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. | |
|---|---|
| Natalie Osborne | 6/10/2011 11:54:54 AM |
| Dear Commissioners and Planners, My letter is in regards to Case # 2011-057. I am an adjacent property owner to the CUP and I am opposed to the current Site Plan (which includes the recent changes made to address the issue of not having enough parking spaces for all the units). Please understand that I am a complete layman when it comes to site planning, architecture and building. I have done my best to research and ask questions, but the process and information can be overwhelming for someone who does not do this for their fulltime job. But I am a concerned neighbor, whom will be affected by this development. As I understand it, the decision has been delayed until June 13th’s P&Z Meeting pending advice and counsel from Planning Staff. I’m hoping that since there is now new information for this case, since the last public hearing, that public comment will still be considered. I am not opposed to building on the adjacent lot, whether it is a single-family home or a multi-family dwelling. I welcome a new neighbor. But I do have concerns with the new Site Plan that is being presented. In the past two weeks, several issues have been raised – parking issues, snow storage, water run-off and the overall aesthetic of such a large building with so little natural vegetation surrounding it. All of these issues could be solved if the building design were smaller. I appreciate the petitioner’s attempt to address the offsite parking issues by increasing the floor plan. But adding more square footage to a building that is already too big for the lot only creates more issues. They are asking for a Conditional Use Permit for almost double the density (proposed density is equivalent to 14 units per acre, a CU is required where density exceeds 8). They aren’t asking for a little, they are asking for almost double. To me it’s a red flag when so much energy needs to be put towards coming up with solutions for parking – everything from widening Taos Road to accommodate offsite parking, to bringing in dirt to create spaces somewhere else on the road, and now the new plan is to increase the size of the structure and tell residents to park diagonally to fit vehicles in a garage that will most likely be used to hold ski equipment. While the plan might work on paper, it is not realistic. Most owners on this road use their garages to store gear. Large SUV’s and trucks don’t fit in most garages, along with the gear, wax benches, etc…Which is why most vehicles on this road are parked in front of the garages all winter long. The success of the current Site Plan is dependent upon those owners utilizing their garage space for two vehicles, but the reality is that they will most likely park in front, and then overflow to the street. We already have issues with snow removal each winter, as many roads in Girdwood do. Taos isn’t an exception to this, but our issues are compounded by our close location to the ski hill. We have some incredibly busy weekends (Thanksgiving, Holiday Break, New Years, Presidents Weekend, Slush Cup, etc…) in Girdwood, and all of these during the winter when the snow falls. It’s not uncommon to see large SUVs and trucks parked along the side of Taos throughout those busy holidays, which result in issues such as; 1) they get “plowed-in” if they don’t move their vehicle in time (and there is not a consistent plow schedule) creating snow berms that last until the next plow comes through (sometimes days or weeks), 2) regular vehicles (let alone rescue vehicles) cannot pass side-by-side, and often traffic will back-up to let another vehicle pass, and 3) it presents safety concerns when children and adults walk from their residence along Taos Road to the chair lifts. The most obvious solution to me is to build smaller – not larger. As a Volunteer Captain with the Girdwood Fire Department, I tend to look at buildings and roads in this valley with a safety perspective – safety and special hazard goggles, I like to call it – and certain items on this Site Plan jump out at me as special hazards. The areas dedicated for snow storage do meet the square footage requirement, but the placement of the two areas may present challenges for fire suppression or rescue operations – specifically the 250 sqt area that is directly in front and between the larger unit and a smaller unit. I can tell you from experience, that laddering to a second story window over top a snow bank is difficult. It’s hard to tell from the Site Plan if this would impede ladder access or front door entry access, and in all reality that snow will most likely get plowed into the setback at the end of the driveway reserved for vegetation, rather than plowed and shoveled into the two small spaces dedicated on the Site Plan. Historical knowledge from living on Taos Road, adjacent to this property, tells me that it is going to be very difficult to ensure the snow storage area doesn’t overlap the required designated natural vegetation area next to it. After large snowfalls, it would be extremely easy for the snow plow contractor to plow snow over the space dedicated, into the vegetation. It happens regularly on the higher-density lots on this road, including the lot I live on. We’ve seen the burdens and issues that come with over-building on this road, and I sincerely hope that the true intent of the rewrite of Chapter 21, Article 9 is remembered and followed. I