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. | |
|---|---|
| David Irons | 8/12/2013 5:42:19 PM |
| The developer provides no valid justification for this18-month extension. They use the economic downturn as an excuse for not having been able to develop this land in the past five years. However Anchorage did not suffer much of an economic downturn. Our assessed land value has remained the same from 2008 to 2013. This is in the same area as the proposed development. Therefore I strongly oppose the extension. | |
| Nancy Pease | 8/12/2013 3:02:03 PM |
| It is the owner's burden to demonstrate "good cause" as a condition of approval for this time extension. The owner submitted the vague excuse of unprecedented economic collapse, which is both historically inaccurate and entirely irrelevant to the failure of progress toward construction of these particular condominiums. The owner failed to submit any relevant economic justifications specific to this project; and also failed to show any work to advance this project. This request for a time extension is a bold-faced effort to prop up a dead project for re-sale to the next speculator. The Commission should NOT extend the time extension. Continuation of this project poses substantial risk to the public. This project would drift forward continue under revised Title 21, which would NOT allow for public hearings or review of the inevitable variances and revisions. Yet, allowing this project to drift forward would guarantee the need for variances and revisions, because the revised Title 21 would not allow the type of private housing approved by the current site plan (The PLI district is intended to include major public and quasi-public civic, administrative, and institutional uses and activities). In addition, the project owuld need revisions because it is clearly out of compliance with the Hillside District Plan and is incompatible with existing neighborhoods. It is mind-boggling for the Planning Staff to suggest that a 400 percent increase over the currently allowed residential density, in 40-unit hotel-sized buildings unlike anything on the Hillside, is an inconsequential element of non-compliance. Among the issues: hotel-sized buildings with extensive parking lots will create a nightmare of drainage in this area of shallow bedrock and surface run-off; the southern 80 percent of Potter Marsh would be affected by changes to this watershed; the collector road design and time schedule would be an outlier to the intended approach of integrated transportation upgrades under the HDP; and the traffic and transit burdens of 400 seniors at the outskirts of town would divert resources from parts of town that are already in need. The Commission should deny the time extension. The owner did not show good good cause. Any time extension would cut this project loose from the public review process and let it drift indefinitely under the new rules for almost automatic time extensions. That would be a dangerous risk to the taxpayers and the surrounding neighborhoods, who would have no predictability of when it might be built; and would face substantial remedial costs and environmental damage from such a large and poorly-located project. | |
| Deb Ward | 8/12/2013 12:02:50 AM |
| An 18-month extension of Site Plan approval for the senior housing project off Goldenview Drive should not be granted. The location is not practical for a project of this nature. In addition, this developer has a history of less than honest dealings with the South Goldenview community. His extensive building in the area has caused significant traffic and drainage issues that have needed to be rectified at public expense. The reason the petitioner provides for requesting the extension, ”economic hardship,” is confusing, as Alaska did not experience the dramatic economic downturn which occurred in the rest of the country, and this developer continued with projects on other properties in the area. Originally, the petitioner, Mr. Breggren purchased the 120-acre parcel and then sold 15 acres to the municipality for significantly more than what he paid for the entire lot. A plan for an R-7 development on the remaining 104 acres was drafted, but not carried out. The property was sold to a group of investors, who drafted a plan for senior housing. It was an ill-conceived project that would place significant burdens on the lower density adjacent properties and the Rural Road Service Area, as well as Potter Marsh, a superior wildlife sanctuary and tourist destination. Those investors foreclosed on the property. Mr. Berggren has not shown good cause for not obtaining an extension. The petitioner has had the property for 18 months. There is no documentation of any work done to achieve any of the multiple requirements outlined in Resolution 2007-076. (Building permits for the phases permitted by the dates specified in P&Z Resolution 2007-076, specifically Phase 1, 2012 and Phase 2, 2013, as well as other requirements of the resolution and site plan approval). The current zoning of the parcel is PLI. While the petitioner cites the Title 21 rewrite as a means to justify the extension of the current site plan he fails to note that the Title 21 rewrite does NOT allow for the type of development provided by the current site plan (The PLI district is intended to include major public and quasi-public civic, administrative, and institutional uses and activities). An 18 month extension will move this site plan forward into the new Title 21, which would essentially guarantee that the project would have no public review