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. | |
|---|---|
| Aaron Johnson | 11/27/2013 12:02:16 AM |
| Girdwood would benefit from having a more welcoming atmosphere for small businesses...thanks to overly restrictive zoning there are fewer businesses amenities and lower income residential areas that are typical of a ski resort community of this size. No one wants to see Girdwood become overly urbanized, but I believe there is also a downside to becoming an enclave almost exclusively of wealthy absentee homeowners and Anchorage commuters. A bit more self-sufficiency should be viewed as a good thing....The modern trend for urban planning in many resort communities and villages in the USA is toward a balanced mixed use. The ideal town center should be walkable, vibrant and diverse. Thriving small businesses make Girdwood a better place for everyone, yet still preserve the small town feel. The higher local revenue these businesses generate would justify funding a contract with Alaska Troopers to address any incidents in Girdwood....Finally, I would be in favor of a *smaller* sized RV park of less than 12-16 residents near the town center. It could be considered "experimental" under a conditional use permit, which can always not be renewed if the owner cannot control her problem tenants. I have little doubt that the majority of these folks will be good neighbors if both they and she are held accountable (fines, community service, or eviction)....If this "experimental" community is able to self-police and behave in a neighborly manner, then Girdwood could even consider allowing a few more small RV parks, but in widely separated areas to prevent the growth of a "ghetto" that would become a blight and depress property values. | |
| Dunnington Babb | 9/23/2013 7:34:19 PM |
| I am all for an RV park in Girdwood, I think it would create a fantastic opportunity for people to enjoy Girdwood in a comfortable manner and would attract the type of tourists that could also be very beneficial to the community. My experience has been that RV visitors are somewhat affluent guests with a great enthusiasm for what Alaska has to offer. Allowing them to make Girdwood a part of their itinerary could share the best part of Alaska with some its best visitors. RV parks are very common in the European resorts and would be another positive step towards strengthening Alaska's position as a top international destination. | |
| Marie Mascio | 7/10/2013 8:04:03 AM |
| I am opposed to re-zoning the South Townsite to allow an RV park. Keep the area behind the fire station and library as a community park, open and accessible to all. The ball field, disc golf course, and pavillions fit perfectly in this area and are enjoyed by many Girdwood residents. An RV park here would take away Girdwood's only community park. | |
| David Hart | 7/5/2013 11:26:05 AM |
| I am adamantly opposed to both an RV park and temporary housing within the Girdwood Valley. History has shown these types of developments do not foster pride of ownership or long-term care for the area. They ultimately become eye-sores, and a drain on property values. I agree affordable housing is needed in the Girdwood Valley. I propose a better solution would be permanent apartment-style housing for seasonal workers, similar to the solution Alyeska Resort came up with. An investor can build a new, clean simple apartment complex on HLB land. Sure this takes more up-front capital investment, but the long term effect is the property management company will be more incentivized to take care of thier investment than people living in sub-standard, temporary RV housing. No RV park or temporary housing in Girdwood Valley! | |
| Karen Zaccaro | 7/3/2013 12:36:07 PM |
| In regard to the proposed change to the GC-10 zoning district I would like the planning and zoning commission members to consider the following: 1.The intent of the GC-10 district as stated in Sec 21.09.040 2 ii is ‘to permit development of a limited range of non-retail commercial uses along with residential uses in a manner compatible with the surrounding residential land use” An RV park is not consistent with the surrounding residential use. The noise, potential for alcohol related celebration, non-local pets and residents with no long term interest in community and neighborly relations are absolutely contrary to the tight knit family based residential neighborhood that now exists. 2.It is my understanding that zoning changes are intended to be in maintaining with the existing zoning intent, existing uses, existing area wide comprehensive and master plans. This RV or Tent park is not in line with this understanding. 3.Allowing the RV or Tent site business to operate in this established residential neighborhood would be an effective ‘taking’ of value from the surrounding property owners. The community feel and safety of children are directly related to the value of homes in this area. 4.The intent of zoning is to guide development for the best of the community and the best and highest use of land for tax generating potential to the community. The community, through several years of comprehensive plans and land use regulation development has repeatedly decided that the best use of the GC-10 zone is light commercial more related to a small hotel or light commercial business. It has never included RV park or Tent sites as a possible allowed use. 5.I have spoken at several recent public meeting on this issue and have asked the planning staff form the municipality to give any reasons they feel the zoning change is consistent with the current zoning or planning documents. They have not given any reasons except that a private landowner asked them to change it. 6.I do not believe private land owner should not be allowed to change zoning simply because it makes their land more usable in the near term to the detriment of the surrounding landowners, the overall development plan, and potential future tax base for the community. I sincerely hope the members of the planning and zoning commission will support the majority of the members of our community and deny this change in zoning for the GC-10 district. | |
