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. | |
|---|---|
| Carolyn Muegge-Vaughan | 4/16/2012 10:42:38 PM |
| I live across the street from the property and am total agreement with all the other very well thought-out comments. This is TOTALLY unacceptable!! Period! The city needs to take a strong stand against this high density request. Of particular concern is the water table level, parking, and and access to emergency services in addition to what it will do to the neighborhood. Carolyn Muegge-Vaughan | |
| Frank Koziol | 4/12/2012 4:26:09 PM |
| I have lived in Alaska for 40 years, the last 5 years at 500 N Street. This site is approximately 1 block from Elderberry Park. The street parking is already congested, not only from resident and visitor parking but also from individuals who access the park and the adjoining coastal trail. To increase this congestion by granting this variance would be a disservice to all who live and visit the area. The burden of proof should be on the prosposer of this variance and maximization of an investment return would not meet this burden. The request for variance should be denied. | |
| Tom Dreyer | 4/12/2012 4:16:38 PM |
| Tom Dreyer. P.L.S. S4 Group 744 O Place, Anchorage, Ak 99501 (for Case 2012-043) I am writing these comments as a resident of Bootleggers Cove, and as a developer’s representative for hundreds of residential developments in the Anchorage area over the past 30 years or so. This project is holding the interest of many in the development community, primarily because of the request to more than double the allowable density. The other issues that have been brought up, such as parking, building height, building size, snow removal, fire code and other safety issues, are not relevant to this case because the petitioner is not asking for variances from these issues, nor are they asking for a site plan approval. It is simply a request to increase the density, nothing more, nothing less. Utilizing the tax appraised value of the land to justify a density increase is an issue the city tax collectors should be concerned about, because most land values in Anchorage are over valued by a substantial amount, and if they were to come into line with the reality of what land is actually worth today, the city’s balance sheet would be seriously dipping into red ink. But, after saying all that, I don’t think there is a requirement for the land seller to sell their property at the tax appraised value. If a higher density is allowed on this site, then we and others will look forward to being allowed to increase the density on future projects. Thank you, Tom Dreyer, P.L.S. S4Group | |
| Chris Rose | 4/12/2012 3:54:20 PM |
| Chris Rose 605 N Street, #1 Anchorage AK 99501 I am writing to oppose the zoning variance. Doubling the density in the neighborhood is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, it changes the intimate nature of the neighborhood. Second, it would add a considerable amount of traffic to a quiet dead end street. Third, the design of the building and parking does not appear workable or well thought out. I respectfully urge you to deny the request. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Marty Beckwith | 4/12/2012 3:25:17 PM |
| I have lived in Bootlegger's Cove for 28 years and strongly oppose the proposed development. I oppose the proposed variance because 1) the size of the lot is insufficient to support the number of 15 units, taking into account the 25 ft AWWW water easement to the north of the property; 2) the proposed increased density is unacceptable and will not enhance the neighborhood - which primarily includes duplexes, 4-plexes, and single family homes; the parking and ability to get around the neighborhood is already extremely limited in the winter; 3) the alley which will be used for access and egress is too narrow to support the increase in traffic and parking, or accommodate additional snow storage in the winter, if this site is covered with a large building; 4) public safety vehicles will have difficulty accessing this site for fire protection; and 5) using this site to build double the number of units allowed under the zoning plan would change the character of the neighborhood aesthetically, in a very negative way. I request that the variance be denied. Marty Beckwith | |
| Mary Beth Coyne | 4/12/2012 12:48:22 PM |
| I am a licensed architect – I have practiced architecture in Alaska, Pennsylvania, California, Utah, and Wyoming. The proposed increase in allowed units on this site by more than double (from 7 as zoned to 15 proposed) is an unacceptable level of density and does not fit the scale of the neighborhood. 7 units built on this site would be tight, and pushing the limits of what the site may reasonably accommodate. Thus, item 5 of the variance request does not appear to be substantially met – though there are many 3 story structures in the neighborhood, the proposed density is more than twice what exists in the neighborhood and will substantially alter the intimacy and nature of Bootlegger’s Cove. The underground parking area as drawn does not appear to be a functional solution – no column structure has been shown in the parking plan, and the floor assembly depth shown in the section is not deep enough to accommodate a 44’ clear span structure. There is not enough length for the ramps as shown to descend 8’ to 10’ below street level. Has the city studied whether the west ramp to O St will interfere with the current storm sewer invert? It is doubtful whether space is adequate for the turning radii required to enter spaces 14 and 15. The Variance application cites financial hardship as one of the qualifications for the variance – yet the high cost required to develop the extensive proposed sub-grade level in a seismic liquefaction zone contradicts that rationale. The alley between N and O Streets is already congested during the winter at the corner where it meets 6th Ave. The large pile of snow at this intersection this winter made getting around the corner challenging at times when residents of the Cove parked further into the street. The developer has paid little attention to solar orientation, an essential component of dwelling in a sub-arctic climate – the south elevation will receive little solar exposure since the building is tucked close to the south property line and the adjacent building to the south. | |