process. The project is clearly out of compliance with the Hillside District Plan, the Title 21 rewrite, and it is incompatible with existing development, which surrounds the parcel. The project is billed as housing for the elderly. Senior citizens are more likely to move closer to the city center, near medical, social, and commercial services especially in the winter. Thus, the properties could become available to individuals that are not considered “seniors.” Staff analysis indicates that the petitioner failed to provide supporting details and documentation as to the economic hardship he suffered. There is no documentation of steps taken to move toward compliance of the site plan with Resolution 2007-076 or Site Plan approval (Case 2006-142). For these reasons, we ask that you deny this request for an extension. Thank you for considering our comments. Deb Ward and Brad Kutzer | |
| diana van vliet | 8/11/2013 10:23:15 PM |
| I strongly oppose the extension of the permit for the Legacy Pointe Senior Project. The Golden View Development Corp. claims that the "worst economic collapse in the history of the US" was the reason this development plan didn't fly the first time when the recession didn't really affect Alaska and they didn't actually even own this property during that time period. From the start this was a bad business plan. This would be the most insane place for senior housing for multiple reasons. To name a few: The roads are dangerous on the hillside all winter long and in this specific site there is incredible glaciation which would make it all the more treacherous. Medical services are not close and there is no public transportation in this area. There are not that many seniors in Anchorage that could even afford to live in a development like the one planned. And, it does not fit in with the Hillside District Plan. I urge you to deny the extension of this permit. Thank you for your time, Diana Van Vliet | |
| Dale II | 8/11/2013 4:39:06 PM |
| I am not in favor of a senior citizen multi-housing facility being located up on the Hillside area, far removed from the convenience of shopping services, medical access etc. facilities, especially due to the risk of higher snowfall in the area complicating issues vs being located closer to sea level where all of this is convenient and less of an issue. | |
| Molly Welker | 8/11/2013 12:16:21 PM |
| I strongly oppose the request for an 18 month time extension of the site plan review (PZC Case #2013-087). The petitioner has not shown 'good cause' by stating that they have been impacted by the worst economic collapse in US history. They didn't own Legacy Pointe during this period, Anchorage's home prices went up during this time, and the petitioner has not met the requirements in the initial site plan approval. Legacy Pointe continues to be an absurd proposed development for seniors in an area where we all know that there are significant road limitations and major drainage issues that shouldn't be ignored before any type of development gets approved. | |
| John Isby | 8/11/2013 11:47:11 AM |
| I am the Long Range Planning Chair for the Potter Creek Homeowners Association. The homeowners in Potter Creek are overwhelmingly opposed to granting this time extension. This development is incompatible with the existing surrounding area and would have an adverse impact on property values and the quality of life in general. The denial of this time extension would force the developer to revise his development plan and pursue a more viable alternative. A rezoning of this parcel to facilitate a single home, large-lot development scheme – similar to what is proposed for Potter Highlands – is far more in keeping with the character of the area and would receive community support. | |
| Marcia Harth | 8/10/2013 9:32:59 PM |
| Having spent over 30 years in this area, I am strongly opposed to this development. There are numerous reasons why this project has been poorly thought out. The increase in traffic would be a burden on the area. The location itself is isolated from necessary amenities and services that seniors require. Winter creates hazardous road conditions for residents already in the area. In addition, this project would result in various detrimental effects to the natural environment of the area. | |
| Greg McCarthy | 8/10/2013 12:38:23 PM |
| I oppose any extension of approval to build for the reasons stated by the Rabbit Creek Community Council. | |
| Joan Diamond | 8/9/2013 1:28:01 PM |
| I am opposed to this time extension because the petitioner did not show "good cause" for what he says is, the " Worst economic collapse in US History". First , Anchorage did not have an economic collapse and in fact senior housing was being built during 2006-2012 in Anchorage. In truth, the petitioner sold the property to Legacy Pointe who were not a functional business group to develop this property and were foreclosed on in 2012. Since then, the petitioner has done nothing to start any work on the site plan. When building meets financial pressures, most of us cannot say, that we want more time to make money but rather have to pay the consequences of our business decisions. The petitioner sold to the wrong group in trying to get out of this Senior housing project and had nothing to do with an economic collapse. This site plan for senior condos has been a doomed development in Rabbit Creek from the beginning. Any building has an impact on the environment but the magnitude of damage to the area for 400 units is established in existing developments by the same developer asking for this extension. Severe water drainage at Prominence point has 12 homes pumping water out of their crawl space according to the Limited Road Service. Water runs downhill and continued problems develop house by house. The other big impact on public safety is the lack of any road infrastructure that can move existing traffic off of this area. As it stands, Rabbit Creek roads are not on any calendar for construction by state or city. In fact, what money we have received for Mt Air or Goldenviewdrive keeps getting taken to repair drainage damage to existing subdivisions. Please oppose this 18 month extension for an ill planned development that belongs closer to transportation and services for seniors that makes life for seniors more accessible. | |
