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. | |
|---|---|
| Jeff Simmons | 4/8/2011 8:58:16 AM |
| Anchorage is a very unique city. I have never lived anyplace that has had the boundaries so well defined, and immovable. That being said I understand that any undeveloped land will be built on and probably sooner rather than later. I knew that the undeveloped plot in Westpark was going to be developed when my wife and I bought our house in that development. However the plan that the Peterson Group is proposing is not a good fit. There are no duplexes in Westpark today. The neighborhood has very nice sized lots. I am not asking that no one be allowed to develop, but that what is developed fits in. I would ask that the zoning board rejects the current plan, and puts a limit on the number of units that can be developed. I would also ask that only single family homes are allowed. This will ensure a good fit into what is currently developed, and ensure that Westpark continues to be a premier Anchorage neighborhood. I know that the Westpark HOA has approved this plan, but is should be noted that the Peterson Group gave them $25,000, I have not talked to a single neighbor that feel the current plan is good for Westpark. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. | |
| Jason Hartz | 4/4/2011 9:25:58 PM |
| I am writing to state my opposition to the Petersen Group’s conditional use application for a planned unit development at 9101 West Park Dr. The Planning and Zoning Commission should deny this application because it would frustrate the development of the West Park subdivision as a neighborhood and it does not promote the sensible development of the Sand Lake area. Anchorage offers very few areas with consistent housing densities. The hodge-podge of densities and uses makes it difficult for communities to form and for neighborhoods to develop cohesive identities. The West Park subdivision, up to this point at least, offered a good chance for a strong neighborhood identity through uniform uses and densities and a strong homeowner’s association. Increasing the density for this parcel would make West Park like the numerous other neighborhoods in Anchorage and prevent West Park from living up to its full potential. The Sand Lake already has high density housing options where they make sense, near the area’s commercial centers at the intersection of Jewel Lake Road with Raspberry Road and Dimond Boulevard. Increasing the density in West Park will put a lot of people in an area distant from the services they need and increase the strain on the already busy roads. In addition to the increased traffic impacts the planned unit development’s negative impacts would be substantially greater than those of the currently planned single-family homes. The existing single-family housing designation for the West Park subdivision makes the most sense for the neighborhood and surrounding community. I respectfully request that the conditional use application be denied and the existing zoning maintained. | |
| Natalie and Tom Carey | 3/30/2011 9:38:36 PM |
| The proposed change of zoning from RIA to a Planned Unit Development is strongly opposed by the residents of this area. The additional density in a multi-family project has been rejected by the Sand Lake Community Council. I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to honor the decision of our people and Council by rejecting this proposed change of zoning. Thank you for your attention to the interests of this neighborhood. Natalie Carey Natalie Carey | |
| Thor Rushin big bend loop | 3/26/2011 11:00:29 AM |
| I have one of the first set of homes built on big bend loop and my back yard backs up to this proposed change in zoning please do not approve the zoning change the area cannot handle the amount of people it will bring there are only 2 ways out of the neighborhood and the diamond road exit is a death trap. I have been very disappointed with this neighborhood so far I bought into a home value proposal of 300000 or more and now we have ranches all over the place which devalued my property by 38000 but my taxes never show it and hulquist promised a lot of things including quality but that has never happened they never finished anything on the move in nothing and did not follow rules set up in their own papers and took the escrow money set aside before they repaired anything, This is just my experience but I have heard worse situations than mine. All in all if this zoning change happens I will be left no choice but to sell my home and leave this area I cannot afford to take another hit like this and I am not willing to deal with the mess it will create, what has our word become , what has a promise of a valued neighborhood become. In closing I beg you please do not change the zoning please listen to the people who have to live here and have worked hard for their money and homes. Thank you Thor Rushin | |
| Daniel Burgess | 3/24/2011 2:49:39 PM |
| The Sand Lake Community Council passed a resolution (2011-02b) on March 14th 2011 rejecting any changes to the density, and rejecting the proposed PUD. This can be found on the Sand Lake Community Council website.... Specifically, here's the site address for the resolution: http://www.sandlakecc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SLCC_Resolution_2011-02b.pdf This resolution was original proposed in February, but was tabled, to allow The Petersen Group to present their proposed changes... The resolution was re-written, then re-voted on after The Petersen Group presented their changes at the March 14th 2011 regular council meeting. Thank you... Dan Burgess Sand Lake Community Council President | |
| Mike Glasionov | 3/22/2011 9:41:58 AM |
| I and my family have lived in the area for 13 years and are homeowners in Kincaid Heights subdivision for 8 years. The whole ‘gravel pit” project has been very stressful to the all surrounding neighborhood. At first, there was a plan to build 600 or even more single family houses, and then it went down to 400 or so. Then Housing Meltdown brought it down even further. It was clear to everyone in the community that the projected development was going to stress down the ground water, sewage, roads and off course local schools and social services. Meeting the resistance, the project managers broke it down to the stages. They started from building nice, higher end 3-4 bedroom houses at the highest point of the pit, slowly transforming it to the lower end houses and then even to premade small houses toward the lower point of the pit. They still were trying to make it look nice, by showing off big signs about future park, school and other attractive futures. With the time and ever gusting winds and sand storms in the pit, the signs where blown away along with the hope for there realization. Now, the developers want to create even more damage to the area by changing the zoning and start building multifamily houses. The “affordability” is really going to bring it down to the lowest point of the “pit project”. For all neighborhoods it is going be down to surviving. To what extend we can allow them to full us all living in the area? To what extend we want to turn the most beautiful part our town into “a pit”? Please live our community alone and reject the proposed changes. | |
