CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Tom Corbett | 6/20/2012 11:11:20 PM |
| Regarding Case No. 2012_063: My wife and I have lived on Grumman Street since 1985. The area has become a comfortable mix of single-family and multi-family housing. The establishment of a habilitative care facility in our neighborhood is inappropriate. We received no notice regarding this development or the proposed changes to a conditional use permit. The facility has repeatedly violated parking stipulations in its CUP. The vague workplan submitted for reveiew indicates that security personnel will be retained to protect the staff. Why does the staff require protection if this facility is suitable for location in a residential area? The Southcentral Foundation has done many good things for people with special needs. However, this is a commercial venture which should be located in a medical park. SCF has some very nice property near Alaska Pacific University that would seem to be an ideal location for such a facility. Why is it necessary to destroy the character of our neigborhood with commercial development when SCF had perfectly good lands in hand? This is the wrong place for a habilitative care facility, paticularly when the applicants skirt around the issue of exactly what kind of clients, patients or inmates will be treated here. The original CUP received little opposition because most of the residents of this neighborhood had no idea this development was in the works. The original CUP stated the development would not be expanded. SCF has acquired and demolished adjacent properties in anticipation of your approval. Please do not approve this project. SCF cann afford a change of venue, we can't. Thank You. Sincerely Tom Corbett | |
| Debra Corbett | 6/11/2012 6:36:49 PM |
| I was alerted to this disastrous proposal by a neighbor. My husband and I have lived here since 1985 and have seen slow steady growth of the neighborhood with homes, duplexes and apartments growing up around us. We have seen trail and park improvements. We know many of the neighbors, this is a small community. We had seen increased traffic at 3210 Lark St over the last couple of winters. We speculated on the new owner. Then a building was demolished, then others suddenly emptied and remodeled. Now all the threads have come together and we find an attempt to construct a commercial facility here. Contrary to the implication of the SCF there was never any attempt to reach the neighborhood or let us know what was going on here. The Foundation states it has the support of the neighborhood. Neither my husband nor I support this amended CUP, or the expansion of a business into a residential neighborhood. The request by SCF is fundamentally dishonest in their approach to inserting a large business enterprise in a residential neighborhood. A staff of 30+ people is a business. Adding 130 clients makes it a LARGE business. They obtained a CUP only 4 years ago stating there would be no expansion. They immediately began buying neighboring properties in order to expand. They have been dishonest about the number of people to work at the facility--nearly double the permitted staff has been present on more than one occasion. The staff uses on street parking. The parcels are located at the top of a steep hill. In winter this hill is narrow and icy and visibility when topping out is restricted. Cars parked on Grumman further narrow the street and make it less safe. The proposed shuttle bus turnout at the corner of Lark and Grumman is the worst possible place for this kind of vehicular access. With the recent changes to Tudor road there is only one exit from this entire neighborhood which has a traffic light and allows a left hand turn onto or off of Tudor. All the traffic to this facility wil come down Piper, 46th and Grumman. Who enforces the limit of 30 cars? What happens when more people drive than is permitted? Right now they have 11 permitted staff and up to 30 vehicles are parked here. So to address specific Anchorage 2020 goals Policy 7) this expansion, is incompatible with a residential neighborhood with limited infrastructure. Setting a commercial enterprise in a neighborhood such as this destroys its character and atmosphere. Policy 61) 48 homeless/special needs individuals is a burden to a neighborhood this size. Adding 130 homeless/special needs individuals turns the entire neighborhood into something fundamentally different than mixed families. The functionality of the neighborhood is impaired. This is NOT an underused industrial zone, nor is it an aging neighborhood, or in other ways blighted. So to echo many of my neighbors--this is a commercial enterprise not suitable for a residential neighborhood. This proposal will greatly increase traffic on inadequate roads with inadequate access to major arterials. The location at the top of Grumman Hill is a dangerous place to increase traffic and channel vehicles. The roads here are not maintained by the city. Questions about the safety of the neighborhood residents are not addressed. Safety is clearly a concern since the SCF will provide security for their participants. Are they expecting trouble to follow the participants to the site? If so how will the children, families and elderly of this neighborhood be protected? If the concern is that the participants themselves are dangerous the same questions apply? How will the movements of the participants, potentially dangerous, be controlled? What happens if SCF fails to meet the permit conditions for security? Their record on other conditions is not good. Why is this facility not attached to and associated with SCF's facilities at Diplomacy Drive or Tudor Center which are commercial/ medical districts? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Debra Corbett | |