| Danica Riendl | 6/14/2013 4:11:57 PM |
| I do not believe a well situated and operated RV park would be a determent to the community in Girdwood. I find the parking lot at Alyeska littered with RV 's at times a hindrance. Also, I believe a well managed RV park would enhance the economy in Girdwood. I am in favor. | |
| Glenn Crocker | 5/28/2013 2:21:10 PM |
| I oppose amending AMC 21.09.050 to establish camper parks as an allowed use in the GC-10 and GR4 areas in Girdwood. As others have pointed out, there are options for RVs in and around Girdwood. The facility that is currently being proposed is large, high density and will negatively impact the surrounding area. Girdwood does not have local law enforcement to respond to issues that may arise and does not have resources to monitor and enforce permit conditions. | |
| Deborah Erickson | 5/24/2013 9:39:28 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to the proposed ordinance (2013-080) amending Anchorage Municipal Code 21.09.050 to establish camper parks as an allowed use in the GC-10 area of Girdwood, and am also concerned regarding the process followed by Municipal officials so far. This area is adjacent to residential neighborhoods (home to many small children) behind and across the street, and is not an appropriate location for an RV park. The associated noise, and bear-attracting cookouts and garbage, is not conducive to neighborhood living. Camping is available10 miles north at Indian and 10 miles south in Portage Valley, as well as RV parking at Crow Creek and the Day Lodge. I am also concerned about the process so far of the Planning Division - presenting this proposal for the first time at the May meeting of the local land use committee did not permit sufficient time for local resident review and input. The manner in which it was presented was inappropriate as well - suggesting the omission of an area in the community designated for a camper park as an oversight is not respectful of the community and the vision of the residents for it's development. | |
| Donald Mark | 5/23/2013 2:59:52 PM |
| 2013-080 hope I have the correct case number. Summer RV parking is already available in Crow Creek. RV's are not designed for Girdwood snowloads. RV's on a trailer that look like a home are a mobile home by another name. Girdwood is 5 miles long. Proposed RV park would be within 2 miles of everyone. Proposed RV park would be between 0.25 - 1.25 miles from schools. There is low income housing in Girdwood which is not full. Employee housing is available at the largest employer. Local realtors can tell you there is no shortage of low income rentals in Girdwood. Any developer of RV parks should be held accountable for park alignment with codes regarding storage, junk cars, blue tarps, makeshift buildings, hobbies conducted within RV park boundaries. The absence of RV park permitting was not overlooked in the Title 21. Its absence is desireable. It is unclear why 1 proponent of a use should sway the P&Z to amend the code. The code does not need amending. If she gets RV parking, I thinks 100% of girdwood rental properties should be allowed connexes on property; now that would be ugly! The proponent of the amendment, RV park owner, has a demonstrated disregard for the orderly appearance of her RV park in Anchorage. CD copy of proponents' Anchorage RV park available. The tail is wagging the dog. If I cannot attend any meeting to speak, let it be known that I strongly oppose this move by the MOA to allow or permit said uses. If you are on the deciding committee, ask yourself if you would want a trailer park and all the potential for negative visual aestheitic and all the possibility of social ills which are commonly associated with trailer parks. In this one case, I say not in my back yard! D M Ryan | |
| Michelle Cosper | 5/23/2013 11:22:31 AM |
| As a resident of Girdwood for the last 12 years, I am strongly opposed to the development of an RV park. It will stress our resources (fire, police, road maintenance, EMS) while adding an eyesore to our community. Honestly, I'm tired of Anchorage people trying to tell us what to do in Girdwood, while generally not supporting our infrastructure (we had to fight hard to develop our library/ community room because of Anchorage opposition. Also our emergency services are VOLUNTEER, unlike Anch). Let the RVs that need full hook ups park some place else. | |
| Patrick Doran | 5/23/2013 9:10:31 AM |