| Pete & Frances Raynor | 3/16/2011 7:02:44 PM |
| To Whom it May Concern: We will be unable to make the meeting on 3/14/11, but would like to voice our objection to the proposed re-zoning of the Westpark subdivsion to allow multiple family dwellings. The Petersen Group wants to go against what was originally approved to be built to force us to let them do whatever they would like to in "The Pits", even though it would negatively effect the residents in the surrounding area. Guess they figured people would just give up and let them have their way if they just layed low for a few years. Obviously The Petersen Group never had any intention of keeping the promises made in the beginning of single family dwellings. We would like to make it clear that we DO NOT support the proposed re-zoning. The initial concers of the citizens of the Sand Lake area have already been ignored (particularly aquifer contamination). We hope that our elected officials will now listen to the people that they are supposed to represent and keep this development limited to single family dwellings. Thank you for the chance to comment. Pete & Frances Raynor | |
| Erik Lind | 3/15/2011 8:16:59 PM |
| Dear Zoning and Platting Commission, Rachel and I have lived in the Alaska for almost all of our lives. I have lived in the Anchorage area for over 30 years and we recently purchased a home in the West Park subdivision. One main selling point was due to the fact that the current zoning indicated that this was only zoned for single family homes. As we live on what would back up to this PUD, we would bear the burden of living with the nightmare if this re-zoning is approved. We recently attended a Sand Lake Community Council meeting where the developer presented his plan for the PUD. I asked him specifically what benefits this PUD would bring to the area, and he could not think of one positive improvement for the current neighborhood. As with the rest of the comments I have read regarding this request for rezoning, there is no positive outcome with the planned PUD. Some possible adverse situations range from disturbed wells, increased noise and crime, stress on existing utilities, and so on. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to deny this re-zoning request. Sincerely, Erik Lind | |
| Tim Pine | 3/14/2011 5:10:57 PM |
| I am a member of the Sand Lake Community Council and one of the representatives from this council on the West Anchorage Development Plan. I have listened to the presentations by the developers about plans for this area before development started. There were no plans for this type of high density or multi family units at that time. If there had been I would have not supported that type of development. Changes of this type are not in keeping with the community vision of the developing WADP. At the least the consideration of this type of change should wait for WADP to be completed. I can not support this request for a zoning change and urge the P&Z Commision to reject the request. | |
| Mike Hudok | 3/14/2011 4:31:06 PM |
| To Whom it may concern, I have not wrote in before, but I feel that this time I should. I believe that we shouldn’t even entertain this rezoning for the condominiums. We all went through this before when the developer started the project. What we have in place is what should stay. I’m sure the home owners that bought into that area don’t like the thought of it. I don’t think the school situation has been thought out either. Thanks, Mike | |
| Mike Hudok | 3/14/2011 3:56:15 PM |
| To Whom it may concern, I have not wrote in before, but I feel that this time I should. I believe that we shouldn’t even entertain this rezoning for the condominiums. We all went through this before when the developer started the project. What we have in place is what should stay. I’m sure the home owners that bought into that area don’t like the thought of it. I don’t think the school situation has been thought out either. Thanks, Mike | |
| Gail Heineman | 3/14/2011 2:04:27 PM |
| I have been a member of Sand Lake Community Council since 1982, and was on the board for a number of years. I attended some of the meetings with the developer of the pit. There was never any mention of multi-family housing to be built. The design of the subdivisions, property reserved for a school, park, the infrastructure of water, sewer, roads, all were designed for single family houses only. The houses in the pit were all sold with the understanding that the zoning of exclusively single family was in place. The increased pressure on the sewerage lift station, near where the aquifer is likely exposed (the pond), endangers the thousands of homeowners in the surrounding areas on wells. To change the zoning now would be a betrayal not only of the residents who have purchased property, but all the citizens of Anchorage who will have to pay, through their taxes, for all the modifications required for the increased density. The liability to the Muni when that lift station fails is monumental, and increased density would cause increased pressure. Allowing increased density in the pit would be a monumental mistake, and very bad news not just for Sand Lake residents, but all taxpayers citywide. | |
| Lorraine Jacquard | 3/14/2011 1:13:48 PM |
| I will be attending the SLCC meeting tonight, paying my annual membership fee and voting AGAINST any zoning changes that will allow the Petersen Group to put multi-family condos/apartments behind my house. I read their summation and they must think we're all idiots to believe they intend to sell large numbers of units to "retired seniors who won't live here year round", and for that reason, the roads and infrastructure won't be stressed. HUH? Are you really going to say no to anyone with money in hand when the retired seniors are taking longer to buy than you thought? That's just one of the ridiculous claims they are making. More than anything though, is that we all bought into this neighborhood under what are now false pretenses - single family homes, new school and where in the heck is that park? | |
| Jim Sanders Christopher Salerno | 3/10/2011 6:20:41 AM |
| There is little new to add to the thoughtful comments submitted in opposition to this ridiculous proposal. Both of us have lived in the Sand Lake area for over twenty years. The sand pit was an eye sore for decades and a great example of poor municipal planning. Several years ago, the planning authority was asked to re-zone the east corner of Sand Lake Rd & Dimond to commercial to allow the construction of a Holiday Gas Station. The San Lake Community was unanimous in it's opposition and the Planning Commission wisely rejected the proposal. Please recognize the wisdom of the opposition to this zoning change and listen to the residents who know and care about our neighborhood. | |
| josh Chapman | 3/7/2011 12:05:55 PM |
| Right now when I look out my back door there is a beutiful open feild, but to look out that door and be faced with a duplex, triplex or fourplex is flat out wrong. We purchased this house last summer with the understanding that Westpark is a single family home neighborhood. There has been a plan for this neighborhood from the start, why change it now just because a DIFFERENT developer wants to change things? Going from 113 units to 239 units is rediculous and I hope that the planning and zoning commitee see that too. | |
