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. | |
|---|---|
| Mary Lundy | 12/3/2013 3:32:58 PM |
| MOA Please review all the issues involved in the rezoning. The community pedestrian traffic access South to North and North to South are already issues. Since the MOA Recreation and Parks lots 5, 6, 7 are dense wooded areas with no developed pedestrian paths. Residents are currently connecting their 2 worlds (North and South ) via Lots 8 and 9, which are privately owned properties. The MOA (Urie Park ) boundaries were never clearly defined from any direction. Now it is on the block to be sold or for use by a private club. What will you do to allow residents/pedestrians to walk from the North (bike path) to South side (Roosevelt Drive). The only way they get across now is by trespassing. This is a MOA problem and it must be addressed before proceeding with this Land Swap or rezoning. Property owners have had issues with residents since they are of the belief that Lots 8 and 9 are park lots. These lots are privately owned lots. Property owners have also been accused of refusing access by not allowing them to cross this is a huge problem and will be addressed. This lack of community understanding has created vandalism of private property and graffiti because they truly do believe these are park property and this truly needs to be addressed before a final decision is rendered on how you will assist the community without violation of an owners rights to privacy for land they own. In conclusion, the Lyons might be a great group and do great things but I don’t see any projects initiated by the Lyons to help our community. What about a beautification donation from the Lyons to help improve our community. This should not be an issue if they want to be here in our neighborhood. It will be a show of gratitude. We would also like to see the MOA take interest in our community as they have in the Lyons Club by constructing a walking pathway across Erie Park for Pedestrian traffic. Trespassing on private property is not allowed and will be officially addressed if continued. This in my opinion is a MOA’s problem to resolve before there could have been avoidable consequences. In final conclusion: As a property owner, we have the rights to privacy. | |
| Glaze Tom, III and Mary | 12/3/2013 3:24:37 PM |
| MOA Please review all the issues involved in the rezoning. The community pedestrian traffic access South to North and North to South are already issues because there is nowhere for walking traffic to cross and this also include school children. Since Residents are currently connecting their 2 worlds (North and South ) via Lots 8 and 9, (which are privately owned properties) they are illegal trespassing and this must be remedied as soon as possible. Posted signs are ignored and vandalized. The MOA (Urie Park ) boundaries were never clearly defined from any direction for pedestrians and how can it be fixed if it is not included in the give-a-way plan. What will you do to allow residents/pedestrians to walk from the North (bike path) to South side (Roosevelt Drive). The only way they get across now is by trespassing on private land. This is a MOA problem and it must be addressed before proceeding with this Land Swap or rezoning. Property owners have also had horror personal encounters with residents since they are of the belief that Lots 8 and 9 are park lots. These lots are privately owned lots. Property owners have also been accused of refusing access by not allowing them to cross this is a huge problem and if addressed and included in the plan now it can alleviate many looming problems later. In conclusion, the Lyons might be a great group and do great things but please don't consider the residents who live here. The Lyons are a private group and the community is truly not included in their group and activities. We would also like to see the MOA take interest in our community as they have in the Lyons Club by constructing a walking pathway across Erie Park for Pedestrian traffic. Trespassing on private property is an punishable offense by law and not allowed at will. This in my opinion is a MOA’s problem to resolve before there are consequences. In final conclusion: As a property owner, we have the rights to privacy, and will get this right by MOA building a pedestrian path across the designated Erie Park Lot 7. Thanks------------------------------------------ | |
| Joyce Marsh | 11/26/2013 12:33:29 PM |
| I am the co-owner of the residence next door to Ure Park. I oppose the rezoning and replatting of Ure Park (a dedicated park) because the only reason it is being done (besides housekeeping for the Municipality of Anchorage Department of Parks and Recreation “Parks“) is to allow the Spenard Lion’s Club (“Lions”) to tear down the existing house and construct a much bigger building that violates the West Anchorage District Plan and would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The Lions is a great group of gentlemen and they do great works. What they want to do to our neighborhood is not. Currently, the Lions have a year-to-year lease agreement with the Parks, using the approximately 1,000 square foot house as a club house. The Lions also agree to let other groups use the house. Besides the sign “Ure Park” , there is nothing to indicate that Ure Park is a dedicated park for the neighborhood’s use and enjoyment. I doubt the public even believes it is a real park. The Lions have used Ure Park as their own property for many years, even to the extent of having a huge storage trailer in the parking lot (pages 1-3) If the current rezoning and replatting occurs now, the Parks has stated its intention to submit a 20 year land use contract to the Lions for Ure Park on the April 2014 ballot. The Parks acknowledges that in the future, the Lions will be demolishing the existing house (approx 1,000 square feet) and building a new clubhouse/community center/facility. During an unsuccessful attempt to rezone Ure Park last year, the Lions submitted architectural drawings for a building approx. 