| Patricia Wells | 4/12/2012 12:30:18 PM |
| This is in reference to the Variance that Foote-Jones has requested. Not only is this a small lot, and has no room for a green space, let alone parking for 30 more vehicles. There is no way that this building of 15 units can possibly provide 30 spaces underground for that many cars. Too many times these Platts are approved, not taking into consideration that the builder has no intention of following thru with off street parking. The snow removal on the alley side is already tough, no where to put the snow. There is no way that any cars can park on this dead end side and not clog up the thru alley. Look at the existing parking problem already on N-st. One car coming down the road has to pull over for the next one to get by because so many people park there on a parking permit. This is a small lot and only a 4-Plex should be allowed. Not only does it face railroad property on one side, but a dead end on the other with private land owners on each side right to left. The original owners the "Funkhousers" had their basement flooded out several times due to high water table and a clay base. When trains go by, this land is so close to the railroad tracks that the building shakes like a bowl of jelly. There is just no way that a 15 unit variance should be approved and not put a hardship on the existing land owners already there. There is no way either off street parking and underground parking will be provided in this plan, it is too costly. And as far as a greenbelt, that is a laugh, where is that supposedly coming from? Also, I do not believe it is fair to our neighborhood to let people who live on 11th ave. and real estate people to leave comments on a variance that has no influence on where they live. It does not affect them what so ever! There is no reason that this should be considered a hardship situation, as they are the developers who decided to tear down the existing house. PERIOD! Please give this careful scrutiny, Thank you | |
| Patricia Frederickson Wells | 4/12/2012 10:21:42 AM |
| I am submitting comments on this case because we have a 4-plex at 618 N-st. I hope the assembly before approving this variance that they take a good look at the lot size and the amount of traffic it will put on a single alley road. In the winter, snow removal is at best already a hazard. Literally no where to put the snow. Even if a 4-plex was allowed to be built on this lot, it would put a minimum of 8 cars on the alley side. Unless you make the builder put adequate underground or off street parking, this will be a total nightmare. Too often, Platts are approved with no restrictions on under or building parking which makes for overload on the streets. Look at N-st. already any time of the day, apartments that were supposed to have off street parking, but do not have enough and N-st. is basically over-loaded with cars. So much so, that a parking pass is supposed to be a pre-requisit in order to park down there. Now when we drive to & fro, one car can make it thru only because so many vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. And in the winter with the snowfall, it's crazy! Can you imagine if this builder is allowed to put in a 10-plex, my heavens, that would put 20 cars on the street. And i know for a fact, there are no plans to put underground parking for 20 cars-PERIOD!! This is not a big lot, it faces the railroad tracks on one end. And private property on both sides. What are they going to do, build it 5-stories high? Please take a good look at this and think of the impact on the neighborhood. Thank you Patricia Wells | |
| Bob Rink | 4/12/2012 9:28:24 AM |
| 7 units or some number close to that is reasonable. 21 units is unreasonable. the traffic (number of cars) for that small of a site is untenable. figure 1-2 people per unit and you would have 21 to 42 cars accessing that small site. NOt only is there not enough room to accomadate that but the ajoining roads (and neighbors ) are built for a minimum of 2 + trips per day per car... (and it is hard to believe everyone is going to walk or bike because they are now Downtown. That defies logic.... Density is fine but not to that extent. | |
| Sky Carver | 4/11/2012 10:30:07 PM |
| Sky Carver 617 N Street Anchorage AK 99501 I have been a resident in this neighborhood for 20 years and am currently a developer in Bootlegger’s Cove who owns 3 properties within 2 1/2 blocks of the site in question. As a developer, I will be very interested in the outcome of this hearing and the affect it will have on my properties. If this variance is approved, I will certainly apply to double the density of my planned developments too. | |
| Harry Hill | 4/11/2012 3:48:26 PM |
| I own the building at the other end of the block and am opposed to the proposed project. Traffic in the area is difficult to navigate as it is during the winter months, to add overflow parking to a structure that has access by an alley on one side and an alley on the opposite side leaves no room at all for extra cars. Any excess which there will be will be forced to be absorbed by the rest of the neighborhood. Having completely rebuilt my building some 12 years ago, I discovered among other issues that we have ground water approximately 9 feet below ground level at low tide, drawings show that garage to be much lower than that. Access to the property for snow removal and emergency services will not happen being on such a remote property in the neighborhood. While there are many multi family units in this neighborhood, they are on much larger lots and have met zoning requirements. We have zoning laws that are in place for a reason, to request a variance for more than double the occupancy allowed is absurd. | |