| Courtney Chapman | 3/6/2011 5:42:52 PM |
| As many people before me have stated this is NOT what we signed up for. this is the second house that my husband and I have purchased in this area and our first thought when he heard of this new development is that 'it's time to move again'. We moved to Westpark with our two small children because it was what we pictured for our family, nice houses and quiet streets. Adding such a large amount of housing in a small area will harm the feeling of the neiborhood and cause a lot of current residence to seek housing elsewhere. Please do not put high desity housing in my backyard! | |
| Steven Kaleta, PE | 2/6/2011 11:26:26 PM |
| I have lived on Big Bend Loop since November 2006 and have lived in the Sand Lake community all my life. As child I used to play in this gravel pit and now I have a nice ranch house I enjoy living in the West Park Neighborhood. I purchased the house with the understanding that all houses were zoned for single family houses and that an elementary school would be built in the future. This is a nice place to start a family as long as the zoning is not changed. If you want to take a look at what results from high density housing look at the multifamily dwelling units at West 84th Ave and Jewel Lake Rd. I moved to West Park to get away from all the high density housing on Jewel Lake. Some of the houses at West 84th and Jewel Lake are so close together that it is difficult for fire trucks to navigate, houses with so little space that cars are parked parallel to unit, loud parties every weekend, trash being thrown around all over the place, and the police have to respond to a lot of situations in that neighborhood. We already have job, income, and race diversity in the West Park neighborhood. On my street we have architect, Costco workers, janitors, nursing assistants, EMT, police officers, accountants, engineers, electrical engineer,real estate agent, mortgage investors, and small business owners among other individuals. So the houses are already affordable to a wide segment of the middle class working community in Anchorage. There is no reason to add multifamily housing because the single family houses are already affordable. Adding multifamily housing would increase traffic, noise pollution, cause a lose of privacy, require more public infrastructure, and increase probability of crime. Would the multifamily units be forced to comply to the West Park Home Owner Association standards and pay association fees? How would you prove that my house would not decrease in property value after the multifamily housing has been built? I spent many years in engineering school to get a good college degree with a useful skill and years to save up a down payment to buy my first house on Big Bend Loop Dr. If the multifamily units are built I would just sell my house and you would lose valuable property tax money. I am sure that I would not be the last person to sell their house if the zoning changes. I hope that the Sand Lake community council is educated enough to make an informed decision from the people that live in the neighborhood and all others potentially affected by the zoning changes. | |
| Beverly Churchill | 2/5/2011 12:57:19 PM |
| The development of the Westpark/gravelpit area has had a history of poor development decisions by the city, pressed by the private developer and friends. Please do not continue to degard the area by once again going back on the original plans. It is in the words of the governor (used in another context but appropriate here as well) "Unfathomable" that once again this area's plans are changed for the enrichment of the developer and friends, without balancing the impact on the area, on the livability and esthetics of our city. | |
| Bobette Kramer | 2/3/2011 10:05:47 PM |
| I first moved to Jewel Lake & Dimond area in 2002. It was a quiet area. Since the housing was added in the 'sand pit' cars and trucks create a constant roar outside our windows. Crossing Dimond to access the walking path or Jewel Lake is taking your life into your hands to cross before the constant traffic takes you out! There are only two ways into Sand Lake Road and the traffic is constant and very fast on Dimond and Raspberry. I don't want more housing in the area - especially high density condos! I worry about my high schooler walking on the Dimond shoulders and even crossing at the light at Dimond and Jewel Lake. It just isn't safe for pedestrians any more - please don't make the traffic worse by adding more housing! | |
| Claire Lewis | 2/3/2011 7:39:01 PM |
| It is clear from the 39 previously posted comments that the proposed condo development is not wanted. As mentioned in my letter in the ADN today, I have great concerns for this dense development. It is not just about our well preservation, rather; other concerns as mentioned by Will Watson, Dee Essert, Betty Dodds, and many other neighbors. Please do the right thing and keep the current zoning. | |
| Nick Pepperworth | 2/3/2011 2:32:16 PM |
| This is a clear form of economic obsolesence Multi family homes would reduce the value of single family homes period. Do not consider this | |
| Melvyn jones | 2/3/2011 10:35:39 AM |
| 02/03/2011 When my wife and I decided to move back to Anchorage from the Kenai we looked closely at all that was available for sale/our conclusion was Westpark was the best bang for the buck'the homes were new-the designs were good and the area was ALL SINGLE FAMILY ZONED. Some of us are in the twilight of our years and still remember when your word was your bond--remember you zoned this property single family--keep your word' | |
| Patrick Witherell | 2/2/2011 11:32:19 AM |
| I oppose rezoning or allowing a conditional use permit for the (PUD), Kincaid Estates Subdivision along with the SACC, and many other neighbors of the area. A muliplicity of reasons and explanations already given and historically ignored nothwithstanding, now is the time to actually listen to and understand the concerns of the residents of the community and support them in opposition to this case. | |
| Misty Lisenby | 2/2/2011 7:28:56 AM |
| The proposed rezoning should be denied. As current home owners in the neighborhood affected by this case, we bought our home in this area because it was strictly zoned for single family homes. There is no way the neighborhood could successfully maintian the quality of life for the families currently living there if the zoning was changed to include other buildings. Most schools in the area are crowded right now. The roads are designed for single family homes and traffic flow. Again, this proposal should be denied. It benefits no one in our neighborhood. Only a contractor looking to make a quick buck. | |
| Michael Hatton | 2/1/2011 2:53:51 PM |
| This proposed rezoning should be denied. This residential area is currently made up of single family homes and it should stay this way. The rezoning of this area would be unfair to all homeowners in the West Park subdivision. It is clear to see that adding multi family units would cause undo stress and congestion for our neighborhood. I strongly disagree with this rezoning attempt. | |
| Linda Johnson | 2/1/2011 8:59:29 AM |
