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. | |
|---|---|
| Zack Armstrong | 1/28/2015 8:41:12 PM |
| As a property owner directly to the north of the proposed development I oppose the rezoning. A Weidner representitive stated at the initial replat with the city that there would be no more than 17 units. I figured this rezoning was coming... I do not oppose the development of the land. I do oppose this monstrosity that will leave us in its shadows. The development proposed will cause congestion in an already congested area. This plan is an arrogant and classless move by Weidner. Please do the right thing and stop this development. | |
| Kimberly Sauer | 1/20/2015 10:28:33 AM |
| I reside right next the the currently vacant lot. My backyard connects to the area. The current Weidner apartment complex already causes disturbances for us - there is visual drug dealing and litter left throughout the parking lot that gets blow into our yard. I have been told that a large building with a parking garage will be built in the lot. Not only will such a building block all light to my home, but the amount of car exhaust and litter will increase, causing health concerns for my family and dog. Also, having a covered parking garage will most likely lead to more drug dealing to due the 'private' areas in the garage. This building should not be built and is not beneficial for all around the area. | |
| rae maness | 1/16/2015 10:39:51 PM |
| as I read the requirements for the zone change requested...I see the projects do not meet the required total amount of land needed. please do not break your own rules to squeeze this huge project into my small family neighborhood if anything is rebuilt there , it should also include parking and the impact to the exiting old infrastructure ..to mention just only two problems do not approve this rezone..please | |
| Lucy Groh | 1/16/2015 9:07:26 PM |
| am concerned that the rezoning will be detrimental to the community around it and it certainly seems to be way out of line to be even considered for rezoning! Trying to continue to provide safe housing in proximity to safe and good schools and an active downtown would be harmed by this proposal. I strongly oppose this rezoning. Thank you for service to the community as you spend your time in deliberations for your fellow citizens. Lucy W. Groh, a very long time resident. | |
| Jerome McArthur | 1/16/2015 8:32:58 PM |
| Contrary to the Staff report submitted, this rezone does not comply with AMC 21.03.160 as a whole document. The Staff Report indicates this rezone request meets criteria of AMC 21.03.160(E), however it does not meet the criteria of AMC 21.03.160(A), which any reader can clearly see requires that ANY rezone request "Shall only be considered for property’s totaling 1.75 Acres." While an exception is granted for "A rezoning extending the boundaries of an existing zoning district"; The City View I property is currently zoned R0. It is 0.92 acres. If falls well short of 1.75 acres. Any reader would correctly so, deduce that a rezone from R0 to R0-SL is a zoning change and that the property is well short of 1.75 acres, therefore should not be accepted for a rezone based on AMC 21.03.160(A). The city View II property is currently zoned R3 and is 0.44 acres. This property is well short of 1.75 acres. Therefore any reader would correctly so, deduce that a rezone from R3 to R0-SL is a zoning change and that the property is well short of 1.75 acres, therefore should not be accepted for a rezone based on AMC 21.03.160(A). Even if the platting is conjoined, the properties combined only obtain 1.446 acres, again well short of the 1.75 acres; The application for City View I (R0) should have been rejected at filing as failing to meet AMC 21.03.160(A). The application for City View II should have been rejected at filing as failing to meet AMC 21.03.160(A). Combined the application should have been rejected at filing as failing to meet AMC 21.03.160(A). This rezone application should be denied for failing to meet other requirements of Title 21 as a whole document and not simply approved based on one section of the whole document. The most glaring is AMC 21.03.160(A). The proposed development drawings indicate a development of such magnitude as to dominate the surrounding properties, exception is the Applicants City View I property to the south (R0). The site submissions/Drawings clearly show a development that does not comply with AMC 21.06.030(D)(8). • 8. Height transitions for neighborhood compatibility. a. Purpose. The objective of the height transition standard is to help ensure compatibility between higher intensity development and adjacent lower density residential districts, in terms of building bulk and scale, a degree of sunlight access and ambient daylighting, and the potential for privacy and visual buffering. The standard is not designed to reduce the gross floor area development potential of a subject lot; instead, it is intended to encourage thoughtful positioning of building massing and height on the subject lot with respect to adjacent neighborhoods. b. Applicability. This standard shall apply to structures located in any non-residential district (except for the DT districts), the R-4 district, or the R-4A district, that is within 200 feet of any lot zoned R-1, R-1A, R-2A, R-2D, R-2M, R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, or R-10. c. Standard. Structures on the subject lot shall not penetrate a daylight plane that rises inward over the subject lot at an angle of five feet of run for every three feet of rise, and starting from a height of 15 feet above existing grade at the nearest lot line of the