| I oppose ammending the current zoning to add RV parks in the GC-10 area. I feel that the land next to the current "Tent camping" site (GC-5) would be a better area to build a park, but only a 20 "Dry" spot park to accomodate transient R.V's. There should be a 30 day maximum stay and there shouldn' be any water, sewage or electrical hook ups to manage. R.V's are able to accomodate all of these needs for a temporary time, and if they need to dump or get more water then they can go to the Tesoro. This area is set in a nice wooded area and could have a layout amongst the trees similar to Bird creek. This is an easy and quick solution to start with. The valley doesn't have the demand for a 100 site full hook up R.V. site and I feel this would attract a huge gathering spot for partiers during such events as concerts and forest fair. I also feel that this size of a park would become a long term park with stored junk that would have no ordinance enforcement. | |
| Jesse Stamm | 5/21/2013 11:37:07 AM |
| While I would love to see the Cabana's be able to do something with their property I am not in favor of this proposed RV park. Lottie continually states that she is a 22+ resident of Girdwood however owning a home does not make you a resident. Residents live here the large majority of the year. I understand the need/desire for an RV park and have heard the argument that all other small towns in Alaska have them. Those other towns have policing that we do not. Girdwood is a fantastic little community and that's why we live here but we all know and have seen the destruction caused when people arrive in large groups. The fact is that we do not have a police force here to control the situations that will arise and the trooper presence is shared among several miles of highway and other communities. | |
| Larry Daniels | 5/21/2013 8:51:33 AM |
| May 8, 2013 Girdwood Land Use Committee Re: Agenda Item LUC 1305-04 Dear Committee, As a Land Owner and Resident, I wish to be heard on this matter, but may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday, 5/13/2013. I believe that a RV Park of any size, would be a big impact on our community, no matter where it was located. It should not be a permitted use in any district. The only way that if should be considered is as a conditional use, which requires that it come before the LUC, the GBOS and P&Z before it can be built. In this manner, a developer has to prove the merit of the development and mitigate the impacts ~· Larry Daniels Girdwood Resident | |
| Fred Cosentino | 5/21/2013 8:15:54 AM |
| I think there is some confusion to the amendment that an RV Park is what is proposed and not a trailer park. Girwood has had a mixed history of building cabins on shaky foundations with blue tarps for roofs when codes were ignored. Today this project would be built to current RV park standards with showers, gravel pads and sanitary utilities. Rules regarding dogs,cars and conduct are normal for operating an RV park and make the operation more community friendly. I have seen RV parks in Italy at resorts , namely Val Gardena and it was neat, organized and fit well into the resort. Presently the property is zoned commercial. I think a family friendly RV park will bring in more jobs and will better than a strip mall. | |
| Robert and B. Charlotte Cant | 5/20/2013 8:52:03 PM |
| I oppose this change of use as it will adversely affect the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, and Girdwood as a whole. The scale of the proposed RV park is excessive. The change poses noise, light, air, and water pollution to the surrounding neighborhood. It will negatively impact the nearby emergency response facilities. I see no reason to develop this in haste. | |
| Dana Stahla | 5/18/2013 3:27:19 PM |
| I strongly oppose a campground/rv park in section GC10 off Alyeska Hwy. The potential developer of the property in question has an "approve now, plan later" approach. In the course of one meeting I heard a vague plan go from camping to RV's to trailers. Which is it? Not one of these is an acceptable option for this area of Girdwood. Street lights, nose pollution, traffic, and the need for more policing isn't something anyone I know wants to have in their backyard. Although I see the need for a small area of designated camping and/or RV parking in Girdwood, section GC10 off Alyeska Hwy is NOT the appropriate place for it. | |
| Becky Germain | 5/18/2013 8:35:28 AM |
| This proposed amendment the Municipal Code to allow for development of an RV/trailer park in a residential area (Alyeska Basin) in Girdwood is nothing more than a money grab initiated by two people with little concern about the impact such a development would have on the aesthetics, and economics of the surrounding area. Changes to the Municipal Code for the profit of a few that negatively impact (increased noise levels, high traffic, high visibility) is in total disregard to the intent of the code. The code was written for the purpose of designing a community with thoughtful consideration to development. This proposed change is not. I oppose changing the code to allow for an RV/trailer park in the Alyeska Basin. | |
| Bryan Epley | 5/17/2013 8:49:59 PM |