| Michael Lacey | 8/9/2013 1:13:04 PM |
| Please DO NOT ALLOW THIS EXTENSION! The infrastructure in our neighborhood will not support it, and the developer has made promises in the past (for greenbelt buffers and setbacks, etc.) that he does not keep. This is a terrible idea. Michael Lacey, 17100 Feodosia Drive. | |
| Carol Fries | 8/9/2013 10:34:29 AM |
| We oppose an 18-month extension of Site Plan approval (Case 2006-142) for a senior housing development on Golden View Drive. The petitioner has failed to show good cause for not securing building permits for the phases permitted by the dates specified in P&Z Resolution 2007-076, specifically Phase 1, 2012 and Phase 2, 2013 as well as other requirements of the resolution and site plan approval. The petitioner cites economic hardship brought on by the “worst economic collapse in the history of the United States. The petitioner did not own the property during the economic crisis. Alaska did not suffer from the economic crisis to the extent that the markets in the lower 48 did as other comments have demonstrated. In fact several senior housing developments have been permitted and built in Anchorage during this time period. The petitioner received the property 18 months ago and was well aware of the fact that it was highly likely title would revert through foreclosure. The current petitioner did not invest in the development of the Legacy Pointe condominium site plan and a prudent owner, IF indeed the project were viable (and buyers were waiting in the wings as alleged in the petitioner’s response dated July 24, 2013) would have rapidly taken steps to get the property under contract and comply with existing site plan requirements. The reason provided for the extension, ”economic hardship” is very difficult to understand. The petitioner purchased the original 120-acre property, sold 15 acres to the municipality for significantly more than what was paid for the 120 acres, proceeded to invest money in developing a plan for an R-7 development on the remaining 104 acres and then SOLD the property to a group of investors with little experience who secured the existing site plan for speculative purposes. The site plan for a senior housing development is a financially ill-conceived project that will place significant burdens on the lower density adjacent neighborhoods and Rural Road Service Area. If indeed the active senior condominium site-plan were a viable project, buyers would have come forward to purchase the property. No one came forward, banks would not loan any additional funds for development purposes. The investors were foreclosed. The petitioner has had the property for 18 months. There is no documentation of any work done to achieve any of the multiple requirements outlined in Resolution 2007-076. If the petitioner is indeed negotiating with very large organizations interested in developing this property, he is merely engaging in speculative flipping and that approach already flopped for the previous owners. It should also be noted that the current zoning of the parcel is PLI and while the petitioner cites the Title 21 rewrite as a means to justify the extension of the current site plan he fails to note that the Title 21 rewrite does NOT allow for the type of development provided by the current site plan: E. PLI: Public Lands and Institutions District 1. Purpose The PLI district is intended to include major public and quasi-public civic, administrative, and institutional uses and activities. NOTE: There is NO mention of housing for the elderly and certainly no mention of private condominiums for active seniors. An 18 month extension will move this site plan forward into the new Title 21 which will then essentially guarantee that the project will be allowed to fester absent public review forever. Extensions for site plans will receive no public scrutiny. Limits are placed on site plans for good reason. The project is clearly not viable, no progress has been made, it is out of compliance with the Hillside District Plan, the Title 21 rewrite, and it is incompatible with existing development surrounding the parcel. Most egregiously, the density provided for by this site plan is 400% greater than that allowed by the Hillside District Plan. Additionally, this project is by no means a “home for the aged.” The aged would need crampons to take their morning constitutionals. In fact as residents in this area age, they are likely to move into the city center to be closer to medical, social, and commercial facilities and services particularly during winter months. Staff analysis clearly states that the petitioner failed to provide supporting details and documentation as to the economic hardship suffered by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no documentation of any effort whatsoever taken by the petitioner during the past 18 months to ensure compliance of the site plan with Resolution 2007-076 or Site Plan approval (Case 2006-142). We respectfully request that an 18-month extension be denied. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Carol Fries and Art Weiner | |