residential (protected) lot. The standard may be met using one or more of the following options: i. Compatible placement of a tall building on the subject lot with respect to the residential neighborhood, by shifting the location of the building to be further away from the adjacent residential property, and providing space for parking facilities or other site elements in the space in-between; ii. Compatible massing of a tall building, such as a step-back in building form, by arranging the building mass so that the lower part is closer and the taller part is further away from the adjacent residential property; and/or iii. Compatible height transition that meets the intent of the section through an alternative design and/or placement, using the procedure and criteria of subsection 21.07.010 D., alternative equivalent compliance. This rezone application should be rejected as it is procedurally deficient and fails to comply with step one of the process, which is meeting the 1.75 acre requirement. It should be rejected because the proposed development fails to meet several sections of Title 21. It should not be approved | |
| Jackie Musgrave | 1/14/2015 10:10:12 AM |
| I strongly object to this request for a waiver. Our neighborhood is already full of cars, and when Park Strip or downtown events are held even more vehicles fill every inch of parking space. Adding a concentrated group of people and cars to this mix is not acceptable. The requirements are there for a purpose, and I see no reason to issue a waiver. Please make Weidner adhere to the current regulations! | |
| Edward Miner | 1/10/2015 9:08:58 AM |
| My family has lived at 1578 E Street since 1981. In addition I own three duplexes and a 4-plex in the area, at 1558, 1568, and 1578 E and at 15th and Cordova. I read the staff report and the comments from the traffic department are basically ignored. Traffic reported the fact that there is already a problem with not enough parking in the area and then the staff, after recommending an increase in density (i.e., more vehicles), simply says that parking is a problem better dealt with during the permitting process. NO!! The reality is (and it seems so obvious) that increasing the density will necessarily increase the parking problems in the area because the rule as to required parking per the number of bedrooms is less than the actual number of vehicles people own in modern life. I currently rent to 18 different adults. They own and have to park 18 different vehicles, and that is a reduction since I had to institute a rule of no more than one car per adult. That is the reality of how people live and it isn't likely to change any time soon as there is no decent mass transportation system in Anchorage. The density of this proposed development, if expanded as is being requested, will, necessarily, have a very negative effect on the surrounding properties and on the neighborhood. | |
| Bristol Bay Native Corporation | 1/9/2015 10:48:36 AM |
| BBNC owns the property to the south of the proposed rezone. It is our company headquarters. We oppose the requested re-zone. Our parking lot already experiences a large number of trespassing pedestrians that use it as a cut-through between A and C streets. Increasing the density of these residential areas will make this trespass problem worse. In addition, the proposed zoning changes would be detrimental to the continued redevelopment of the commercial real estate and professional offices in the surrounding properties. Do not rezone the parcels. | |
| Ashley List | 1/7/2015 4:30:57 PM |
| Ashley List 1521 I St. Anchorage, AK 99501 Case 2014-0196 I am opposed to Weidner’s request to rezone the four small lots at 14th Ave. and C St. from R-3 to RO-SL. Rezoning to a Commercial designation of RO does not comport with the Anchorage 2020 land use map which indicates this area will be Residential (City Center Intensity, R-3, R-4, R-4A). Building according to the existing R-3 requirements would still allow these four lots to achieve the Anchorage 2020 target density for this area of >35 units per acre (17 units on 0.482 acres =35.27 units/acre). Rezoning is a decision which outlasts the plans of any one developer, and in this case rezoning to RO-SL would permanently and negatively affect the neighborhood in terms of road access, on-street parking availability, aesthetic character, and sunlight access—a characteristic which at our northern latitude cannot be underestimated in terms of impacts to livability. Approving this rezoning request would unfairly penalize the neighboring property owners and developers who have played by the rules and respected the neighborhood while at the same time building equity in their owner-occupied homes and/or making a living from their rental property investments. The neighborhood would see zero benefits from the rezoning, while Weidner would profit and force the burden of impacts onto the neighborhood. If Weidner wishes to build a development of this size, they should invest in acquiring additional lots to meet the existing zoning requirements and absorb the negative impacts on-site rather than have the neighborhood subsidize all of the negative impacts as currently proposed. Weidner’s rezoning request appears to be a piecemeal approach to build their desired building regardless of any of the zoning restrictions. That Weidner only recently replatted the property with an R-3 designation and now wishes to rezone indicates the project is either poorly planned, or the intent all along has been to piecemeal in order to gain approval for a project that would otherwise be impermissible--neither approach inspires confidence. Weidner is including the existing City View lot (which is already zoned RO) with the four small R-3 lots to be closer to meeting the minimum requirement of 1.75 acres for rezoning, yet they still fall a quarter-acre short of this requirement. 