| Michelle Rast | 6/5/2012 11:30:59 AM |
| My husband and I were unable to attend the hearing on this proposal last night but would still like our comments recorded. We have been living in our neighborhood which is directly across the street from the proposed site for over 12 years. When we first moved in I was doing daycare and was able to walk from my home with my chilren down to the park so they could play. Now, I can't take my grandchildren down as the chance of meeting up with transient people is almost a surety. Since we have a corner lot, finding those small liquor bottles in my yard is not an uncommon thing. I have the utmost respect for the foundation and what it is trying to do but I also have a lot of respect for my own health and safety. I should be able to walk down my street along with others in our neighborhood and go to the park, enjoy the Alaskan scenery without be accosted by someone wanting money, or view someone staggering down the road. Twice, my husband and I found someone laying on the road unconscious from something and had to call the police. The police have been called multiple times to one of the buildings that they are using now. How much more do we have to lose before you realize that yes, you need places to put these people while they are getting help but why do we have to pay for it with our loss of freedom. Thank you, Michelle | |
| Robert Halpin | 5/24/2012 3:33:42 PM |
| MOA May 24, 2012 Department of Community Development Planning Division P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99507 Testimony to Case Number 2012-063, major Amendment to Conditional Use (Case 2008-067) To whom it may concern; Deny the request for a Major Amendment to the existing Conditional Use (case #2008-067) (the ‘project’) until additional information is provided to the local community that the ‘project’ impacts; The program itself is robust with due merit and that is fully supported. The location of this initiative is in dispute. What did the original conditional use allow? Did it address this expansion? Was it limited to a single residence? What local neighborhood & community support did it have? I will guess it had little or no support at all as will this amendment application 2012-063. The statement in the application dated April 5 that “It is broadly supported by…and its surrounding neighborhood” is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. To date I have found only one person who takes no exception to this ‘project’. The neighborhood in large does not support it. it is supported by the corporation on Diplomacy Drive, and by a letter from the Governor in Appendix F dated June 16, 2010 which does not address this particular amendment application. The corporate enterprise applying for this permit has adequate facilities nearby on Diplomacy Drive and other options are available on Tudor Centre Road adjacent to the headquarters. That entire complex is a perfect fit for this project, why not there? A shuttle system with additional exhaust fumes, noise, traffic & pedestrian hazards etc? The sacrifice of a residential community to a corporate takeover is without merit. It apparently serves people who do not claim residency here and who do not contribute to the tax base here. Common sense indicates that the Family Wellness Warriors Initiative is a better fit to the immediate locale of the owner, on Diplomacy Drive. In fact it is a superb fit for that location. Zoning there would easily accommodate the enterprise without conditional use permits at all. Additionally there would be no disruption or destruction to an established local community. Real estate for residential needs is at a premium in the Anchorage bowl to the extent that some interest has been at work to build a bridge across the Cook Inlet for the purposes of expanding residential availability. The argument is clear that the Municipality should be positioning to preserve residential neighborhoods, especially those of the midtown arena to support the residents of Anchorage who work and contribute to the local economies here. The amendment in question would largely serve only certain citizens of the State who claim residency elsewhere. The proposed amendment does not serve Anchorage as a whole being beneficial to only a subset population residing elsewhere. The development would cause disruption of the tranquility of an established residential neighborhood. Local citizens have been and will continue to be displaced. Those remaining will be impinged. The impacts to the community are broad reaching, and not fully covered in this testimony. First and foremost; this is a residential community and I invested here with the understanding that this is what it will always be. The proposed ‘project’ would perpetually destroy the composition of the local community here and my investment. Our property values will be degraded, and the neighborhood will be infiltrated with transients. I cannot subscribe to destruction of my community environment. We already have far too much trouble with the Rescue Shelter and Tudor Bingo users…and they are both on the other side of Tudor Road. In 2009 I believe, the neighborhood stood the risk of being burnt to the ground by a fire stated by the users of these facilities who also camp out in the woods nearby. Some, if not all are under the influence when they wander through here; they are both potentially