| Ann Rappoport | 8/9/2013 9:59:54 AM |
| Please do the right thing for our community and REJECT the request for an 18-month extension on for a Site Plan Review (PZC Case 2006-142) for a Senior Housing Development in the PLI district for “Legacy Pointe.” I have lived near the Legacy Pointe property for nearly 28 years and am well aware of the drainage and access issues for our steep neighborhood in the Potter Marsh Watershed. Over half the water that supports Potter Marsh, part of the State’s Anchorage Coastal Refuge, comes from the Legacy Pointe area and it is more important to conserve those values and the natural resource AND economic benefits they provide to hundreds of thousands of people, than to build the huge buildings of this proposal. Potter Marsh is a proven economic boon for Anchorage with over a hundred thousand visitors each year and the in-town bird-watching and salmon viewing it provides for Anchorage residents, our many family and friend visitors, and others. A senior housing development has not been developed during the 5 years this permit has existed because there is no viable market for such a development in a steep, inaccessible area – it is over a 5-mile drive on slow, 4WD roads in winter to the nearest market or medical clinic, there is no public bus service, sidewalks do not exist here. When the developer cannot sell enough condos to wealthy seniors, they will come back and ask for an exemption that is clearly outside the bounds of any “Public Lands and Institutions” designation – a tremendous violation of the careful planning, expert reviews, and public process that have and should govern this and other Muni land parcels. Moreover, I am appalled that the Muni would consider extending a permit to a developer whose nearby housing developments at Golden View Park and Prominence Point have caused, and continue to cause MILLIONS of dollars of drainage and road issues for neighbors whose houses existed prior to those developments. Who is paying for those problems? All the property taxpayers in Anchorage – not the developer. This is plainly wrong! The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding area and its attraction for those who do live here. The developer’s argument that the economic downturn prevented this project from previously proceeding does not fit the data – Anchorage did not suffer the severe economic downturn seen in the lower 48. It is time to reject this request and let this proposal fade away. Thank you for listening. | |
| Gerald Dubie | 8/8/2013 2:16:57 PM |
| I am a resident of this community and 73 year old senior. This ill-conceived plan for senior living should finally be stopped. Economic data clearly indicates that Alaska was fortunately not severely affected by the Great Recession, unlike my hometown of Detroit. That argument for an extension does not fly. Apparently Mr. Bergeron did not own the property during this period so how could he have been affected by the downturn? We respectfully ask that the commission carefully review the history of this project and the comments at public hearings. I believe they will clearly indicate that this project should go no further. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Bruce Seppi | 8/8/2013 12:56:00 AM |
| My family and I live directly adjacent to the area proposed for the Legacy Point development, and I am very familiar with the property. I am strongly opposed to any time extension for the site plan review and permits for this project. The very idea of building condos to house senior citizens on this property makes a mockery of Anchorages land use planning and the zoning process, and there is not good cause for a time extension for this poorly concieved development. There is not good cause for the extension because: -there has not been an economic downturn in the real estate market in Anchorage over the past 5 years -Forest Heights LLC proposed the development and owned the property between 2006 and 2012, not Goldenview Development Co. -This development is not about building housing for the elderly, but rather an attempt to avoid rezoning the property and build condominiums that are inappropriate for the landscape, but more more profitable than a zoning with large lots and conservation areas. High priced condos for senior citizens in an area that has steep icy roads, limited access, drainage and glaciation issues, seasonal storms and high winds and power outages, no public transportation and isolation from medical services makes no sense. The time extension for this development should be denied. | |
| Linda Kim Kovol | 8/6/2013 7:46:54 PM |