| Janine Oros Amon | 4/10/2012 10:05:25 PM |
| I am a 30 year Alaskan who has owned homes and businesses in downtown Anchorage, and who has lived in Bootlegger's Cove on and off since 1996. Since 2005 I've owned the building at 610 N St, which faces the proposed project at 1336 W 6th. My business partner in the building, Carolyn Muegge-Vaughan, and I strongly oppose this project. The thought of putting even a 7 plex on that property is a concern to every neighbor I have talked to on the block. Parking, snow removal, and traffic, which are challenging already, would be affected in a very negative way. I'm concerned about the safety of kids, dogs, bikers and skiers that use this area every day, if traffic is dramatically increased. This alley road is inadequate for additional traffic, and the project is not well thought out. What is charming, "green" or "contemporary" about 15 efficiencies under 750 sq ft in size, along with 20 to 25 cars, crowded together in such a small space? Carolyn and I are both active participants in the business, arts, non-profit and adventure communities in Anchorage. We enjoy living in Bootleggers Cove, as do our tenants and our neighborhood friends. It is deeply discouraging to think of a Seattle-style apartment building crowding into a corner of our charming, interesting and unique neighborhood. We would welcome a beautiful home, duplex, triplex or even a different cleverly-designed multi unit building to take advantage of this beautiful corner location, with it's great trees, birds soaring overhead, occasional whale sighting, and horse and buggies clopping along through the alley. "Not being able to make a profit" (if less than 15 units are built), is not a valid reason to approve a variance. Thank you very much for your consideration. Janine Oros Amon and Carolyn Muegge-Vaughan | |
| Lisa Herrington | 4/10/2012 12:27:43 PM |
| I am writing this letter in support of the density variance request for this new development in Bootleggers Cove. I am a life long Anchorage resident and have resided in the South Addition neighborhood for over twenty-five years now. As a residential real estate professional in Anchorage, I am supportive of offering different housing options in our Downtown core and its exciting that this development will be providing a new living style. My neighborhood is predominately, heavy density with over 80% of the structures supporting multi-family developments. It appears that the project is being approach from an urban theme and scheme and it is good to see Anchorage with this type of product. I believe that the development will be well received in the market place and that we should have more projects that support higher and best use of the land. This proposed development appears to be sensitive to the current height restriction of the neighborhood of 35 ‘ feet. The green space that is shown in the drawings, represent more area than most in the neighborhood. The view shed that is being shown off of Sixth Avenue is a bonus to all in the community. We need more projects like this to come to downtown Anchorage. | |
| Rebecca Parker | 4/6/2012 4:21:23 PM |
| I am writing in support of this variance request for this progressive new development in Bootleggers Cove. I am a 35-year long Anchorage resident and have resided in the South Addition neighborhood for over five years. This proposed development is aligned with the Municipality of Anchorage's 20/20 plan for more urban development in the core of our downtown. After reviewing the application for the variance, it supports the height, lot coverage, set-backs, open space and parking requirements for the current zoning, with the variance request for higher density. The neighborhood is 90% multi-family, and very few if any, meet the current Title 21 zoning requirements that are in place today. This proposed development is sensitive to the current height restriction of the neighborhood; the lot coverage and open space for the project is generous and will provide more green space than any other development; and the parking is below grade providing a higher quality development. We need more projects like this to come to downtown Anchorage. We need more contemporary, green project such as this to come to our urban core. Please support this variance request for a great development in Anchorage! | |
| Gerald (Jerry) Winchester | 4/3/2012 11:34:35 AM |
| I am a life-long Alaskan and licensed Architect for 30 years and I have lived in this area of Anchorage for the last 16 years. I have looked carefully at this Variance request and find it; totally unacceptable to the community, professionally it does not work, and it is not buildable as conceived. I will innumerate my concerns and objections to this Variance application below: 1. The site: This site is unusual in that it has the standard 50x150 lot and also the abandoned 30 ft from one half of 6th Avenue. The problem is that there is a permanent 25 ft wide Storm Sewer easement for a Main Storm Sewer line that drains this entire area and some of downtown into the inlet. This 25 ft is totally unbuildable and can only be used for parking, driveway, or landscaping. 