14th Ave. runs between City View I and the four small lots, which means for all practical purposes these are two separate developments unless 14th Ave. is vacated. This seems to be counter to the purpose of the acreage requirement and a misuse of the process. Their plan pushes beyond the limits of each zoning category in a way that does not comport with the character of the neighborhood as is, or as anticipated in the 2020 plan. Moreover, rezoning to RO (Residential Office) while at the same time including a special limitation to prohibit offices is contrary to the purpose (and the name) of the zoning designation Residential Office. This appears to be an attempt to shoehorn a project design into a place where it plainly does not fit, either in light of zoning regulations or practicality. Prior to purchasing my home in South Addition, I rented at 11th & C, three blocks from Weidner’s proposed development; I know the neighborhood well, and I fully understand the need for rental housing. The existing four-plexes and six-plexes in the area between A & C and 14th & 11th for the most part blend in nicely and do not have an imposing effect on neighboring properties. The same cannot be said for Weidner’s proposal. Without diminishing my strong objection to the rezoning request, in light of the Planning Staff analysis postdated January 12, 2015 which recommends approval, I offer the following comments in the event of approval: The time to consider traffic ramifications is now during rezoning approval, not during the building permit stage as stated by Planning Staff: the zoning determines the density of the development, all of the traffic impacts are density dependent, and traffic mitigation via on-site parking is limited by the small size of the property. Weidner should resolve the Traffic Division’s concerns prior to rezoning approval. The development should include adequate on-site parking, which realistically means two parking spaces per unit as well as guest parking. Due to Anchorage rental prices, it seems more common than not to have two adults (meaning two vehicles) per housing unit. The zoning special limitation should include a height limitation. The zoning special limitation should contain height transition restrictions for neighborhood compatibility per Code of Ordinances 21.06.030(D)(8) to mitigate the bulk and scale of the project and protect the sunlight access of affected properties; Weidner’s proposed development is on the south and west side of existing housing and will have significant sunlight impacts. The zoning special limitation should include the R-4 minimum lot area requirements. Finally, considering Weidner’s amended application was not available for public review until the last week of December, and there was no comment closure date listed on the online comment portal, I request this comment and others be appended to the postdated January 12, 2015 Planning Staff analysis. Respectfully, Ashley List | |
| Mara Carnahan | 1/7/2015 12:21:50 PM |
| I urge you to deny the request to re-zone the lots located at 14th/C to facilitate a larger apartment development. Anchorage needs high density living, but it needs to be very carefully planned to accomodate a diverse group of needs: safety, parking, snow removal, school attendance, traffic, light (both for the development and impacted properties nearby), and the neighborhood. Unfortunately, this development will not accomodate all those needs. Allowing this development to exceed the currently zoned number of units and height restrictions will set a dangerous precedent. I join the chorus of my neighbors in opposing this re-zone. Please respect the wishes of those that live near these lots. Thank you for your time and consideration. | |
| Kristina Kurtz | 1/6/2015 3:52:33 PM |
| I am opposed to the rezone from R3 to R4 or R0 or R0-SL. The allowance of this rezone will detract from a healthy vibrant area. The domination of a hugh rental complex in a primarly single family, 4 plex and 6 plex developed area is outside the scope of original developement of R3. The area is already dominated with City View I problems of parking, noise, conjestion and the lack of Weidner Propertys to address these issues is abhorant. The only time Weidner Properys has ever addressed issues where their property is involved is when a Code Enforcement complaint has been filed. They take the approach of ignorining the issues untill confronted with Muni intervention. I foresee a futher drain of the Muni resorces via enforcement actions if allowed to buld to the extent they seek. R3 does not prevent development, it prevents them from overtaking the area with rtenatl units that will not be affordable as they have stated. We need more houseing, but it needs to fit into our area not the the area fitting into their plans. | |
| Yale Metzger | 1/5/2015 9:26:40 PM |
| Please stop this project. | |
| Jeffrey Manfull | 1/5/2015 8:52:12 PM |