| This proposed rezoning should be denied. We live just up the hill from the proposed units. The residential area is currently made up of single family homes on all sides. The rezoning would be unfair to all those who bought homes in the area with the expectation that single family homes would be added. The congestion that would be created would be intolerable and the current road system would be inadequate. The planned schools were considered with only single family homes in mind. We oppose this rezoning. | |
| Bill Demming | 1/31/2011 9:03:38 PM |
| Not just NO, HELL NO!! P&Z do your jobs and do not let this developer build this subdivision!2011-013 | |
| Kenneth Roullier | 1/31/2011 7:32:05 PM |
| I vehemently oppose this new "proposed" zoning arrangement. (Talk about wasting the tax-payers money!)I have been a resident of this area for over 40 years. My wife and I gave this area careful consideration before making it our home. To put up multi-family housing would destroy this area. It would bring down property values, create unsafe areas, and would put considerable strain on the existing infrastructure. Having lived in Anchorage most of my life, I have witnessed what apartments bring to the area, look at the mess behind Jewel Lake Bowl, long an area prone to crime, high density, and decreased property values. If the developer in question wants to develop, then they should do it as originally agreed upon with single family homes. To the members of the zoning committee I urge you to follow your departments committment to the citizens of Anchorage, "The Planning Division's mission is to guide Anchorage land use development and community resources to meet the quality of life, economic, social, environmental, and physical needs of present and future residents. Good planning makes for livable neighborhoods, a safe and healthy community, and a sustainable economy. How land use fits in with housing, transportation, community and economic development gives Anchorage its character". I am all for the right to develop; however, this is one of the few areas where I feel good about raising my family in, lets keep it that way. I hope you find the fortitude to tell this developer that the current zoning law will stay in effect. | |
| Nichole Roullier | 1/31/2011 4:33:47 PM |
| I have been involved in a prior Zoning and Platting issue located near the Sand Lake Gravel Pits, and felt that the views of the residents were heard only for show. The developer wanted to subdivide a parcel in a manner inconsistent with the property sizes around the parcel. When it was pointed out by a resident in their comments, the panel asked the developer if he had considered increasing the size of the properties to match those that were surrounding, he said, no they had not. And that was it. The panel never brought it up again, and the property was subdivided as the developer had submitted. And when they did come in to develop the properties, they plowed down almost every tree on the site, also inconsistent with the natural vegetation that exists on properties around this site, and also not supposed to happen per the developers comments at the hearing. My point is, PLEASE Planning & Zoning Commission, listen to all of the comments that are listed here. The water issues, and congestion issues, and lack of sufficient services for these increases in family units are all REAL. This is not what was originally agreed to, this is not in the best interest of the community and surrounding housing, and seems to me, only benefits one "person"...the developer. Stick to the original zoning, it was specified for a reason. And prove me wrong,prove the Planning & Zoning Commission really DOES listen to the community, and makes the decision based on what is best for the community, and not the developer. | |
| Brent Sanders | 1/31/2011 4:19:53 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to the rezoning of the gravel pit. This issue has already been visited and decided against due to water, roads, and several other issues. We recently moved into the area. The fact that it is a lower density area with the rest of the vacant land zoned single-family is one of the things that attracted us to the area. Going in and changing the zoning after the fact and possibly affecting our home values by changing the density is completely unacceptable. There are many upper end homes in the area. Stacking in a bunch of higher density properties next to them will completely alter the feel and value of these properties. I am vehemently oppossed to any alteration of the current zoning. | |
| James and Kathy Falconer | 1/31/2011 3:55:49 PM |
| We are adamantly opposed to rezoning of a portion of the area previously known as the Sandlake gravel pits. While doing so might in the short term bring in greater tax revenue, it would also overburden our infrastructure, particularly roads, and change the beauty and character of this part of Anchorage. We moved to this area knowing that these neighbors would also be in single family dwellings. We don't want to see that change. | |
| Greg and Julie Pepe-Phelps | 1/31/2011 12:43:31 PM |
| We do not support changing the zoning for the proposed multi-family housing in the Westpark Development. When the original zoning was studied and passed it was determined that the BEST use was for it's current density, based on many criteria but mostly safety and water. Every time a developer has a new idea does not give the city a pass to disregard previous well thought out plans. We strongly disagree with this proposal and would expect our local officials to stand by the already studied and planned zoning rules in affect. New tax revenues should not be a reason to change existing laws. | |
| Stacy Tomuro | 1/31/2011 11:58:36 AM |
| We do not support zoning for multifamily residential housing in this area because of the following: 1) Local infrastructure (utilities, water, roads including traffic) will not be able to support this. Specifically, Dimond Blvd. at the South entrance to WestPark is already extremely dangerous due to poor visibility to both east/west bound traffic, and Kincaid Rd. at the North entrance is dangerous because of the grade coming from the West. 2) We purchased property in an adjacent neighorhood with the understanding that this development and surrounding neighborhoods would only have single family housing development. 3) Negative impact to existing property values due to non-owner occupied multifamily residential property development. 4) Potential contamination to existing property owners who depend on wells for their water supply. New studies would be needed to determine whether more residences than originally planned would be a danger to those wells. 5) Have not seen any supporting evidence that justifies a multifamily housing need in this area. | |
| Julie Gauthier | 1/31/2011 9:02:36 AM |
| I am upset that the Municipality of Anchorage is even considering putting multi-family dwellings in my neighborhood. It is not that I am against multi-family dwellings. There are MANY areas all over Anchorage that have been zoned for this use for years. How can the MOA consider CHANGING the zoning of a neighborhood AFTER someone has purchased? It is just not right and all the decision makers know it in their hearts. I would like to see one neighbor in support...just one. If this passes - it will be evidence that nothing about our public input is considered. Why can't this developer do a development that fits the zoning. WHY? Because the developer doesn't want to follow rules? Because the developer wants to make money? Well I want to make money too, but I follow the existing rules and exercise within those parameters. Please consider our property values and the fact that WE are following the zoning rules - so should any developer. Please develop responsibly. | |