5,000 square feet with almost 50% of the structure to be used for storage. This building was originally planned for the lot next to Ure Park that the Lions own. It is believed the Lions will build something similar on Ure Park once the three lots have become one and rezoned. This is incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. A large building in Ure Park will not create recreational opportunities for the neighborhood or anyone else. It will merely be a larger building that the Lions have sole control of. A new community center will generate traffic more in keeping with a commercial building. Further, a “community center” is required to abut a collector or greater street. Neither Taft or Roosevelt is one of those. Roosevelt is a small street in the past and it has been clogged by traffic from the Lions’ previous food distribution events to such an extent that the elderly on our street are concerned that emergency vehicles could not get through. In fact, Spenard already has a community center about one mile away. The other issue that has not been taken into account by the Lions or the Parks is that the Lions’ membership is not growing. It is unfortunate that in the days of Facebook, gentlemen clubs are declining. If they , The neighborhood will be left to deal with a huge building in a small neighborhood park that will have been rezoned for a multitude of purposes under PLI. This cannot be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. At the very least, if the replatting and rezoning petitions be granted, in order to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood character, “special conditions” should be placed on the rezone and replat to “preserve the Ure Property for future generations,” ensure it can be used by all, and limit the size and scope of future development. | |
| William Marsh | 11/11/2013 7:32:04 PM |
| As the adjacent land owners, we oppose the rezoning and replatting of Ure Park because the projected and only intent is, through a land use contract with the Spenard Lion’s Club (“Lions”) to tear down the existing house and construct a much bigger building that violates the West Anchorage District Plan. The projected structure is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood zoning, structures, and limited preexisting use. If the current rezoning and replatting occurs now the Parks and Recreation Department has stated its intention to submit a 20 year land use contract for Ure Park on the April 2014 ballot. The Parks Department acknowledges that in the future, the Lions will be demolishing the existing house (approx 1,000 square feet) and building a new clubhouse/community center/warehouse. The Lions’ current architectural drawings are for a building approx. 5,000 square feet with almost 50% of the structure to be used for storage. This will generate traffic more in keeping with a commercial building. Further, a “community center” is required to abut a collector or greater street. Neither Taft or Roosevelt is one of those. Even though the combined property size for Ure Park is 1.82 acres, due to topography, utility easements, and mandated setbacks for Fish Creek, it is more likely the useable property is less than 50% of that area. Just as now, the Lions have no plans for playgrounds, fire pits or anything else that would encourage local residents to see and use Ure Park as a recreational area. If the planning and rezoning petition be granted, in order to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood character, “special conditions” should be placed on the rezone and replat to “preserve the Ure Property for future generations,” ensure it can be used by all, and limit the size and scope of future development. | |
| Frances Mendoza | 11/1/2013 7:40:53 PM |
| What will be the overall impact of rezoning in the value of our houses in the market in the near future? | |
| Kelly Petersen | 10/28/2013 11:08:11 AM |
| As a long-term resident of this neighborhood (I've lived here 12 years), I am strongly in favor of changing the zoning for these lots to Public Lands & Institution. I would like to see Roosevelt Park expanded to include these 3 lots. The area is high-density, low-income - the existing park does not provide adequate play opportunity for the number of children in the area. A child cannot "work up a sweat" on the existing play equipment. Placing pedestrian-level lighting in Roosevelt Park and these 3 lots will keep out vagrants. Making the entire area an active area - with children playing, parents meeting and socializing - will keep out the creeps. We need this area to be rezoned as public land to strengthen our neighborhood bonds as well as our children's bodies. Please rezone these lots! Nothing but good can come of it! Thank you for your consideration. | |