2. Density: The additional property adds SF to the lot, but does not add buildable SF. This SF then allows the lot to have up to 7 units according to Title 21, but the buildable area is still very similar to a standard 50x150 lot. Even at 7 units, this property will be very dense for this area. 3. Parking Constraints: This lot is located at the end of two streets. It does not contribute and frontage parking to the area. Parking is already a major issue in this area. Many dense projects were built in the area in the 1960-70's before parking regulations of Title 21. Many 2 bedroom units in the area have only 1 on-site parking and street parking becomes the fall-back. This site would double impact the area since it has no frontage and contributes no street parking to the area. 4. Underground Parking; As shown on the concept plans this parking is totally NOT buildable. At MOA standards of 10% ramps, one would need two -130 foot ramps to go down 13 ft and then back up again. I have looked at this as an experienced Architect and it is virtually impossible with the site constraints to put in underground parking that will work and be legal. The concept plan does not show long enough ramps,they conflict with the actual parking areas, and do not have clearance for autos at entry point. It is a fictious concept. 5. Geotech and Soils; This area of Anchorage is underlaid with Bootlegger Cove Clay. In the 1964 Earthquake (I was here) this area of town slid to the west 20 feet. The water table sits on the clay and is 4-8 feet below grade, personal experience with water line leak for our building. A full geotechnical report, and full engineered drawings for any underground parking should be required for the Variance that is based on this very improbable solution to parking. 6. Snow Removal; Someone should photograph the pile of snow that till exists at the corner of the Alley and 6th Avenue at this property. This is a major snow collection area with a major Storm Drain and this development will seriously affect that snow accumulation issue. 6. Concept Plans; The Variance concept has three story 15 efficiency units, single exit stair with no bedroom windows on many units. This plan is overly ambitious with code assumptions that truly are not buildable. We should not be granting Variance for increase in density when plans clearly are not every going to be buildable. I understand the desire for higher densities by some in the community. I also know that our soil, climate, topography, and existing development do not easily allow these higher densities in already developed areas over the last 50 years. This is clearly a property that should not have the density increased and any development should be carefully reviewed for adhearance to current Title 21, and Building Codes along with local knowledge of the issues. Thank you, Gerald (Jerry) Winchester | |
| Fred Traber | 3/30/2012 11:15:24 AM |
| I am a 30 year homeowner in Bootlegger’s Cove. I am writing to state my concerns about the requested variance at 1336 W 6th Avenue. Issues of concern are density, increased traffic around Nulbay Park and on-street parking. Bootleggers Cove has been developed with very high density. The proposed 15 unit complex would make it the most densely developed project in the Cove in terms of units per square foot of land. Based on number of units and the lot size according to Muni records, this 1336 West 6th project will have 713 sq. ft. per unit compared to the nearby Mariner’s View Apartment at 1,525 sq. ft. per unit. The access and egress for the project appear to be ramps at the East and West sides of the building. According to the drawings submitted, the exiting traffic from the property empties onto O Street between 6th and 7th Avenues. This is a one block long dead end street which serves as the parking area for the Municipality’s Nulbay Park. I believe this traffic will have a significant safety impact on families and neighbors who use the park. The on street parking generated by this 15 unit apartment complex is important. The project is shown to have on-site parking for 20 vehicles. Given the number of occupants who own 2 and 3 cars, as well as visitors and guests, the already scarce on-street parking will become even more competitive. In addition, even though the neighborhood has posted permit parking, Easy Park does not enforce parking West of M Street. APD uniformed officers are responsible for enforcement and do so only when called and available. There are no patrols. I encourage the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to consider carefully the issues of density, increased traffic and safety and on-street parking. | |
| Pearl Frederickson | 3/27/2012 10:23:06 AM |
| I live on the alley side of this petition lot as well as where this lot is located. I do not see however where this lot is even big enough for a Six- Plex, let alone getting a variance for much bigger unit of seven or more to be built. The trouble with most of these approved variances down in this area is off street parking. The assembly approves and does not take into consideration that the builder may submit plans for under ground parking. But does not follow thru. Lets face it, everyone has two cars per unit. If not enough parking is built into the building, then of course the cars end up on the street. There is literally no room for alley parking in this area. Plus how in the world after a huge snowfall like the one we are having can cars even park on the alley side and still have street thru access! And this lot has to meet codes for distance from the road and railroad tracks, therefore making it even smaller. Look at the existing platt, one side corner is already shaved off due to the railroad property. The drawing on the platt notice that was sent out makes the lot look bigger than it is because of the checkered outline. This truly needs to be looked at carefully and not let another approved building be put in that tries to stretch the restrictions that are already in place, period! Thank you Pearl Frederickson owner of 4-Plex 618 n st. | |