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. | |
|---|---|
| Tom Bronga | 2/1/2012 2:32:24 PM |
| Along with being a fine educational institution, APU is know for its fine open spaces. Many clubs, schools, and other organizations use the APU lands for dozens of community events and many outdoor purposes. The APU Master Plan must take this into consideration. The APU 20 year master plan needs careful review. The building of a road through the soccer field will cause great disruption in the current APU lands. Adding a PLI structure on the East side of the property also greatly disrupts the area. The APU master plan should dedicate trails and green belt areas as well. There should be at least a 50 foot setback along the Chester Creek trail. The APU master plan should consolidate the development of PLI property around the existing PLI buildings on the south end and along Providence Drive. | |
| matthew / janet magsino / arens | 10/10/2011 6:52:31 PM |
| We strongly oppose any MoA action in furtherance of the APU request for endorsement/approval of the (APU) Master Plan until community members have had ample opportunity to review it. | |
| Carolyn Dulaney | 10/10/2011 11:25:16 AM |
| I am requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission postpone a decision on case number 2010-100 and 2011-108 until a meeting is held with the residents of the College Alps Condo Association, UACC and the Collegegate community to provide detailed information on the long term vision of APU. As many of the other comments indicate, the information about this case was extremely vague and difficult to find. I believe most area residents are not aware of the underlying risk of having this change request go through with what appears to be an open door to unbridled development on property that is adjacent to a large established residential area. These changes would have long lasting adverse affects on the environment of this area as well as the quality of life and property values. Homeowners in the area have not been provided adequate information on this project to be able to assess the risks involved in these changes. Pushing through changes with what appears to be a secretive agenda is totally inappropriate. Given adequate information many more property owners would have the opportunity to make educated and informed decisions on the proposed land use designation change. Please allow more time before making a decision. Personally I oppose the proposals which would allow development of additional lands on APU. - C. Sue Dulaney, President, College Alps Condo Association | |
| Kristin Hanson | 10/9/2011 2:18:52 PM |
| Please extend deliberation on this measure until there has been more time for residents and others affected to review these plans. | |
| George Constantino | 10/9/2011 8:02:40 AM |
| I feel that not enough information has been shared with the community council or adjoining citizens and would like to postpone the decision | |
| charles akers | 10/9/2011 12:18:13 AM |
| I have just learned of the proposed changes to the zoning of APU's property and would ask that the counsel not vote on this change to the zoning until a later time. I for one use this trail system on a regular basis and have just learned of this proposed change. I feel this is a significant change to the non-depeloped areas in the Anchorage bowl that has not been sufficiently publicized. I would ask that this vote be postponed to allow for those that this change directly affects to have a chance to research what exactly this change entails. Thank you, Charlie Akers | |
| Lorena Knapp | 10/7/2011 4:12:36 PM |
| I am requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission postpone a decision on case number 2010-100 and 2011-108 until a meeting is held with the residents of the College Alps Condo Association. As many of the other comments indicate, the information about this case was extremely vague and difficult to find. I believe many more homeowners in the area do not understand the implications of the proposed change. Given adequate information many more would oppose the proposed land use use designation change. Please allow more time before making a decision. Personally I oppose the proposals which would allow development of additional lands on APU. APU needs to find other ways of generating revenue than renting out buildings on its property. They have already have a hotel, what will be next? | |
| Margaret Kugel | 10/3/2011 4:05:05 PM |
| I am concerned by the stealthy way in which land in the east and northeast of this tract is essentially being rezoned for development of an unspecified nature. Several of my neighbors couldn't even get the information from the Municipal website. (It took an unreasonably long time to download once I had determined the correct series of links to click on.) The plan to develop this land is buried in the documents and is extremely vague. It isn't really mentioned in the narrative, but the diagrams on pages 95, 98 and 146 seem to show some large blocks of land in the northeast part of the tract designated for future development. The poor quality of the diagrams prevents me from determining exactly which level of shading applies to these areas. However, some form of future development appears to be indicated. I say "some form" because I can't really find anything that states specifically what would be done. This land, especially the land on the eastern boundary of the tract, should not be developed: • It lacks road access. • It is too close to an established residential neighborhood. • It will turn the Chester Creek trail into an unpleasant barren strip between the subdivision and the newly developed area. The 25' setback from the edge of the trail is inadequate. Part of that area has already been cleared of vegetation leaving perhaps 15' of vegetation to provide (inadequate) screening. The University has not been a good neighbor. They have essentially done a lot of commercial development already, in violation of the spirit of the PLI zone. This is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog. We have a TINY educational institution claiming that it needs a large government office building (being expanded at this very moment), a hotel(!), a medical office building, and a television and radio station to support its academic programs. Interesting that its much larger neighbor, UAA, doesn't need to commercially develop its property. How is APU going to develop this area? We have NO idea - except their past track record. Now that they have a hotel and some office buildings, perhaps they would like to add a restaurant and a dry cleaner. Maybe a bank, to help their business students? The application prepared by DOWL certainly made University Lake sound idyllic. Have you been there lately? The dog park has RUINED the lake and turned the area into a wasteland. University Lake smells bad all summer, due to all the dog waste that runs into it. The slopes on the northwestern and western portions of the lake, as well as the main dog field, have been denuded and nothing will grow there. Dog owners park illegally everywhere to the point of obstructing the road, because there isn't adequate parking for a dog park. On top of the dog damage, there is significant beaver damage all around the lake. APU has done precious little to address these problems. (To be fair, other landowners share responsibility for the condition of the lake.) If this is an indication of how APU plans to manage the rest of their property, then they should not be given carte blanche to develop it further. The APU Master Plan should integrate well with other master plans affecting this region. It does not achieve this goal, especially with regard to the effect this plan would have on existing trails in the area. | |
| Elizabeth & Dean Blair | 10/1/2011 12:32:51 PM |
| We have reviewed the web site as directed in the Notice of Public Hearing flyer. There is nothing that helps us understand what the case is all about. We suggest the hearing be postponed until the area residents have sufficient information. Thank you. | |
| Joseph Mumm | 9/27/2011 9:03:44 PM |
| I also cannot determine what the petition is about. Is this just some general planning for APU? Are they trying to purchase some land for an expansion? | |
| Lorena Knapp | 9/22/2011 11:53:02 PM |
| I also went to the website after receiving notice in the mail. Even after looking over the resources on the website I still have no idea what this case entails. Please provide additional information. | |
| William Soule | 9/21/2011 2:56:22 PM |
| I received a public notice by mail of this case, and, becasue the notice told me nothig, went on line to see if this was something I might be interested in commenting upon. There is nothing available on line that even states in vaguest terms what this case is about. I called the listed numbers and spoke to Karen Iverson, who was very professional and tried to be helpful. But my intial comment is: It seems a waste of time and money to send out hundreds of public notices, which contain bascially no information. Furthermore, the web site to which we are directed similarly says nothing of value. Time remaining to the public hearing is running short. I suggest you postpone the hearing until such time as the facts are available to the public, and the public has enough time to review and comment. Thank you. | |