really hope we can keep from making the same mistakes again. We have an incredible opportunity to set a successful precedence for others to follow down the road! I would love to see a compromise made. A multi-dwelling with only three units (one master home with two smaller units) would be suitable, or smaller units. I think a Conditional Use Permit would still be needed, but I personally would be more in favor of that. Parking would no longer be an issue with only three units. With less square-footage perhaps some of the old-growth trees could stay, which may solve the concern of run-off. In closing, I really appreciate the ability to voice my comments and be heard during the public process, and I applaud all involved who have spent so much time reading through the documentation and listening to public comment. Sincerely, Natalie Osborne | |
| Charlie Crangle | 6/10/2011 9:20:49 AM |
| Charlie Crangle 200 Taos Rd PO Box 1246 Girdwood, AK 99587 June 10, 2011 Dear Commissioners- I am an adjacent property owner to the CUP applicant # 2011-057. I remain strongly opposed to this project as it currently stands, even with the recent attempt as of June 9, 2011 to accommodate the required parking on site. Since there is new information in the CUP process, I wish to offer comments to be considered in the continuing process to address the original issue of parking through the new lens of the redesign submitted late yesterday. As I understand it, the decision has been delayed until June 13th’s P&Z Meeting pending advice and counsel from Planning Staff on how to address the real & significant issue of parking that was raised during last week’s hearing. Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments as part of the record of public testimony as the P&Z weighs a decision whether this project meets or does not meet standards as currently designed. While I am pleased to see the applicants now focusing on solutions to the parking issues within their property boundaries, upon reviewing the redesign, the latest proposal remains flawed. The two southern units have added square footage to their east garage walls in order to accommodate a second vehicle in a tandem parking arrangement. This new design requires the forward vehicle to park at an angle. While this arrangement appears at first blush to solve the parking issue, in fact in creates a larger problem that will undoubtedly cause spillover parking on Taos Rd. without any mitigation of the safety hazard that will create. The plan does not represent reality when it comes to human behavior. To expect guests, or an owner with two vehicles, to always park in the garage in a convoluted tandem style is a stretch at best. Moreover, it leaves absolutely no space for storage for those two units beyond what is required to accommodate two vehicles. In a recreational sports oriented town, most residents use at least a portion of their garages for sports equipment storage, a waxing bench, storage of other tools, gear, etc. Where will those items be accommodated? Will the P&Z next be asked to approve out buildings as a follow-up consequence to this over ambitious design? Since there is no legal outdoor parking in front of the two southernmost units, where will guest’s vehicles park especially in winter when the adjacent minimal on site snow storage areas will create further constrictions? Taos Rd. is the only logical place. I trust public input from local residents this past Monday night resonated with the commission as to why that option creates a significant safety hazard. In winter there is often barely room to pass another car safely, and at times the pathway is reduced to a one-lane road. Taos Rd residents’ safety should not be compromised as a result of the applicants’ lack of willingness to reduce his design to meet reasonable standards. It seems that the easier and increasingly obvious solution is to either to reduce the number of units or reduce the overall footprint in order to create a practical parking design. Were the applicant to focus on that solution, the issue would be easily addressed. Design is the sole limiting factor in meeting the onsite-parking standard. Adding 80 more square feet to squeeze in tandem parking in the last two units at an angle is not a viable answer to the problem, nor should it be permitted to stand as such. Finally, I would like to bring to the commission’s attention a point or two about the public comments that have been posted on the website for this case to date. There have been a total of 10 on-line comments posted thus far and 4 mailed in comments. Out of those 14 total comments, 3 were in support, 2 commented to clear the air on the public process, and 9 were opposed to the project. It is important to note that every single one of the nine opposing voices were without exception, residents of the neighborhood affected. Everyone is welcome to weigh in on a public process. However, the three supporting voices all live at minimum, several miles from the project. They would be in no way be impacted negatively by the design of this project. Consequently, it is no surprise they would have nothing but praise for the project. In closing, I would like to reiterate that many of the legitimate issues that have been raised by concerned residents of the immediate area could easily be addressed by decreasing the density and size of the proposed building plans. I welcome the applicants to Girdwood and hope they will take the neighborly path while considering alternative ways to mitigate the impacts these development plans currently pose to their neighbors on Taos Rd. There are no issues with their right to build, but clearly, the project does not meet the standards as currently proposed. If this project were to be approved as is, parking issues that the architect would like you to believe have been resolved, will undoubtedly spill over into overflow parking on Taos Rd without any mitigation. At that point, it will be too late to address the issue. This is the time to ensure that does not happen by insisting on a practical solution to the parking design that is well articulated and leaves no doubt as to its viability and safety for the neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Charlie Crangle | |