| Jeanne McQueary | 1/30/2011 8:37:16 PM |
| Absolutely no rezoning should be allowed on the gravel pits. Some years ago, it was permitted as single family dwellings over the objections of Sand Lake resident inspite of a multitude of problems with well water, traffic flow.. higher density rezoning is totally inappropriate for this neighborhood. | |
| Kevin Layou | 1/30/2011 8:13:19 PM |
| I am opposed to any denser development in Sand Lake where there is insufficient road capacity, water, sewer and schools to support the outrageous sprawl that has already been permitted. There were parks promised in the area too, but all I see is more and more housing and a fenced off area that WAS labeled a park, but seems to be a fill dump site now. There is way too much pressure on this part of town now, and soon so doubt the roads will be expanded to Tudor road size with strip malls and gas stations to support the thousands of new residents. | |
| Jonathan Butzke | 1/30/2011 4:08:07 PM |
| Planting the Sand Lake Sand Pit with "slum style" density that has gone over so well when built in the 1970's in other now crime ridden areas of town, will surely make this area of Anchorage a place to be proud of. NOT! I will sell my house, business, and properties, and the leave the neighborhood and state after 46 years if this bait and switch scheme gets past zoning. | |
| Judy Rosenberger | 1/29/2011 11:51:30 AM |
| We purchased our house knowing that the Westpark neighborhood was zoned only for single family residences,a park, and a school. At no time were we ever informed about the multi-unit structures. Based on the information we were given at the time of purchase this area was perfect for us. This neighborhood has some great homes with great property values. Our home is located on the street next to this "multi-unit planned development". The value of home will be greatly diminished by this development. For these reasons and numerous others we oppose the rezoning of this area. | |
| George Barrett | 1/29/2011 11:17:25 AM |
| I am totally opposed to any change in zoning that would permit multi family dwellings in the south end (or any other part)of the Westpark Developmnent. The purchase of my home was made with the understanding that only singe family homes would be allowed in the development. George Barrett | |
| Jason Gamache | 1/29/2011 10:17:43 AM |
| We do not support zoning for multifamily housing in this area. Local infrastructure (utilities, water, roads including traffic) will not be able to support this. Our family purchased property adjacent to this site with the understanding that this would be more single family housing... We want what’s best for us, but moreover we want to help protect our neighbors and community. We support single family housing behind our house only. | |
| Michael Carlson | 1/28/2011 9:09:42 PM |
| I oppose the rezoning of this property for higher density housing. The community was promised single family densities when the controversial plats were approved and that promise should be upheld. In addition the general character of the area is lower density which is acknowledged in the current draft of the West District Plan, which recommends that higher density housing be located near town centers and public transportation corridors like Jewel Lake Road. let's not throw out good planning practices and our carefully developed planning documents every time a developer has a new idea. That is a recipe for creating a haphazard, dysfunctional city. | |
| Tim Rittal | 1/28/2011 1:15:47 PM |
| Development of the pit was a poorly conceived idea right from the beginning and should never have been allowed in the first place in my opinion. The real estate market has not responded very well to the existing plan and now there is the bright idea to change to more dense & theoretically less expensive alternatives!? That would be going from bad to worse. The neighborhood does not need the increased density and the current owners in the West Park would be dealt a low blow decreasing their property values and significantly impacting the character of the community they were sold. | |
| Ian Curphey | 1/28/2011 8:56:31 AM |
| I strongly oppose this Re-zoning of the gravel pit (Kincaid Estates). I purchased my home next to the purposed site and would not have done so knowing, Multi-Family units had been approved or even considered. | |
| Susan Ritter | 1/28/2011 8:49:13 AM |
| Regarding the proposed change from single family to multifamily housing in the South-east corner of the Sand Lake Sand Pit. If you allow this to take place than you will allow families to live in their own toxic fumes. This corner of the pit has inversions which cover the land for days on end in the winter and that is without the pollution of homes and automobiles. So, if you allow the development of multiplex houses with all the additional cars that will be there, then you are allowing people to live in their own poison. Also, there is already crowding in our schools, you add more students to classroom sizes by allowing multiplex homes. Be sensible and do not allow this change to take place. | |
| Sharon Swendseid | 1/27/2011 11:27:37 PM |
| The proposed Petersen Group multi-family condos in Kincaid Estates will add to the dangerous driving conditions on West Dimond Blvd. and overburden the already deteriorating road. Though proposed to be phased in, there is still the prospect of an elementary and middle school being built at the same time. During the Petersen presentation on 1/10/11 Sand Lake Community Council learned that Mr. Hultquist is also planning a multi-family development in the northwest portion of Kincaid Estates. According to PM&E Projects On-Line, upgrades for West Dimond Blvd. from Jodhpur St. to Sand Lake Road are on hold until at least 2015 "if funding is available." Two schools and two multi-unit developments are too much for West Dimond and the surrounding roads in this area. | |
| William Watson/SACC | 1/27/2011 4:57:59 PM |