| On the surface, this looks like the simple addition of "Camper Park" as an allowed use in two zoning districts. Who wouldn't want a small Camper Park in Girdwood for visitors who own RV's to utilize? However, this is simply just not the case. The prospective purchaser of property, and potential future developer, Lottie Michaels, has on two occasions presented a project in Girdwood that is a large (100+) space multi-use trailer park - much like what she already operates in Anchorage. The addition of the "Camper Park" as an allowed use is the first step in allowing her project to move forward. Tim and Leroy Cabana have, for years, been gracious enough to allow us to cross their property, snow machine on their property, cross country ski on their property, snow shoe on their property, and even cut down Christmas trees on their property. For this I am grateful. I'd like to see Tim and Leroy Cabana have the ability to sell their property and get out from under their tax burden, but not at the expense of a multi-use trailer park. I object to the addition of the "Camper Park" as an allowed use due to the project the future owner intends to develop. | |
| lynn boots | 5/17/2013 6:46:15 PM |
| It is high time that Girdwood had an affordable option for hiking and skiing in the area rather than limiting use to those who can afford the high price of a hotel or B&B. This is a great idea because it is not a trailer park but is a camper park limited to a maximum of a 30 day stay, requires restrooms, improvements and designated camping sites. A well operated Girdwood RV park is a long time in coming and brings more tourist dollars to the area while giving those of us who do not live in the area a chance to enjoy Girdwood. | |
| Brian Anthony | 5/17/2013 6:05:04 PM |
| I approve of the rezone. As a Civil Engineer, I believe this amendment to be the correct designation.The opposing views on this page seem to be unaware of the potential adverse development currently allowed. The day lodge make-shift RVis an embarassment and a hazard. Remember that diversity is what makes Girdwood such a wonderful place to live and visit. | |
| Kyle Kilgore | 5/17/2013 4:04:04 PM |
| In favor of rezone. It is funny to read some of the comments from residents who want to raise the ladder for future development. How on earth was their home built without thoughtful development, which this is. | |
| Brian Buscemi | 5/17/2013 3:55:35 PM |
| I am strongly in favor of this rezone! As a civil engineer with ties to Girdwood, this is the correct designation for the land. I don't think the opposition understands the adverse potential the current zoning allows. Also, the current situation of RV parking at day lodge is an embarrassment. | |
| Michelle Tenny | 5/17/2013 3:23:10 PM |
| I oppose this amendment. First Lottie wanted to develop an RV park in the squirrel cages. She was incredibly unprepared with her presentation at the Land Use meeting and I can only imagine this will be how she will prepare to take over 10 acres of prime real estate, right off the Alyeska Highway. I agree that our town could use a small RV park, maybe 20 units, with short stays only, not in the middle of town. I pity the homeowners who have trusted Tim Cabana with major investments in homes right adjacent to this projected site of an unsightly RV park. This whole plan is a recipe for disaster. Girdwood is a nice quiet town, this proposed RV park will be an eyesore to our beautiful valley. Please do not pass this amendment. | |
| Michael Buscemi | 5/17/2013 2:50:35 PM |
| My family and I have a home in Girdwood and we love Girdwood. I am in favor of the amendment as it will provide a designated, safe, clean place for campers to park overnight. During the summer especially but more increasingly year-round, campers park everywhere - in front of the Day Lodge, at the park / Town Square and sometimes on the street in front of my home. While most visitors to Girdwood are respectful, I have had multiple issues with noise, trash left behind and blocked driveways/access. Girdwood is very pedestrian and the unpaved surface streets in town are simply not designed for overnight parking / camping. I feel like this has only worsened over the past 10 - 15 years so I also think the timing is appropriate. | |
| P. Silveo | 5/17/2013 1:55:59 PM |
| In favor. | |
| Lottie Michael | 5/17/2013 1:47:47 PM |
| In favor. I'm a 22+year Girdwood resident and a life long Anchorage resident. Tourism is great for our economy and doesn't pose environmental concerns other industries may. The proposed ordinance amendment simply allows RV parks. The size and amenities are dictated by MOA Chapter 21 and Girdwood Land Use Regulations. | |
| Bari Cabana | 5/17/2013 11:30:45 AM |
| I am in favor of a R/V Park in either location. GC10 off Alyeska Hwy. which is commercial/private land only to accessed off Alyeska Hwy. Or GC5 the southern side of the squirrel cages which is HLB land. My understanding it was to be accessed from Ruane?? I have traveled in a R/V with my family, and have stayed in some very nice R/V Parks across this country. I feel a R/V Park would be a asset to this community. | |
| Baxter Gamble | 5/17/2013 10:30:08 AM |
| I am in favor of this development. I think with the proper management and guidelines this would be a great benefit to the area. There a great number of visitors that do not spend time or money in the area because there is not a good place for them to park. The type of client that will be drawn to this park will be upper class with money to spend and spend. These are not "Blue Tarpers". Hope to see this project approved and prosper soon. | |
| Shannon Earl | 5/16/2013 10:27:51 PM |
| I oppose the requested change. Tourism is important to Girdwood, but the location of the proposed camp is within close proximity to established neighborhoods. | |
| Sam Fortier | 5/16/2013 10:05:57 PM |