| Donna Levy | 6/6/2011 5:25:07 PM |
| We have a condo in Girdwood and the density is already excessive. The current zone is for 4 units and should stay that way. Why should we let a developer double the size of units. Double the size! There are already houses and townhouses being built on the Challenge Alaska road. We do not want the zoning of 4 units to be changed. | |
| Bryan Epley | 6/6/2011 2:58:18 PM |
| I am a former member of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and former Vice President of the Land Use Committee. In the interest of full disclosure, I represented the King's in their purchase of this property and will represent them in the eventual sale of these condominiums. My comments are not directed at any one person, or people, in particular, but I do have a significant amount of knowledge concerning the King's and this project. I can't speak to the Muni notification process, but I have been following this project and am unaware of any abnormalities on a local level as it went through the Land Use Committee and the Board of Supervisors. The process has been transparent and not the work of insiders. The King's were aware of the zoning prior to their purchase and what they wish to build does not require a change to zoning. Mr. King has been skiing at Alyeska Resort since the 1970's. Characterizing the King's as outsiders is incorrect. Not all of us have the opportunity to live in Girdwood and must follow our careers where they take us. Given the fact that Mr. King conducts business throughout the Pacific Rim, Hawaii is a logical choice for a primary residence. Although Mr. King is in the construction industry and could have easily sought design services from outside of Alaska and could eventually utilize construction firms from outside of Alaska, the King's wanted to keep the project local and asked me for a referal to an architect and builder in order to support our community and construct a project that fit in with Girdwood. I am the one who referred the King's to Z-Architects because Marco and Karen are invested in our community and have demonstrated that the can deliver a project that fits in well in our town. Any connection drawn between this project, Z-Architects, and Karen Zaccaro's GBOS seat is absurd. I have known the King's for a few years and can attest to the fact that they are quiet, unassuming, private, and polite people. From the onset they have wanted to construct a project that fit well in Girdwood and on Taos Rd while remaining an affordable value for the eventual owners of the three units they intend to sell. They're going to be our neighbors and retain the fourth unit for their own use. These have never been intended to be luxurious condomiums; they've been intended to compliment the already existing condominium projects on the street. I understand resistance to change and development, but I hope I have been able to convey the considerations of the King's and how this project fits in to our town and on to Taos Road. | |
| Erin Eker | 6/6/2011 11:46:20 AM |
| To Whom It May Concern, I realize that my comment will be late for the P&Z meeting which is this evening. As Co-Chair of the GBOS, I did want to take a moment to address comments directed at board member Karen Zaccaro. It was stated that she may in some way have influenced the project on Taos, being a member of GBOS and at the time of the meeting the Land Use Supervisor. I chaired the meeting on March 21, 2011 in which the Taos project was brought forward as old business for a request of a letter of non objection. When that project came up Karen stated that she had a conflict of interest and would abstain from commenting or voting on the project. The board agreed and we voted to support the letter of non objection 4-0 without her voting. It came to us with unanimous support from those voting at the Land Use Committee Meeting March 14, 2011. Karen's abstention is documented in the minutes of the March 21st meeting. As for the process through the muni and the notices that weren't received until late, I believe previous posters have addressed those comments. I hope this clears up any thought that there was undue influence in the process. As Co-Chair of the GBOS I can say that all the board members take their roles very seriously and work hard for the community. Erin Eker | |
| Edwin Schilling III | 6/5/2011 6:14:03 PM |