| Will Watson South Anchorage Concerned Coalition 8111 Sundi Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Dear Sir/Madam, When the Sand Lake Pit development was permitted in 2003/04 assurances were provided to the local residents concerned about their water. PnZ said only single family residences, higher density PUDs were not put forth as a possibility. The residents look back and know they were mislead by the Muni, ADEC and a Developer who misrepresented the truth to them. As has been well documented in 3-studies led by PhD level scientists that have pulled back the veil on a very important issue. The vulnerability of Sand Lake drinking water and citizens health. The content of this transmittal relies heavily on what others said over the years. Facts here tell a story of a process gone wrong and we as residents can only hope a remedy is in order now that the facts are clearer and the public more aware. Court is the communities last option not its first. When the Assembly served as Board of Adjustment they heard the pleas of the local residents and said the following: “The Platting Boards Findings that the proposed development promotes public health, safety and welfare with respect to ground water protections is not supported in the record by substantial evidence.” In addition they stated: “There is evidence in the record demonstrating that additional information and studies are still needed.” Did the Muni and the Planning Department call for more studies? It appeared the powers that be had a different plan. The Assembly would no longer serve as Board of Adjustment and the Mayor could select a new board of 3 that would not have to answer to the voters and the people of Sand Lake. All that had to happen was to get the “Board of 3” approved and “presto” the problem of Sand Lake residents could be circumvented. The Planning department contined to represernt to the public that that aquifers were not connected therefore public health was not at risk. In the fall of 2004 heavy rains doused a graded Pit and the South Pond became a reddish brown color. Within days residents from around the Pit reported having problems with their wells. Several wells stopped completely, many more had slowed and the filters happened to be the same color as the reddish brown South Pond. At least 14 people filed complaints with the Muni. Many other residents did not report problems with their well out of fear of Muni reprisals and possible difficulty in selling their homes. None of the residents reported to SACC or SLCC that they heard from the Muni in a constructive way. Some were told it was the ADEC’s problem. The ADEC said it was not their responsibility either. A bad situation made worse by public officials who hid. Samples of the complaints are included in the packet. Regardless the Muni stuck to its story that the aquifers were not connected. The Planning Dept. and Muni pointed to the ADEC report and did not apparently question how a credible scientific hydrology study could be only 8 pages long, with figures not based on existing data. In May of 2003 James Weise and his boss Kristin Ryan (both of ADEC) released an 8-page report that could not pass the straight face test. It made outlandish conclusions about the aquifers without factual data. When Mr. Weise was invited to the Sand Lake Community Council he accepted the invitation to discuss his report, then he was a no-show without even so much as phone call. A third party review of the ADEC abbreviated report as well as the Muni and Terrasat reports was demanded by residents. Rep. Norm Rokeberg took this matter very seriously and called the ADEC to task on its abbreviated report and the repercussions from it. A letter to the ADEC commissioner is included in the packet. Rep. Rokeberg worked with legislature and appropriated the funds necessary for the 3rd Party Review. As noted by the January 27, 2011 Sand Lake Community Council letter and others, the 2004 UAA report questioned the credibility of the ADEC report and that it apparently made assumptions a credible scientist would never do. The municipality relied on the 8-page ADEC report (Weise, 2003) and unsupported findings from a local contractor, Terrasat. Below are excerpts from the UAA 96-page 2004 report cited above: “Our review of the TERRASAT, Inc. reports with regards to the hydrogeologic studies conducted indicates that several unsubstantiated conclusions have been posed about the hydrogeologic environment at and near the site of the proposed subdivision. In the case of the hydrogeologic assessment of unconnected aquifers, the necessary data is lacking to support the conclusions. In the case of groundwater mixing analysis using groundwater chemistry, the available geochemical data does not contain the correct geochemical parameters and therefore the conclusions are not validated.” UAA (2004) “The ADEC (2003) does not provide analysis or modeling of the potential for contamination of the groundwater due to the proposed subdivision.” UAA (2004)” “Therefore, the appropriate data do not exist to make conclusions about the connection or lack thereof between the upper and lower parts of the aquifer system in the area or for the site of the proposed subdivision which has extremely limited data available to address this problem.” UAA (2004)” In a November 30, 2004 letter from Dan Sullivan to then Mayor Begich about the Pits and the UAA 2004 report saying; “..I found the information in the third party review and their knowledge of the relevant issues to be far more extensive than that of the representatives from DEC, only their concurrence that there is insufficient data and that they didn’t really want to be involved. This is interesting as their mission to protect the public from environmental degradation.” “Clearly, we now have the scientific rationale to require the developer to take the extra measures necessary to protect the surrounding neighbor’s water source. It is also clear that it is our obligation to ensure this protection. I urge you to direct your departments to not proceed with any future permitting and plan approvals until the developer has completed the additional testing and has agreed to the recommendations listed above.” The determination of this body will speak volumes, both about the members and our community at large. Will the problematic water situation be viewed as mistake that needs to be corrected, or another chapter in citizens treated poorly? Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. Will Watson SACC | |
| Jeff Lowenfels | 1/27/2011 4:38:55 PM |
| As a homeowner and a vacant lot owner in the near vicinity of West Park, I urge that the current density not be modified to all the proposed multifamily structures. When the Pits were proposed for development, the community was promised that it would be single family homes. That promise should be kept. | |
| Steve Gervel | 1/27/2011 1:39:05 PM |
| I am a property owner in the area with a private well. My major concern with the proposed rezone requested for this development is the potential for ground water contamination. Increasing the density of the area may pose serious challenges in providing an adequate storm water runoff pollution prevention plan for the site. If this rezone is allowed to go forward I would hope that the interests of all homeowners on private wells be respected with a viable system that assures that the ground water resource remains at its highest quality. | |
| Marvin Krogh | 1/27/2011 11:28:08 AM |
| Rezoning the area in question to allow multi family dwellings is not in the best interest of those that presently reside in the area. Why should the interest of a developer be allowed to reap the benefits established by existing agreeded upon zoning? Most of us choose to live in the area because of established existing zoning. We do not believe zoning should be changed to allow multi family dwellings. | |
| Marya Morrow | 1/26/2011 11:51:07 PM |
| I strongly oppose re-zoning in the gravel pit. Other people's comments have clearly stated my reasons for opposing this dreadful idea.(See Betty Dodds, Deanna Esserts, Frank Box and Jim Anderson.) Permitting high density housing in the pit would be a huge disservice to all surrounding homeowners. Past history in the pit has shown that developers have rights and homeowners have none. Isn't it time for a change? | |
