residentual areas and while the research is not all in on that the answer should be a resounding No. | |
| Jan Bronson | 9/10/2010 3:38:26 PM |
| Please honor the zoning designation for this area and deny the variance for a substation. Thank you. | |
| David Spencer P.E. | 9/10/2010 2:37:58 PM |
| After reviewing the design sketches available I find the limited buffers provided by this design inadiquate to the adjacent residential properties and believe that this industrial complex will significantly reduce the value of the adjacent properties. Please consider the impacts on this residential neighborhood and move this installation to a more appropriate location or change the design to increase the vegitated buffer to adjacent residents. | |
| Beverly Short | 9/10/2010 12:25:58 PM |
| I live, work, and recreate within the area affected by the proposed variance request. While I recognize the need for utility improvements to serve the area, the property in question appears to be a poor, hastily-considered choice. I concur with the recommendation against this proposal submitted by the Huffman-O'Malley Community Council (HOCC), of which I am a memeber. Please consider carefully all points raised by the HOCC, and respect public process as you consider this case. Thank you. | |
| Chris Rose | 9/10/2010 10:35:08 AM |
| I respectfully request that this variance be denied. The area of the proposed substation contains many residential and recreational structures, and the health impacts of locating the substation so near them are unknown. In such cases we should err on the side of caution and deny the variance to protect the public. In addition, it appears there has been a lack of due process in this matter. There needs to be far more notice and opportunity to be heard than has been given for a facility that could well have long-term detrimental impacts on the community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. | |
| Cynthia Monroe | 9/10/2010 9:21:27 AM |
| As a life-long resident of Anchorage, I respectfully but urgently request that this variance be denied. I drive that section of O'Malley frequently, noticed the property for sale, hoped for a residential buyer who would care well for that lovely spot. I noticed when the property sold, but I have not ONCE seen a public notice that would have let me know the buyer or the proposed use! I learned about the proposed sub-station hours before comments were due. I am also surprised and dismayed that the hearing on the variance (if the information I got is correct) is being held on a Friday night, during a time when many of us are trying to get out of town every weekend of good weather before snow. It is as though those who set the hearing haven't been in Alaska very long, or wish to discourage public attendance. I strenuously object to the (lack of) process in this case. I object to the proposed use itself because a substation there would be actively detrimental to my family's use of equestrian facilities -- trails and stables-- nearby. I have concerns about health issues of placing a substation in a residential area and spending recreational time right next to one. Aesthetically, that is a beautiful area of town, used not only by local residents but by people all over town for recreation, and a facility of that size in that location is simply spoiling something beautiful. I have many questions that there will not be time to answer because of the rushed "public" process. Chief among them are these: *What is the demonstrated need for the proposed facility? Who is determining that need, and what chance has the public had to weigh in on a) the perceived need and b) the best way to address it? *Where does such a facility fit in the broader vision for Anchorage and the Anchorage 20/20 plan? *What is the point of having public process if there is no reasonable, visible notice given to those who use an area that a variance has been requested? I urge you to deny this variance, and to direct the power company to either select a (non-residential) location that requires no variance, or better yet, to initiate a public process to evaluate the perceived need. Please be a zoning commission, not a rubber stamp. Thank you. | |
| Jim Anderson | 9/10/2010 9:02:13 AM |
| After visiting this site, the proposed CEA infrastructure is inappropriate for this neighborhood. Given that O'Malley has a number of commercial/industrial zones, the proposed equipment/towers should be located in one of those areas. In general, this type of planning/infrastructure sets a bad precedent in residential areas and degrades the residential area. | |
| Christine Monette | 8/2/2010 6:19:31 PM |
| The Huffman O'Malley Community Council is opposed to the zoning variance being sought by Chugach Electric for this property for various reasons. First the property is located on the opposite side of the street from the high voltage lines it needs to be connected to. Chugach Electric's own Site Plan Standards (page 1)listed the proposed area for this substation and tower location to be situated between Lake Otis and Elmore Road and 84th Avenue and O'Malley Road. So by the standards set by Chugach this property is outside the boundary by being on the south side of O'Malley. The minimum lot size for this project is listed as 2 acres, this property just meets that minimum lot size and will be such a tight fit that by Chugach's own addmisssion, they are very constrained as to the way they can situated this substation on the property and provide for visual screening. The front screening from O'Malley Road will only be about 11 feet deep when taking the road right of way into consideration. This land use of this R6 zoned lot is not compatiable with the surrounding large lot residential area, with the exception of the Greek Church on the west side of this property this area is predominatly large lot single family homesites. We feel that Chugach Electric has not done enough to publicize this proposed site use, by their own addmission they have met with Abbott Loop Community Council and Huffman O'Malley Community Council, and the surrounding property owners. However considering the visual impact of this proposed substation and the potential impact on property values in the surrounding "Furrow Creek Area" we feel that this issue has a much wider impact and the public should have the opportunity to weigh in on this location and land use. At a minimum a public meeting should be held prior to the variance being granted. As I am sure you are all familiar with the very public outcry during the HDP process with regard for maintaining the Furrow Creek area as large lot RESIDENTIAL. I do not think this is what the area has in mind and if they were aware of it, Planning and Zoning would have a great deal more than the one comment I saw online. On a final note I am concerned about one line I saw when reading this application. In the attached letter from the planning department dated Jun22, 2010, the second paragraph reads "CEA has reviewed MOA's collection standards in AMC 21.45.265 (A) (4) and has concluded that the design of the porposed communication tower at 2940 O'Malley Road will be able to accomodate collocation of additional antennas for future users." Are we to assume we could see addtional antennas on this site in the years to come and if so, how many? Thank you | |
| Larry Flemming | 7/13/2010 7:50:24 PM |
| Although no plans are shown on the website, utility substations generally require large cleared areas without vegetation and high chain link fences; thus presenting a severe industrial appearance. The impact is multiplied if 24 hour lighting is required. High voltage hum from transformers is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Such an installation is completely inconsistent with the existing secluded R-6 large lot residential character of the neighborhood and is likely to have a significant negative impact on property values on Hane Street. As a neighbor, I strongly oppose this variance application. | |