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. | |
|---|---|
| Katie Nolan | 5/17/2011 11:30:16 AM |
| Why is it that Anchorage has not figured out how to creatively hide communications towers? Every place we travel, a careful study of the local vegetation will discover towers that are camouflaged with artificial greenery, making them appear to be just another tree. Many of these are pseudo palm trees, but there are also those created to look like pine, fir and spruce. It is past time for Anchorage to demand that these ugly eyesores be limited in size to the surrounding vegetation and hidden behind artificial branches designed to complement the surroundings, especially in residential areas. Anything else simply lowers the value of our homes and neighborhoods. Before this or any further communications towers are allowed, standards must be created to make them appropriate for our community. Please deny Case 2011-054 and all further towers until such standards are created for residential areas. | |
| Brenda McKinley | 5/4/2011 5:57:34 PM |
| I too am against proposed tower being built on my road. Not only would it be an "eye sore", but it will be a hinderence to those of us that have a "view" of the city lights. I do NOT want this built on my road! Please consider finding a NON-residence area! | |
| Randy Dougan | 5/4/2011 9:12:08 AM |
| This area is zoned residential, right? There is nothing residential about a big steel tower in my back-yard. there are too many other places previously zone for such things. Who is making the money on this scam. For it (THE Project) to go this far along a process, it's worth finding out where the money coming from, I doubt if it is anyone of us in the area that will be affected. I am against the construction of this tower on multiple grounds that should be discussed in a Randy Dougan | |
| Randy DOUGAN | 5/4/2011 8:39:56 AM |
| I returmed from bush and find notice that is already late. I am against the construction of this project. It has no business in my residential neighborhood. It will destroy my property values, ruin the view. I know there are better places to put a tower than in my yard Do not allow a tower in my back yard. | |
| Iris Morton | 5/3/2011 7:59:59 PM |
| I am opposed to the building of a 65 foot communications tower on Whirlaway Road in Eagle River. Please find a different place for this pole to go up. We would like to keep the natural views that we have at this time. | |
| Russell Morton | 5/3/2011 7:31:31 PM |
| I oppose the construction of an 80' tower on this site. The location chosen is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. Views of the mountains will be obstructed for hundreds of Eagle River residents. ATT should reconsider before they build an eyesore synonymous with their reputation. | |
| Rhonda Farabaugh | 5/3/2011 4:00:18 PM |
| For the record, I am strongly opposed to the construction of the ATT communications tower at 18530 Whirlaway Road, case #2011-044. I understand the need for communications towers, but do not believe they need to be placed in the middle of residential neighborhoods. This would take away from our family neighborhood feeling. Please reconsider this. | |
| jim meyer | 5/3/2011 3:40:01 PM |
| I am very much against any cell towers being installed in my neighborhood. A potentially 80' tall tower has a really difficult time blending in with its surroundings and would be an extreme eyesore. How about investigating the use of Lucent Technologies new lightRadio(TM) cell cube that will eliminate cell towers completely. Again, I am against this cell tower being built in the middle of a quiet residential area on Whirlaway Ave. in Eagle River. | |
| Rayanne Rhodes | 5/3/2011 11:44:54 AM |
| For the record, I am strongly opposed to the construction of the ATT communications tower at 18530 Whirlaway Road, case #2011-044. I understand the need for communications towers, but do not believe they need to be placed in the middle of residential neighborhoods. I am sure the 'higher-ups' at ATT would not want a 60 foot tower obstructing the view from their homes, neither do the residents here. This tower would also lower property values. I have spoken to neighbors who also say, "No, no, no!" | |
| Jane Atti | 5/3/2011 11:08:21 AM |
| My family has recently moved to Eagle River and bought a house near the proposed site of the 65' monopole. I am against the construction of this tower. It would definetaly take away the beauty of the area. When we go out walking we enjoy the new sidewalks and the trees and plants. We do not want to see a giant communications tower. We moved here because of the beauty of the mountains and nature and want to share it with our families when they visit. | |