| Marjorie and Robert Paulson | 1/26/2011 8:30:29 PM |
| We are very opposed to changing zoning in the West Park Subdivision. Increased population density will negatively impact quality of life and property values in the neighborhood. Traffic on Dimond at West Park Drive will become more of a safety issue than it is already. Long-standing wells in the area (already showing problems from increased demands on the aquifers) will be at further risk. How much additional street and yard run-off (and its poisons) can the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge continue to absorb? The schools in this area are already bulging. Why are we building more multi-family housing in a flight path for the airport? It's time Anchorage put quality of life issues ahead of the schemes of well-connected developers. | |
| Glenn Aronwits | 1/26/2011 7:31:07 PM |
| Durning Community Council Meetings and Planning Zoning hearing the developer(s) clearly stated that West Park Subdivision would contain only low density housing, no matter which one of their plats were approved. The P&Z board approved this development explicitly on a low density housing. This issue should be mute, as one of the key conditions of this development is it shall only contain single family homes. There are numerous health and safety issues with the surrounding private water systems and road conditions in the area. Health and safety issues have been brought up numerous times to Municipality, so I will not digress except to say stressing the infrastructure with high density housing is like playing russian roulette. The rezoning should not be considered period. | |
| T. Frank Box | 1/26/2011 3:45:03 PM |
| I moved into my home in Sandlake in 1982, at the time I moved in I was told there was a Supreme Court of Alaska decision regarding appropriate development. The statement said, that the gravel pits would need to be reclaimed and allowed to naturalize and/or settle for 10 years before they could be developed. That plan went off the table when a developer is also a member of the planning and zoning board purchased the property. If it were not for the work of the Sandlake Concerned Coalition the existing housing development at the bottom of the gravel pits would be full of multi-family dwellings. I suppose it is good thing that there are families living in the new development to advocate for respecting all of the legal language that went into the original project development hearings. Although, the developers were sharp enough to break the project into seven different plats has to make it difficult to litigate it is really one project. And should be treated as such. Many of us from the Sandlake Concerned Coalition spent long hours waiting to testify at the assembly chambers only to be belittled and heckled by planning and zoning board members. Furthermore, this had been settled and a variance need not be granted for higher density housing than was initially approved. This would de-value the new homes recently built and overload the current wastewater system as designed & built. | |
| Jeff Ritter | 1/26/2011 3:30:29 PM |
| I strongly oppose increased density zoning for the area in question. The West Park development as it exists has already over taxed the environment. | |
| Jim Anderson Anderson | 1/26/2011 1:06:59 PM |
| I am appalled that the municipality and the department of Zoning would even consider putting increased density multiplex units in the "gravel pit",(know known as West Park)! They were in error to even put in the development that they have, and they only succeeded because the more than three thousand citizens who depend on their wells for clean water, could not afford to fight the municipality and Mark Begich in court. After all, he had all of our high tax money with which to pay lawyers to sue us! We were, however, promised that there would be low density with large lots and single family only housing. Much of the plumbing and utility lines are presently only five or six feet above the aquifers that supply our wells. Many of us have had our (very deep) wells for thirty years. They draw from an ultimate water table that comes from the surrounding mountains, and according to the hydrologists,is plentiful and quite good quality since it has been filtered for several hundred years before now being brought to the surface. Multi family zoning in the gravel pit is an outrage and an insult to those citizens who have fought so long to maintain the safety of our water. Increased residential density will multiply the risk to our water ten-fold, and we have been promised that this would not happen. What good does it do to even have a Muncipality control? You go back on your word and decisions at will. You might as well put the developers in charge (who are motivated only by money) along with the City planning department (whose only concern is to create more taxes) also in charge and forget about anyone's rights! It seems that we are back in the old west days, driven to fighting about water rights, with a crooked sheriff in town! I don't want to hear about how we should all hook up to city utilities: I already know that in my particular case, that move would put a lien on my house to the tune of $250,000. We have already paid tens of thousands of dollars to drill 256 ft for our well, maintain it, and install modern electric monitored on site septic system (designed to be permanent). furthermore, we pay the highest property taxes in the city. For what? We don't cost the Muni any money for water or sewer. We have large lots because we followed the rules, we are on top of good gravel that will support our usage indefinitely. Now, if our water table goes out (not to mention that there are no utility mains out here), we will be charged so much to hook up to the city that we would lose all of the equity in our homes. The value of our houses has already gone down because of that subdivision and it's possible effect on our homes. If you add greater density to the gravel pit subdivision, you now affect not only those of us who are on surrounding wells, but you will also lower the value of the single family residences already built there. Multi-family dwellings have never been known to increase the value of a neighborhood! At this very moment our well (which has a flow equal to a community well, is not flowing. We are trying to get a well digger out to ascertain and fix the problems if he can. However, we have called every well digger in the yellow pages, and they are all so busy they are two weeks out. Why? Unusual mass calls for well service in the middle of the winter, and especially so in Sand Lake. Do you think this is just coincidence? Or could it possibly be related to the deep commercial well that the pit developer was allowed to drill (very deep) and use forever to water his "sand and gravel, and now his top soil and nitrate filled grass? I do not know about others, but if the Municipality does this, and it is going to cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for utilities and take the equity from my home, I am willing to go back to court. I might as well pay the lawyers $250,000 as pay a municipality that has become as crooked as the infamous Chicago politicos! Incidentally, about two blocks away the Muni last summer put in a water line along north Jade and 84th street. Yes, the residents were each assessed from $12,000 and up, and forced to give up their community well. What happened to that community well? Why the Municipality takes it over, of course. They make more money now that they can charge those people monthly for the water that they used to get for a pittance. In fact, some of our larger community wells in the area; the Muni has been trying to buy the well from the homeowners association for years. They get their water from the same aquifers that we do, but greed moves them to acquire all that they can in order to charge more money for what we already have! And Mark Begich is gone. Now we have a GOOD MAYOR. I know he understands the problems. He defended us against the liberal assembly several years ago. Where is Mr. Sullivan now? | |