| As a resident of the Potter Creek subdivision, I adamantly OPPOSE the Legacy Pointe development. The drainage issues that Potter Valley Rd. experiences has only recently (July-Aug 2013) started to be addressed, with extensive reestablishment of drain ditches. There are daily, multiple complaints of cars and motorcycles racing Potter Valley Road all through the spring, summer, and fall months late into the night and early morning. Providing more roads and connecting to Goldenview Drive, will create the ultimate race track loop. Building these site condos will reduce our property values, invite more traffic, and reduce our quality of life which is why we purchased not once, but TWICE, a home in our subdivision. As APD has clearly stated (and it's recorded!), late night complaints of mischief, noise disturbance, and racing are not addressed in our area. This is not an appropriate site location for condos that will be in the $300,000 - $500,000 range targeting elderly clients. Is there going to be a new, large parking lot added to this project? This location is far from emergency services. There are NO fire hydrants in our area - having a "high rise building" located on the mountainside with restricted EMT access is plain DUMB. And who will provide the water service? The design of condos fundamentally changes the very nature of this area. We live in a rural neighborhood for a reason - if we wanted an urban building, we would have purchased a stacked box in downtown Anchorage. | |
| Peter Hanley | 8/6/2013 7:24:07 AM |
| The request from Goldenview Development regarding an 18 month permit extension the proposed Legacy Pointe senior housing should be denied. As explained in the letter below (original in the mail) they have not met the test of demonstrating "good cause" to justify an extension. August 6, 2013 Peter T. & Eunice O. Hanley 16430 Virgo Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99516 (907) 345-0942 (home) (907) 830-6146 (cell) pthanley@gci.net August 6, 2013 Municipality of Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Re: Case 2013-087 Request for Time Extension for A Site Plan Review, Legacy Pointe, Tract A Senior Housing Dear Commission Members: I hereby request that you do not approve the request by the Goldenview Development Company for a time extension for plan site review of the subject senior housing development proposal. As discussed below, they have not met the test of showing “good cause” required to gain a permit extension. We have been residents of the Rabbit Creek area for over 30 years and our home is not far from the proposed Legacy Pointe Development. We have seen the significant increase in traffic on Goldenview Drive, which is now well beyond capacity and safe use at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road. We have also seen the down slope hydrology impacts of ill-planned and implemented high density developments in the area such as Prominence Point managed by the principal officer of the original proponent of this incompatible development. Public testimony on the original Prominence Point site plan review in 2007-2008 stated that high density senior housing makes no economic or logistical sense in this area. One can only assume that the original project proponents and now Goldenview Development Company owners are using this action to place the Municipality of Anchorage in an untenable position in the future when they may have to reconsider a high density residential proposal but not one for senior citizens when the owners again cite economic hardship of senior housing condominiums with no potential occupants. Notwithstanding the above-noted significant public objections and potential adverse community and environmental impacts of this ill-thought development proposal (articulated in many public and expert comments in 2007), Goldenview Development Company has not met the requirements of the Planning and Zoning approval General Condition. 1.f regarding project progress and specifically the building permit time extension provision requiring a showing of “good cause”. The “good cause” provision states: “If a building permit is not timely issued with these time periods then the Master Site Plan approval shall be null and void for any uncompleted phases unless the Planning and Zoning Commission grants an extension for good cause shown following a public hearing” The S4 Group, on behalf of the Goldenview Development Company, in its May 9, 2013 letter to the Planning Department simply provides some vague and general statements relating to economic hardship to the property owners. Those arguments are fallacious, stated in hyperbole and not supported by fact for the following reasons: 1. The Anchorage real estate market along with the Anchorage and Alaska economies did not suffer the significant downturn (recession) experienced by the rest of the United States. This is supported by the State’s unemployment records for the years 2008-2012, the Municipality’s own commercial and residential building permit statistics, and Anchorage housing prices for a similar period. 2. The petitioner did not own Legacy Pointe during the years of the national recession so any financial harm to the new owners is irrelevant. ? 3. The petitioner characterizes the recent recession in the United States (not experienced thankfully in Alaska) as the “worst economic collapse in the history of the United States”. Most economists and historians would reserve such characterization to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. 4. No information is provided by the petitioner on the alleged “economic hardship” to the project property owners which is characterized by them as “devastating”. Most importantly, this is not germane anyway to the issue as noted above in point no. 2. 5. No supporting information is provided by the petitioner on what the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” it alleges have been spent on in support of the proposed development or why those funds have been “lost”. Have those funds been spent on this project or have they been expended and “lost” elsewhere in the United States by the project backers? 6. No facts or information are provided by the petitioner to explain what is meant by their statement that an extension would help them “maintain values in the property”. This is very vague in light of the fact they have not documented what work has been accomplished to date and what funds expended. 