dangerous and a perpetual nuisance. There are no assurances that this project will not deliver more of the same. It appears these people have some of the very problems this program is trying to remedy. I stand firmly opposed to this and any other ‘project’ that disrupts a residential community. This project should not even be considered by the planning department, which in itself is an insult to the vested owners of the neighborhood. Any amendment to the conditional use (Case 20108-067) should be flatly rejected. The traffic congestion locally became a real problem when the Municipality put a median down the middle of Tudor Road. This caused bottlenecking of traditional local community traffic patterns without any changes to the traffic light pattern of Piper & Tudor Roads. Getting in and out of the neighborhood has become prolonged and aggravating as a result. The U-turns being made now on Tudor at this intersection as a result of the median are hazardous. The proposed shuttle system is not compulsory and the parking lot size indicates more is yet to come. The additional flow North on Piper from our community has destroyed an already marginal road surface. The amendment would allow an additional 120 person occupancy to the property overwhelming the ability of the current road surface to handle the flow, at the expense of the vested landowners here. There is nothing in the plan to address this concern. Until this is resolved the amendment should be denied. From my perspective the ‘project’ is out of compliance with the maintenance of compatible and efficient development patterns and the local land use intensity. Given the adverse buffeting of the established residential community I fail to comprehend how this development meets and furthers the goals and policies of the comprehensive development plan covered in chapter 21.05. This tome is too vast for any ordinary citizen to adequately appraise and digest. This should be evaluated by the MOA holding the residential concerns in a prioritized consideration. It allows for conversion of some under-used industrial tracts and this is exactly where this ‘project’ belongs. As previously stated here the ‘project’ is not compatible with the existing use of the area as it is not a family residence, it is a facet of a commercial enterprise. Speak, connect, act, and lead the change? The juxtaposition of this slogan against the means & methods engaged by The Foundation to date are remarkable. There has been non-existent communication and much action leading the change. This is not a connection, this is a disconnection. Why did the foundation neglect to embrace the local community with their plan? Door to door diplomacy and informational handouts well in advance of the hearing on the matter June 4, 2012 would have benefited their cause (Including the 79 page Conceptual Plan 04/18/12 which most residents here either cannot print out or read on-line). The disregard and disrespect for the local community to date will amount to disruption of the neighborhood fabric for the long term. The once hidden agenda of the Southcentral Foundation is just now gaining transparency in escalating this invasion. The format put in play indicates this may only be a step in the full vision of the Southcentral Foundation’s Master Plan, which is also unavailable for public input. The tactics utilized by the Foundations strategists certainly have the appearance of being firmly positioned off radar. I don’t support the methodology employed to date and I do not support the ‘project’ in this location. I also do not trust the Foundation’s practices in this matter. The timing of the public hearing is suspect, occurring at the onset of summer activities after the release of school has many citizens off on their way and unavailable for public input. Was this an intentional strategy of the ‘project’ plan? It appears very much so. What is Southcentral’s success rate with this program so far? What is the success rate of a ‘program’ like this elsewhere? What are the impacts to those communities? Is there even a ‘program’, or is this a ‘pilot program’ or just a conceptual theory? If there is a program, who endorses the protocol? What kind of security is provided? Are the program residents confined to the property, or are they free to roam the neighborhood? How big a monster is this thing? Where is the track record? Why does this program not send a strike team out to the villages where a significant percentage of the problems are occurring? Above all, why is this program not located in the heart of the complex of Diplomacy Drive in a familiar environment for the people for whom the program serves? Until these and many more questions are answered I believe it is in the best interests of the Municipality, the local community and the Southcentral Foundation itself to stop right here and engage in a public information and nourishment outreach program as a minimum. Sincerely- Robert R. Halpin | |
| Stephen Jones | 5/15/2012 10:44:25 AM |
| The information provided is very sparse. Several questions arrise. What is Habilitatvive Care? Alcoholics? Sex offenders? Disabled either mentally or phyisically? What do the facilities look like? How many stories? Where is the parking? Where are the driveways? How many people will be housed to start and ulimately? Depending on these and other factors the character of the neighbrohood will change with significant impact on property values. Until these and other similar questions are answered, I strongly urge that no consideration of a zoning cgange be given. Sincerely, Stephen Jones | |