| Betty Dodds | 1/25/2011 8:37:46 PM |
| The Sand Lake Community was led to believe that only single family homes would be built in the West Park Subdivision. Rezoning to allow town houses and condos is an unfair, underhanded thing to do to the home owners in the subdivision as well as the homeowners in the surrounding area. Changing the zoning to allow condos and townhouses to be built will lower the value of the single family homes already built there. There are only two ways to enter or leave the West Park subdivision. Increased traffic will only increase the potential for accidents. What happens if the storm drainage system and the lift station are not adequate to handle the increased use? Will developers be required to pay into an escrow account to be used for fixing/upgrading the lift station if needed or will taxpayers and ratepayers bear the expense? Have the Corps of Engineers weighed in on the adequacy of the present AWWU sewage system should this rezoning take place? And most importantly, increased density is a threat to the aquifers that feed the wells of approximately 3000 residents in the Sand Lake Community. City water is not available nor affordable for those of us who rely on wells for our water. THIS REZONING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. | |
| Deanna Essert | 1/25/2011 4:42:51 PM |
| The proposed rezoning request from R1A to Planned Unit Development is incompatible with the abutting and surrounding zoning. The West Park Subdivision was sold to the Community with the zoning being R1A and the roads, lift station and storm drainage system were designed for R1A zoning. Substantial costs to property owners will be incurred if the R1A zoning is changed.(1) AWWU rate-payers will incur additional charges when the capacity for storm drainage and sewerage is increased to serve an area with increased density. (2) The access to West Park is a safety hazard, as many leaving West Park do not stop for West Dimond traffic. Increased traffic will require road and safety improvements. (3) The housing market will not support condo or town houses and, during a downturn in the economy, condos and town houses are the first to lose value. Presently, many townhouses and condos are under-water and owners are seeking refinancing. Additionalcondo and town house units are not needed. (4) Before any more storm drainage is directed into the wetlands in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, the Municipality needs to have an impartial engineering firm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, AK Department of Fish and Game, etc.do a study to determine the impact of additional drainage on the Refuge. The establishment of a sinking fund, under the control of the Corps of Engineers or other responsible party, should be funded to cover the cost of the study. All those developers seeking zoning changes that increase density will be required to contribute to the fund. (5) With no public water available to homeowners surrounding West Park, it is inconceivable for the Muni to allow increased density, in an area where the aquifers are at risk that provide approximately 3,000 residents with water for private and community water wells. | |
| Deanna Essert | 1/25/2011 4:42:12 PM |
| The developers seeking rezoning for Case # 2011-013 should not be allowed to change the zoning from R1A to a Planned Unit Development with Condos or townhouses since rezoning would conflict with abutting and surrounding properties. (1) The Sand Lake Community accepted development in the pits because the developer of West Park designed a subdivision with single family homes. (2) The storm drainage system and lift station were designed for the original density and will not accommodate increased density. If AWWU is required to upgrade the lift-station and storm drainage system, ratepayers will be impacted with additional costs of the upgrades. If there is a lift station failure due to increased density, rate payers will suffer increased costs. (3) The road system is not adequate for present traffic. Many accessing West Dimond from West Park Drive do not stop for oncoming traffic. Safety and road improvements will be necessary with the proposed rezoning and those costs will be borne by property owners. (4) There is no market for more condos and townhouses in the proposed price range. Many condos and townhouses in the Anchorage bowl have lost value and owners are attempting to refinance. Adding more condos and townhouses will impact existing housing stock and lower property values for this type of unit. (5) Before any development with additional storm drainage and sewerage is pursued, a study by the Corps of Engineers and the managers of the Refuge is necessitated to determine if the present AWWU sewerage system is adequate and what the effects on the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge will be and how those will be addressed. All developers pursuing increased density should be required to pay into a "sinking fund" to cover the costs of these studies.(6) Increased density threatens the aquifers under the West Park Subdivision and the ionically exposed aquifer (pond) that feeds water wells for approximately 3000 residents surrounding the West Park Subdivision, and who do not have public water available at reasonable cost. | |
| Amy Cox | 1/18/2011 6:17:24 PM |
| We bought our house knowing that the Westpark neighborhood was zoned only for single family residences,a park, and a school. We bought our house based on this knowledge. This neighborhood is full of nice houses with great value. We have a house that will be on the next street to this "planned development". Our property value will be greatly diminished by this development. The family neighborhood and character that we paid so much for will be lost in the amount of traffic,population,and increase of noise pollution. This project is incompatible with surrounding homes and at almost 40 acres, will demolish our single family neighborhood. The safety of our community is also at stake. We have children in the neighborhood riding bikes and playing outside. The increase of population and traffic will make Westpark dangerous for our children. In addition, we pay HOA fees to keep our neighborhood to a standard and with almost 40 acres of multi-family units, Westpark neighborhood will no longer be a desirable place to live. | |