| Comments regarding Planning Department Case Number 2011-057, 180 Taos Road, Girdwood, AK I am the President of the North Face Condominium Owners' Association. Our units are located north of the proposed construction at 230, 240, 250 and 260 Taos Road. Our concerns relate to the location and configuration of the on street parking on the southbound lane of Taos. 1. Traffic flow and safety concerns. Taos is a narrow dirt road with no shoulders, and some portions of the southbound lane have drop-offs of 10 feet or more. Specifically, we are concerned that any cars parked in the designated locations may encroach upon the 24 foot roadway. If this would be the case, it would create a traffic hazard for civilian vehicles and a safety hazard for emergency vehicles. In addition, in the snow season, Taos is a 1 1/2 lane street at best, so vehicles parking along the road would create an even bigger problem. It is my understanding that a properly configured parking space must be 9 feet wide, which, along with a 24 foot roadway, requires at least a 33 foot width. It is our desire that the granting of the conditional use permit be conditioned upon the creation of such an area, or such other area as required by law. It is my understanding as of late Friday, June 3, 2011, that such a configuration is indeed going to be required and that the Applicant agrees to create such a space. If not, then we ask that such a requirement be imposed. 2. Driveway for 181 Taos Road. (This does not affect our members but I mention this out of concern for our neighbor.) The driveway of 181 Taos Road enters Taos near the location of the designated on street parking spaces. I hope it goes without saying that the final location of the spaces will be set so that they do not interfere our neighbors' driveway use. Edwin C. Schilling III, Esq. President, North Face Condominium Owners' Association | |
| Sharnee Epley | 6/1/2011 9:30:54 PM |
| I’d like to try, hopefully, to clear up some misconceptions that have arisen regarding the 180 Taos Townhouse Project. First: It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the Planning Department, not the petitioner, to send out Public Notices. Any frustration that the community has regarding the timing of their notice should be directed to the city. The Planning Department indicates that they sent out notices on May 16, 2011, three weeks prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for June 6, 2011. One would think a mailing from Anchorage to Girdwood would take at most, a couple of days, as opposed to the couple of week that it seems to have taken to reach property owners. Second: The conditional use process is meant to allow the community & staff an opportunity to review the subject property in more detail. It needs to be understood that the owner is NOT requesting a change of use, change of zoning, or a variance. The lot in question, which is in the gR-4 Zoning district does allow multifamily developments. This project and it’s density of 4 units on this lot, are allowed under the current zoning. Please note that the property to the north of 180 Taos has 5 units, and the property to the south has 6 units. Both of these lots are the same size as the 180 Taos project, therefore making the 4 unit townhouse project under review, LESS dense than the neighboring properties. Reading through the public comments, it’s very clear that there is a negative vibe about the project. There are even derogatory comments directed to the owner of the property. It’s unfortunate that this is the case when great care was taken, to specifically design a townhouse that meets zoning requirements & fits in well with the Girdwood community. I would encourage anyone with questions and concerns to view a copy of the plans before making a judgment about what the project “might be” rather than what the project will be. | |
| Sam Daniel | 6/1/2011 6:25:33 PM |
| To Whom It May Concern, After having read some of the comments submitted online to this pubilc website I feel compelled both as a community member and as Chairmen of The Girdwood Land Use Committee (LUC) to comment. This case was brought before the LUC in a very timely manner. The proposal for this project was reviewed over the course of two months prior to the committee approving a motion to recommend to the Girdwood Board of Supervisor's, (GBOS)a motion of nonobjection to the Planning and Zoning Board. It was then forwarded on to the GBOS where it again was reviewed over the course of two months. The original request was for 4 units to be built. That has never changed. It is unfortunate that because of the wording in Chapter 9 of Title 21 the action requested indicates a change in the number of units. That is not the case in this instance. This categorization is in my opinion misleading as i leaves the public with the impression that there is a request for an increase in the number of units when in fact there is not. Regarding the possibility that some individual board members of either the LUC or Girdwood Board of Supervisors (GBOS) have influenced the process I would offer the following. Having attended and facilitated various public meetings in the community for the past 23 years I have seen many instances where local business people are involved on community advisory boards. I can not recal an instance where a local business person has influenced the decision making process on the LUC. It is true democracy. One person, one vote, with the LUC committee members abstaining from voting in any vote I have ever participated in and I have been on the committee for three and a half years. Although I do not regularly attend the GBOS meetings I believe that the same holds true in that forum. It is a diverse group, who are elected by the public or appointed by the mayor, and a body whom I beleive does listen to the voice of the community in attendance at it's meetings. We are very fortunate to have the likes of Karen Zaccaro on the current GBOS as well as John Gallup, who served in the past. Each have given countless hour to the community with little to show other than an ocassional thank you and the knowledge that they are making a difference in the lives of their fellow community members. I do not beleive that any member of the board or business person has in any way influenced the public process with respect to this case number. In closing, the public process for reviewing these types of project is not perfect, but it does work! Thank you for the opportunity to offer these thoughts. | |