| This is a brilliant idea. It will be great for the local economy, will create jobs, and will assure that the beauty of Girdwood and its forests and mountains are not overlooked by the thousands of tourists who drive past it on their way to Homer. I wish I would have thought of this. | |
| Leroy Cabana | 5/16/2013 9:54:59 PM |
| Ok here we go, I am the co-owner of the track of land the proposed RV park is applying to use. This is commercial zoned property for over 20 years now, not single family dwelling, not open space, not a park. This property is currently zoned for over 200 units of mixed/condo/multi family/hotel. The traffic study is complete and approved for over 192 units. So stop with the 100 units of RV campers will congest traffic. Next, Girdwood is the only small community in south central Alaska I can think of without a RV park. Look at Anchorage, Seward, Homer, Valdez and so on. All these comunities benifit fron a well run RV park for visitors. Many of the opposing comments come from home owners whom feel they should have the deciding say as to any futher development in "their back yard". The property in question is private property, never zoned single family dwelling, always envisioned as commercial. This RV park is a great addition to the community of Girdwood, Just like the RV parks in Homer and Seward and Valdez. Just like the Alyeska Hotel, it will serve the needs of travelers to a resort community. Some have called the RV park a future slum, this is an insult, look at the RV park in Seward, look at the RV park on the Homer Spit, go to Valdez and look at the three large RV parks that bring hundreds of families to enjoy these communities. These are first class developments. This should be approved and welcomed. | |
| Samantha Cherot | 5/16/2013 5:02:07 PM |
| I am in favor of zoning to allow a RV park in Girdwood for tourists and residents to enjoy Girdwood. If anything, I think this option would allow tourists, that might not otherwise experience Girdwood, to stay and spend money in Girdwood and its surrounding areas for a short time. The code allows for a maximum of a 30 day stay, so I think such a zoning allowance would be beneficial to the community and businesses in Girdwood, as well as those who would use the park. | |
| don keil | 5/16/2013 3:09:30 PM |
| i see no cause to object, i support. | |
| Dena Lythgoe | 5/16/2013 2:40:14 PM |
| Being a life long Alaskan I have always enjoyed the activities Girdwood has to offer. Tourism is a large part of Alaska's economy, not just with people from other states or countries, but with residential travel as well. Recreational camping with an option of an R.V stay allows us Alaskans' to show off our state and provide a hospitable stay. As with anything regulations are necessary, determining length of stay, park cleanliness and the offered services of the park. I support the development of the park and am proud to see our state continue to grow. | |
| Jeanette Paul | 5/15/2013 11:12:28 PM |
| I am strongly in favor of approving this request. I believe this RV Park will have a positive impact in Girdwood's community while also creating a great opportunity to travelers. This park could provide a safe, quiet and affordable place for travelers to stay. | |
| tim cabana | 5/15/2013 9:37:01 PM |
| As a 30 resident of Girdwood I have seen a lot of change in Glacier Valley. Some change is good some is bad, but all places change, there is no stopping it. What we can do is guide change in a positive way.There is about 20,000 acres in Glacier valley, 7,000+ are federal lands, mostly forest service, 6200+ are state lands and 5200 are muni lands within the Heritage Land Bank. There are only about 320 privaely owned acres in the valley. These public lands will be developed and the Girdwwod Area Plan was made to primarily guide the development of these public lands, Page one in the plan spells this out. There was no need to micromanage the few acres of privately owned lands. I was involved with chapter nine of title 21 for many years, we had many meetings with the private Colorado based consultants that drafted this document. I felt like they did not listen to our input and had there own agenda, but it was passed and it was not really ready, there are many mistakes in it. There is a whole section on RV parks with detailed standards yet they forgot to place them in the allowed use table. That is what this is about. This is not a rezoning or new use but is simply a way to correct a mistake dicovered when a private party came forward with an idea to build a RV park in Girdwood. There is only one large commercial tract in the Valley on a main road (Alyeska Hwy) big enough for a viable RV park. The only other option is public lands owned by the Heritage Land Bank. Being public land would be less timely.I was on the GBOS for years and am very familiar with process to acquire public land, it takes many years and is still very expensive. I think there is some confusion about the GC10 and GR4 that I own along Alyeska Hwy. Both are zoned for up to 20 units per acre and would produce much more traffic developed into condos or Lodges. A RV park would be much less of an impact. People tend to park and stay put until they leave, this creates very little traffic. It would be out of sight from the hwy because of the 30 ft buffer and could easily be out of view from the residents to the south by a few rows of well placed trees that need to be moved anyway. I am all ears as to a better use of this land but have no intension of sitting on it foverever and will simply sell it to someone else who could have a lot worse idea than nice well managed RV park. So I would like to see the allowed use table updated to allow RV park allowed on GC10 and GR4 Attached to GC10. | |