| Elaine Daw | 5/3/2011 10:26:29 AM |
| I am absolutely, unconditionally opposed to this project as proposed. The described tower would seriously, permanently, and negatively impact property values in an already poor real estate market. This type of project should proceed in a business area, not a well established residential community. | |
| Charlaine Skeel | 5/3/2011 10:13:59 AM |
| I've been a resident in this neighborhood for 35 years. This is a well established family oriented neighborhood that has maintained it's quiet, rustic beauty, an aspect that is enjoyed by the residents. A tower of this size is totally out of context for this area and I am strongly opposed to construction of anything of this nature. | |
| Sandra Bartlett | 5/3/2011 9:45:54 AM |
| For the record I am oppossed to the construction of the AT&T communications tower. This tower does not belong in a long established residential area. The construction of a 60', or most likely 80', tower would sadly take away from the beautiful view of the mountains residents have enjoyed for years. Just recently lots of money was invested in upgrading roads and adding sidewalks in an effort to beautify the area for the enjoyment of the community and its visitors. An unsightly tower would certainly obstruct and take away the natural beauty in this area for residents like myself, our visitors, drivers, bikers, walkers and joggers etc. This tower belongs in an industrial area or in a place where it would not be so highly visible as in this proposed area. | |
| Debra Gilley | 5/2/2011 10:41:54 PM |
| We live up the road from this proposed sight... I am not in favor of this going up and polluting our beautiful views. This is right off a main drag and does not belong in a residential area. | |
| Frank Pratt | 5/2/2011 10:07:29 PM |
| I oppose the cell phone tower location at 18530 Whirlaway Road. This is a residential area.A 65 foot(eventialy 80 foot) has no business being installed in such an area. It should be installed where there is already commercial developement dominating the landscape. If towers are to be installed in residential areas we should require that they be disguised.Many states require that they be disguised as things like wind mills, water towers, etc, or placed in or on the sides of buildings. This keeps them from ruining the asthetics of the area. | |
| Gary Lincoln | 5/2/2011 9:46:19 PM |
| So you're really talking about an 80 foot tower once the future extension is added. This structure does not belong in our neighborhood. How are you going to shield the single family homes next to it from this eye sore? Put it on top of Walmart or at Lions Park or near the water tank on Eagle River Loop but not next to single family homes. | |
| Bernie and Lorraine Krueger Krueger | 5/2/2011 9:13:53 PM |
| We go on record as being opposed to the proposed 65 to 80 foot communication tower at 18530 Whirlaway Rd. We already have to look at one communication tower. Isn't that enough?! | |
| Sue Lincoln | 5/2/2011 9:12:11 PM |
| This is a residential area. An industrial object does not belong in this area. I use AT&T, but they have no business installing a tower in a zone A1 residential area. If I wanted to live in an industrial area, I would live in an area that is appropriately zoned 'industrial'. Sue Lincoln 5/2/11 | |
| Kimberly & Tyler Stryker | 5/2/2011 8:16:14 PM |
| As homeowners, we are opposed to the proposed construction of a 65-foot monopole communications tower on Whirlaway Road, a residential area. | |
| Therese Voehl | 5/2/2011 3:25:08 PM |
| Eagle River Valley Community Council Post Office Box 772812 Eagle River, Alaska 99577 To: Deputy Director of the Planning Division From: Eagle River Valley Community Council president, Therese Voehl 694-2517 Re: Local Interest Tower at 18530 Whirlaway Road, case #2011-044 Date: April 15, 2011 During the April 13, 2011 monthly meeting of Eagle River Valley Community Council (ERVCC) twenty four area residents drafted and approved the following resolution: Regarding the proposed construction of a local interest tower communications tower) at 18530 Whirlaway Road, case #2011-044, Eagle River Valley Community Council members oppose the construction of a 65 foot monopole communications tower at 18530 Whirlaway Road. Thank you. | |
| Everett Stites | 3/27/2011 10:55:15 AM |
| Wow,a 65' tower, first they build a interstate in my back yard and claim there is no noise level increase. Therefore no fence to block the noise. Then MEA decides to clear every tree and branch in my back yard. Now you want to put a 65' steel tower to distract the one thing I still have.. The beautiful view of the mountains. Why don't we just make Eagle River Loop the new Anchorage dump site, oh that's just across the bridge. | |