| Natalie Osborne | 5/31/2011 4:28:00 PM |
| I am a home owner, residing at 200 Taos, on the adjoining lot to the property in question (Alyeska North #3 Subdivision, Block 6, Lot 5). I am currently opposed to the petition to modify the zoning to allow for more units to be built. I, myself, never received a notice of the hearing ofor this case by mail, but was shown the notice over the holiday weekend from another home owner. I did however attend a Land Use Committee Meeting a few months ago at the Girdwood Community Center when this topic was presented. At that time, it was never mentioned during their presentation that they would be asking to increase the amount of units, from what the lot was originally zoned for. The presentation at that meeting was short and sweet and mostly discussed "how pretty it will look compared to the condos next door". At no time, was it ever brought to the meeting attendees that the plan they were proposing exceeded the number of units it was zoned for. When I asked for plans to distribute and share with the home owners association for the development on the adjoining property, I was told they were not public record yet. It seems very suspect to me that the notice for a hearing would be mailed with VERY LITTLE time for effected neighbors and stakeholders to respond. If the planning and permitting process has been in progress for months, why was a notice not mailed until May 16th? As it stands now, most of the comments on this post won't be even be included in the Board of Commission packet. On a side note, is not a conflict of interest that the architect's spouse (Karen Zaccaro, Roads Supervisor, Co-Chair) is a member of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, whom has influence on moving agenda items through the Land Use Committee and GBOS process in Girdwood? I personally feel that the owner/builder of this property is not considering the negative impact this development will have on our neighborhood and how can they when they do not even live in Girdwood, let alone Alaska. They are simply not in tune with the reality of what they want to build and the aftermath. If they lived here, they would understand how much the traffic, parking, and overall noise has increased in just two years with the development of Verbier Way (which hasn't even had a lot development yet - imagine how much more condensed it will be then). What precedent are we sending if we allow them to overbuild on a small lot? | |
| Jann & Monica Urban | 5/31/2011 1:54:01 PM |
| Jann Urban & Monica Urban 200 Taos Dear Planning and Zoning Commission; We will be unable to attend the zoning change hearing because we are out of state for an educational opportunity, but would like to have our voices heard. We strongly oppose a zoning change on Taos Drive. Like everybody else who purchased property on Taos, Mr. Robert King should have known about the zoning on his lot prior to his purchase. On such a small street and any new constructions should be kept to the existing zoning. We feel that altering the zoning deteriorates the value of the adjacent properties. Any alterations are strictly to benefit Mr. King's bank account in Hawaii at the expense of the local residents in Girdwood. It was extremely disturbing that this inappropriate type of event has previously occurred on Taos and it must not be allowed to happen again. It is amazing how Mr. Gallup has entered a comment on the Zoning and Platting Cases On-Line website one month before notices of a hearing was mailed. I hope this is not already a done deal of insiders. We believe that there is no legitimate argument for this change beyond greed. If there were any supporting commission members we expected that they would not have any personal or financial conflict of interest with Mr. King. Sincerely, Jann Urban & Monica Urban | |
| Mark Stanley | 5/31/2011 7:48:57 AM |
| I have only 3 days ago received the Notice of Public hearing in the post. I am unable to understand the actual number of units that are being proposed for this property. merely stating 'a density greater than 8 per acre' is not sufficient information to form an opinion on. I am very disappointed to say that this process seems to be deliberately as non-transparent as possible - both from the perspecitvie of the timing to the Notice being posted and also the lack of pertinant information contined within it. | |
| John Gallup | 4/19/2011 5:17:42 AM |
| This project has received overwhelming support as Mr. Zaccaro has taken it through the local process here in Girdwood. It is in character with the densities of units already built on the east side of Taos road and will be nicer than all of them, and an asset to the area. I have heard not one single negative comment from anyone who has looked at it. | |