7. The petitioner characterizes their request is a “grant for simple 18 month extension”. Such a grant is not a simple matter given the lack of project progress and absence of information on what would be accomplished during the next 18 months. Most importantly, it is not “simple” in light of the significant adverse impacts of the project as articulated in the long-standing community opposition to the project. In summary, no “good cause” has been provided by Goldenview Development Company to support its request for a permit extension. The request should be denied. Once denied, the Commission should also reconsider any similar development proposal since it clearly does not comply with the provisions the new Title 21 municipal standards. Sincerely, Peter T. Hanley Eunice O. Hanley cc: Rabbit Creek Community Council | |
| Marilyn Scarborough | 8/5/2013 10:02:08 PM |
| The Anchorage real estate market did not suffer the significant downturn nor did the petitioner own Legacy Pointe during the years of the national recession. Also the project should not be extended because no progress has been made and it is out of compliance with the Hillside District Plan and Title 21. | |
| Mike Zidek | 8/4/2013 11:36:46 PM |
| The use of this parcel will not fit the existing character of the area. All the drainage and traffic issues are not resolved . | |
| kathy faryniarz | 8/4/2013 10:35:11 AM |
| I have experienced first hand the shoddy planning and construction of this developers work directly behind us in the bridgeview area Lack of green belts, massive tree cutting has destroyed wildlife habitat and passage, as well as caused high forced winds damaging roofs Not to mentioned the glaciation in our neighborhood roads and drive ways due to in adequate drainage planning We moved to southpark in 1996 and did not have the above problems until Bridgeview went in I vehemently oppose legacy point development. Come on Muni stand up for what just!! | |
| Cathrine Gillis | 8/2/2013 10:13:39 PM |
| Not only do senior citizens need housing, they need affordable housing. Potter Marsh needs to have some wild space remaining around it. This is not a viable development project and it would be short-sighted to approve an extension. High rise buildings in this area would be terrible. | |
| Joseph Joyner | 8/2/2013 7:35:18 PM |
| I have been a 48 year Anchorage Hillside resident. The Anchorage real estate market did not suffer the significant downturn experienced by the rest of the United States. The Anchorage market actually held steady and has even advanced in certain areas. The Legacy Pointe project should not be extended because no progress has been made and it is out of compliance with the Hillside District Plan and Title 21. High rise builds have no place in, and is inconsistent with the rural hillside community. Joe Joyner | |
| Mike kenny | 8/2/2013 4:39:17 PM |
| Case 2013-087 Comments In reviewing the 2006-2007 case comments on this project, an overwhelming majority of those comments urging denial of the permit were from nearby residents. A majority of those comments focused on the unrealistic nature of the business assumptions and the complete disconnect between stated function (homes for the aged) and actual location (steep, drainage issues, no surrounding infrastructure, no transportation, far from medical services). A number of those advocating for approval used the NIMBY cliché as a reason for discounting the opinion of those living nearby. There tended to be one or two sentences and from folks who did not live in the area. A few allowed that this may be just the place for them as they aged into their early sixties. There were a couple of comments from long term residents who might consider buying into Legacy Pointe. Apparently, the Planning & Zoning Commission discounted compelling comments and testimony in deciding to approve this highly risky and speculative project.The permit approval challengies the future sustainability of Potter Marsh. We are left to wonder, what was the basis for this decision? It could not have been based upon the strength of the business plan. The PZC is not in the business of economic analysis of potential profit or loss to the developer. Planning and Zoning Commission decisions are based upon the petitioners adherence to regulations, standards, design criteria, and land use etc. Decisions based upon the strength or weakness of the business plan are unlikely. The Forest Heights developers had consultants, engineers,zoning experts, traffic count experts, lobbyists and the like. All with thick reports assuring that the development,in their professional opinion, met MUNI regulations and standards. MUNI revenue would increase exponentially from this dense urban development amid rural, big lot, single family homes. But the prime problem brought to light in so many comments and testimony by citizens who had expertise in non-speculative/developmental professions was not processed at all. These speculators were promoting the wrong project at the wrong location at the wrong time.They either looked at the facts of supply and demand for senior housing through rose colored glasses or were convinced that if they progressed far enough the project could be flipped to much deeper and experienced pockets. Forest Heights ignored the prime rule of real estate: location, location, location. Four years later, the Forest Heights speculators faced the prime problem for a final