| Howard Earl | 5/15/2013 6:47:21 PM |
| I vehemently oppose any zoning change and/or conditional use permits that would allow an RV park or campground in Girdwood. Howard Earl | |
| Catherine McDermott | 5/13/2013 5:46:52 PM |
| I oppose amending Title 21 to allow camping and/or RV camping in the residential areas of Girdwood. I am concerned that a development of this type will negatively impact property values as well as the quiet residential quality of our town. RV parking is allowed in the resort parking lot during the summer, and there is numerous of RV/camping accommodations in the Portage Valley as well as a new Bird Creek camping area. I don't see the demand for a development of this type, nor would I support it in Glacier Valley. | |
| Kevin Montague | 5/13/2013 1:26:36 PM |
| Folks, I respectfully oppose any zoning change/ conditional use provision that promotes or encourages RV encampments within the Glacier Creek Valley. Kevin Montague | |
| Rachel Hatcher | 5/12/2013 12:04:49 PM |
| I am in favor of a short term RV/camper Park, similar to what the Forest Service campgrounds around the state look and operate like. Their style is in keeping with the environment, with a very natural forested look. There needs to be a defined limit to the length of stay, like 1 or 2 weeks, with no back to back stay allowed to create a long term stay. Our Valley is lacking an option for our summer RV guests, and maybe if viable, it could be a winter option as well. The most important factor I feel would be to not allow long term stays which would create a myriad of problems. | |
| Gabrielle hoessle | 5/10/2013 11:19:48 PM |
| The comments listed are well stated. Girdwood does need a small RV park, maybe 20 spaces with a maximum 14 day stay, in a location such as the squirrel cages. Minimum infrastructure but access to electricity and water. Keep it simple, that is how we like it in Girdwood. I do not agree with the request for a zoning change to accommodate a 100 site RV and trailer park. Can you imagine 100 RV's pulling in and out of our little roads, whilst the kids are trying to cross the street to go to the library or park, and then the fire truck blaring its horn, trying to get out!! The trailer park idea would also lead to more negative than positive contributions to our community. Folks, this idea will also lead to the first stop light in our little town. I am so proud to live in a town that does not have a stop light. This is a goal to strive for! | |
| Sharnee Epley | 5/10/2013 4:42:07 PM |
| I am opposed to a camper park in either location that would allow stays longer than 14 days. And even if a 14 day maximum limit were established, I have concerns as to whether or not there would be any enforcement of this or any other "rules" of the "camp ground". | |
| Mark Yezbick | 5/10/2013 3:46:52 PM |
| As a resident of Girdwood for 12 years, I oppose the establishing of an RV park in Girdwood. | |
| Jacky and Ken Graham | 5/10/2013 3:05:04 PM |
| We oppose the requested zoning change. As Girdwood residents, for the past 36 years, we have appreciated the thoughtful slow development that has taken place with the concerted efforts of Title 21, Chapter 9 and the South Town-site Master Plan. Girdwood is a place of unparalleled beauty and we wish to see it remain so. We have no problem with growth in Girdwood and welcome it, but not this type of growth. Please do not approve this zoning change. | |
| Alison Rein | 5/10/2013 12:09:58 AM |
| I was pleased to read in the municple code 21.09.050 Use Regulations, B. Definitions, 4. Commercial, b. Camper Park- Girdwood only, ii. Use specific standards, (B) length of stay- max. Is 30 days. This section of Cade should also include a definition of how long a camper must remain out of the park prior to returning, such as a period of 2weeks. in section i. Definition, it states that vehicle and boat storage is not allowed. This section of code spells out specific requirements for camper parks in Girdwood that would fit in non- residential areas. I urge others to read this section of code to see what is allowed now for a Girdwood camper park. I would support a smaller sized camper Park (20-40 campsites) that is built to the existing code, this is a type of use that is lacking currently in our town. | |
| Rainbo Herfindahl | 5/9/2013 5:44:29 PM |
| Girdwood does not need another trailer park! I am not opposed to the development of the squirrel cage area as a tent camping area that RVs also use. I AM opposed to people LIVING in those spots. I would think a 14 day limit would be appropriate. This could be a great way to develop the land and still preserve access to the trails in the area. It would need to be tightly regulated to keep the river waters clean and the noise and light pollution from damaging the peace of the neighborhood. | |
| Deborah Pfeifer | 5/9/2013 10:15:42 AM |
| Please do not permit a zoning ordinance change that would allow an RV park to be constructed in the land adjacent to the Gerrish Library and Girdwood Fire Station in Girdwood. That area should remain woodland and wetland. The original Iditarod Trail runs through it. Allowing an RV Park would cause traffic difficulties for the emergency vehicles and create and eyesore where there doesn't need to be one. There may be more appropriate areas in Girdwood to have a small RV Park, not 100 spaces in the "Squirrel Cage" area. | |