time and foreclosure is what they found. Now comes the original speculator, Goldenview Development, one year after regaining the Legacy Pointe property from Forest Heights, asking the PZC to extend the approved permit for another eighteen months. By conditions set under the original approval, the PZC may extend the approval for "good cause" after a public hearing. Goldenview Development claims "good cause" is the "worst economic collapse in the history of the United States". In order to decide whether this is "good cause", any commission hearing the evidence will need a strong background in both macro and micro economics. Whether the economic meltdown barely felt in Alaska is "good cause" for Goldenview Development, owners for just over one year or whether the problems were caused by a faulty business plan doomed to fail and unable to attract investors; it is not a problem within the PZC mandate. With this utter failure to show "good cause", the Planning and Zoning Commission must deny the Goldenview Development request for an extension. | |
| Robin Robbins | 8/2/2013 11:21:23 AM |
| Others have presented cogent and carefully considered reasons as to why the legacy pointe development is an ill conceived poorly thought out plan both when it was initially presented and in its current state. An examination of the facts of the situation indicate it will be a burden to the population of Anchorage. | |
| Rod Finkle | 8/1/2013 3:53:27 PM |
| Dear PZC, Please, NO EXTENSION of the expiring approval to build Legacy Pointe. As a former member of the Golden View Limited Road Service Commission, I can assure you the infra structure of this area is already exceeded and beyond its inherent capabilities. Cost of over crowding to existing natrual and man made terrain accommodation will greatly increase resulting in a greater physical and monetary burden to present day residents. | |
| Charles Zekus | 8/1/2013 11:15:56 AM |
| I cannot imagine a more ill-conceived project in a worse location. All of us on our treacherous dirt road, Virgo Avenue, would have our rural environment destroyed. We choose to live here, in spite of the many challenges and dangers, because it is one of the few places left in Anchorage that feels like Alaska. These greedy, lying developers should only hang by the rope. Cheerfully, Charles 'Zeke' Zekus | |
| Rachel Irons | 7/29/2013 11:55:04 PM |
| There is no reason to develop this area of of land, especially into condos for senior housing. This area of land is far away from every type of amenity needed by a senior community. The roads are treacherous in the winter, its far away from downtown and its on a hill which would make it difficult to walk around. This development is an poorly conceived idea to cut corners in the zoning and platting process and has no reason to be approved. | |
| Cristy Willer | 6/23/2013 4:54:09 PM |
| I received a notice in the mail last week informing me that there will be a public hearing on July 8, 2013, on "Legacy Pointe," the project that I remember as intending create a huge "senior housing development" in the middle of our rural, hilly, out-of-the-way neighborhood. I have serious questions about how and why this is being brought up again at this time. The notice says "case information may be viewed" by following the directions to the appropriate link in the muni.org website, but in fact there does not seem to be any information at all on the site about this. There is nothing explaining what, if anything, is happening with this proposed project, why a time extension is being requested and what that means for those of us who would be significantly impacted by this project. We have heard virtually nothing about "Legacy Pointe" for almost six years, and had begun to assume that the neighborhood had been spared even though our concerns were overridden when this came up in the first place. Now, all of a sudden, we get a notice saying that "the only public hearing" on this issue before the Commission has been scheduled, with no explanation of what is behind this, or what it means, and for a time that appears designed to minimize community input. It is well known that our community council meets once a month, on the second Thursdays. The notice of this public hearing was sent out right after the last community meeting, announcing a hearing that is to take place before the next community council meeting. Not only was this scheduled with no opportunity for the community to discuss the issue at a council meeting, but it was also scheduled to give little opportunity for community council input even if the council were able to find a way to discuss this on such short notice--the time between the receipt of the public notices and the date by which comments from the community council are required for packet inclusion is roughly one week. I would like to comment on whatever is going on, and I know a number of the other affected neighbors would, too. We can't really do this, however, without knowing what is happening. Where does the project stand? What, if anything, has been happening regarding this project since 2007? (Searching the P&Z Case 2006-142 referenced in the public notice sent this week brings up nothing at all.) Why is this extension being requested? What would it mean if it is, or isn't, allowed? We would like meaningful notice, and a meaningful amount of time to respond after we have been told what is at stake (including time to discuss this at our community council meeting). Thank you for your consideration, Cristy Allyn Willer 17330 Bettijean St. cristy.willer@gmail.com | |