| Amanda Snitzer | 5/8/2013 11:19:46 PM |
| The project as described by the potential developer is not suitable for the location adjacent to the Alyeska Highway, just North of the Girdwood Chapel, for the following reasons: 1- If a drive with 100 units were placed off of the Alyeska Highway traffic flow on the Alyeska Hwy would be significantly altered. This will impair emergency response time from the Girdwood Fire Department to Alyeska Resort, effect traffic patterns on all already busy arterial road and make pedestrian and bicycle travel less safe and less appealing. 2- Accommodation of 100 units within the defined area will create a high density housing situation, creating the need for more police presence, taxing local utility infrastructure, and inhibiting migratory paths of moose and other native species. 3 - Generators will create noise and air pollution. 4 - A high density camper park will need significant lighting for safety. This will create light pollution. 5 - Grey water and black water tanks have the potential to leak and leach into protected and valuable wetlands. 6 - Automotive fluids, (gasoline, antifreeze, motor oil) will leak into the ground affecting the quality of ground water. 7 - There is a significant local economy supported by bed and breakfasts that will now have direct competition. This will impact local home businesses that rely on customers who do not want the "hotel experience". 8 - The aesthetics of Girdwood are an important factor contributing Girdwood's economy and appeal. A high density camper park will affect said aesthetics. 9 - Many people enjoy the described area for it's natural beauty, and for cross country skiing and snow shoeing. This activity cannot take place if the area is developed as described. 10 - The plan does not involve nor promote ownership or community involvement of the patrons. 11 - High density housing will produce bear attractants. 12 - A high density camper park is going to depreciate property values with no economic benefit to current property owners. I would like the developer to describe how this project is going to enrich our community. Most community members and property owners have an interest in seeing Girdwood developed responsibly, sustainably and with a certain aesthetic. I see this project lacking all of these qualities. | |
| Jason Stockinger | 5/8/2013 8:41:52 PM |
| I would be supportive of an "campground" that is suited for vacation or short-term living in Girdwood. Our town has unfriendly policies regarding RV camping. The only legal way to camp in RV's in Girdwood is the seasonal summer only use of the day lodge parking lot at Alyeska Resort. It lacks any kind of amenities such as picnic tables, fire pits, toilets, showers, level parking stalls, or even AC power. It is just a paved parking lot that borders a residential area. Guests are told to turn their generators off at 10 pm. Alaska has an abundance of summer guests that choose to travel in RV’s. Our “Resort Community” should be capitalizing on the economy created by our visitors. There is also interest in RV camping in the winter by guests who would like to stay the weekend and ski at Alyeska Resort, but do not wish to spend huge amounts of money on overnight accommodations. Some attempt to RV camp in Girdwood during the winter only to be run off or abandoning their vehicles in town square. I am not supportive of a “RV Park” or “trailer park” type of facility meant for both short-term and long term stays. Semi-permanent trailer type houses would contribute more of a blight on our community, rather than a benefit. I would like to agree with John Gallup’s assessment of the plan as a “ready-made slum which has no place in Girdwood”. Additionally, I also believe that Alyeska Basin is unsuitable due to the residential impact. Girdwood needs a campground that serves the needs of both RV and tent campers. Campers want fire pits, picnic tables, toilets or rental cans, and AC power if possible. The squirrel cage area would be the perfect location for such a facility. It is close to restaurants, stores, parks, the bike path, the baseball field, and could have regularly scheduled bus service. The only nearby RV campgrounds are in Bird or in Portage. The Portage campgrounds don’t even have AC power and are often full during the summer! Girdwood needs to become RV and tent friendly in order to be a true “Resort Community”. | |
| Kristin Malecha | 5/8/2013 8:29:22 PM |
| I oppose the requested zoning change. Between Title 21, Chapter 9 and the South Townsite Master Plan, and the transportation plan, a lot of thought has gone into Girdwood, zoning, growth and development. And, things change. Time passes. Plans that made sense and went through the process several years ago may need some rethinking. But the process to do so shouldn't be knee jerk changes to zoning based on random requests to do individual projects without considering them in the full scope of planning for growth and development. If we need affordable housing, we should address that and proceed accordingly. If we need recreational camping, we should understand the demand, and plan a project in a suitable location that meets the actual need. I feel that, in this case, we are simply addressing a single subject in a sort of "vacuum" only because, someone brought it up. Its not the concept I oppose. It is the lack of bigger picture strategy that I think should be in place before approving a zoning change to allow a project(s) of this magnitude. | |
| Ken Waugh | 5/8/2013 7:34:41 PM |
| This is by far the worst idea I have heard in a very long time. Surely we can find a better use of this land than establishing our very own "felony flats". No infrastructure, no governance, no over site; just a low rent trailer park plopped down in the middle of our community! We have no full time police force available 24 hours a day, yet these types of facilities have a disproportionate demand for both law enforcement and fire suppression services. Who will fund these calls. Home owner mill rate increase? What about water and sanitation. Please show some sanity and deny this request. | |
| Lynne' Doran | 5/8/2013 6:29:40 PM |
| I understand there is a request to amend/change Municipal code section 21.09.050 to establish camper parks in different locations in Girdwood. I am against changing the code to allow for camping in residential areas. Earlier a presentation was made to develop the South Town Site into an RV Park for 100 spaces. Camping in our community has been set up in this area and it is a better fit as there are flood zones in South Town Site which doesn't make a good location for permanent homes to be built but camping would work. However I do not support a 100 space RV Park - I believe that 20 spaces would better suit the needs of tourists coming to our community. I also do not support long term occupancy - a 30 day limit is sufficient. | |
| Bryan Epley | 5/4/2013 8:08:43 PM |
| This proposed change in zoning is being driven by an individual who would like to acquire land in Girdwood and develop a Camper Park project. It is limited to two areas; an area in the South Townsite south of the Girdwood Community Center, a Commercial area, and an area in Alyeska Basin roughly bracketed by the Alyeska Hwy and Tanner Cir and the Girdwood Chapel and Glacier Creek, an area surrounded by Residential areas. If this change in zoning is approved, a Camper Park would only be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, which I believe would still require approval from Planning and Zoning - with the input of the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and the Land Use Committee. Earlier this year, I attended a presentation about this potential project put on by the individual who wishes to develop the project. At that time it was limited to the area in the South Townsite south of the Girdwood Community Center. What this individual envisioned at that time was a mixed use type of Park with owner occupied trailers, rental trailers, long term rental spaces, and vacation user spaces- no camping would be allowed. The minimum number of spaces required to make it feasible was stated to be 100 spaces. The developer did not have Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions and she was unsure about having on site management or other facilities. The more attractive owner occupied trailers would be located at Park entrances, in order for it to be more attractive to passerby's, while the less attractive trailers would be located in the center of the Park. I don't want to stand in the way of anyone's ability to develop land they own, unless it could adversely affect the adjacent property owners or the community. I believe this project could adversely affect adjacent property owners if developed in the Alyeska Basin location and I believe it could potentially adversely affect the community if developed as described. The South Townsite location makes far more sense for a similar project - one smaller in scope and one limited to short term vacation user spaces no longer than 30 days. Camping has been taking place in this location for several years. Additionally, the proximity to the Townsite could actually serve to support our local economy due to the goods and services located in such close proximity to this location. Access to Alyeska Resort facilities could be via either Glacier Valley Transit or the nearby Alyeska Hwy pedestrian pathway. In summary, I am opposed to this change in zoning for the Alyeska Basin location. Furthermore, if this change in zoning occurs in the South Townsite location careful consideration must be given to the size and scope of the project during the process by which a Conditional Use Permit could be granted. | |
| Iris Caro | 5/2/2013 2:00:02 PM |
| I am in favor. As a single mother of three living in Anchorage,I would like to be able to drive an RV down to Girdwood so my children can enjoy skiing, hiking, biking, etc. in this area. Current hotel prices do not allow for this indulgence on our budget. | |
| John Gallup | 5/1/2013 4:55:16 PM |
| I am against designating any area in Girdwood as a camper park. I worked on the Title 21 Chapter 9 Committee here in Girdwood for 6 years before our efforts were submitted to and approved by the Assembly. One proposal which has been floated recently is not a camper park, but a year-round, residential trailer park to be sited in the former 'squirrel cage" area. This would be a ready-made slum which has no place in Girdwood, Properly designed and constructed low-income housing has been and can be a great addition to Girdwood. It is a very difficult place for a low-income person to live. I would favor this approach to use of the squirrel cage area, with the vast majority left to open space for all to enjoy. | |