| RESOLUTION OPPOSING REZONING REQUEST BY WEiDNER ASSOCIATES Re: Case No. 2014-0196: Third Addition (Cleaver) BIk 310 Lots 1 thru 6 and $60’ Lot 7; N 80’ Lot 7; and Lots 8 & 9, Block 31-A Cleaver (Proposed Legal: City View Subdivision Lot 1, Block 31-A, A Resubdivision of S 60’ Lot 7; N 80’ Lot 7; and Lots 8 & 9, Block 31-A Cleaver Subdivision (Plat No C-70a) of the South half of Block 14 & all of BI Ck 31 - 3rd Addition) it is hereby resolved: South Addition Community Council (SACC) strongly urges a "NO" vote on any rezoning request of the properties located at 230 W 14 t~ Avenue and C Street ("City View" Apartments and vacant lot on NW corner across W 14 th Avenue from City View Apartments) by Weidner Associates; and further resolves that a Traffic Study must be completed before any request for rezoning, conditional use or development is approved on Weidner Property located at the North and South corners of W 14 th and C Street. Resolution passed by SACC members at General Membership meeting December 18, 20t4 -20 members present: 14 in favor, 4 opposed, 2 abstentions. The membership of SACC opposes the rezoning request of Weidner Properties and any affiliated company or entity for the following reasons: 1. Overview. Weidner Properties or one of its affiliated companies or entities (hereinafter "Weidner") owns neighboring properties under the names of VISTA GRANDE LLC and VISTA GRANDE II LLC and operates a three story apartment complex, with first story partly below ground level, at W 230 14 t" Avenue and C Street known as City View. Weidner is designing a new structure for the four small replatted vacant lots consisting of 21,000 sf (0.482 acres) to the North across W 14 th Avenue from City View on the NW corner of 14 th and C Street (hereinafter "Corner Property"). The Corner Property is currently zoned R-3, which would allow a maximum of 17 residential units to be built on the Corner Property; the surrounding zoning is R-3 and R-O. In September [aP~ Weidner representatives presented plans to seek new zoning of either R-4 (or R-4A, if applicable), which would allow high-rise structures. In December Weidner presented that it now seeks to avoid the limitations of R-4 by merging and rezoninq as RO-SL both the Corner Property and the City View property across W 14th Avenue. Weidner hopes this will circumvent the legal restrictions of R-3, R-4 and RO (and possibly R-4A) and allow it to construct a 37 to 50 unit high-rise on the Corner Property tha._.~t would otherwise not be legal. The structure could be as tall as 90 feet if they can combine enough properties. Where the R-3 maximum height is 35 feet, R-4 allows Unrestricted except by Airport Height Zone regulations (R-4A maximum height of 60 feet can be exceeded based upon ratios and special bonuses). 2. Rezone to RO-SL R-4 or R-4A not appropriate. Mer,qing the properties for rezoning the Corner Property. RO-SL, or rezoning to R-4 in order to build an oversized development is not appropriate for this Corner Property; it should remain R-3. The adjoining SACC Resolution Opposing Rezone of Weidner Comer Property at C and 14 t~ Municipal Planning Division Case No. 2014-0196 (Corrected) December 18, 2014 Page 1 of 3 neighborhoods consist mainly of single family homes, duplexes and four-plexes that are zoned R-2A or R-3 (except for City View Apartments) under either the current zoning Anchorage map or the proposed new zoning map. The density of a 37-unit high-rise (much less a 50-unit) development is excessive for this parcel at this location and could not possibly provide safe road access or adequate parking. 3. Proposed rezoning untenable. The Corner Property is presently zoned R-3 to permits up to a 17-unit development, which is appropriate for the Corner Property size and location. However, in an attempt to defeat the reasonable R-3 and R-O (and even R-4) limitations and build a much larger development on this small parcel, Weidner has concocted a complicated and untenable rezoning plan that would merge the City View apartment property with the 4-lot Corner Property across W 14 th Avenue, requiring vacation of the W 14 th Avenue roadway or otherwise negatively impact its use. 4. Unacceptable spot zoning. Rezoning to RO-SL or R-4 would be the worst kind of spot zoning. It is inconsistent with and damaging to the integrity of a viable neighborhood. The proposed new development would cause: ® Unmanageable density in a small, congested area with dangerous traffic conditions and streets already congested with on-street parking (which is in large part the result of Weidner’s City View Apartments having an inadequate number of on-site parking spots, and which despite numerous complaints and parking tickets VVeidner has not seen its way to mitigate); ,, Increased demand on public services without necessary upgrades to road infrastructure or any proposed mitigation; o Obstruction of light and view to existing neighbor homes and apartments by towering over them, the structure would cast a shadow on the busy C Street slope causing ice slicks on the approach to the stop light at W 15 th Avenue and C Street,; o Devaluation of the neighborhood property values due to over-density and overbuild, resulting in streets congested with parked cars and dangerous access with no traffic study or mitigation plan. 5. Increased traffic problems on C Street and W 15th Ave. The proposed rezone would increase dangerous traffic congestion due to increased access traffic from and to the Corner Property on and off C Street so near the busy W 15 t~ Avenue and C Street intersection. The danger to pedestrians is compounded because this is the corner of Central Middle School and connects to the school sports and playground area that stretches along the west side of C Street and is used by the neighborhood. 6. Proposed rezone impacts W t4 th street access. Contrary to what Weidner has represented to the Council, it appears that the requested rezoning would require a portion of W 14 th Avenue to be vacated for the further benefit of Weidner but not the neighborhood, per the drawings presented by representatives of Dowl HKM, Weidner’s engineering firm. This SACC Resolution Opposing Rezone of Weidner Comer Property at C and 14 ~ Municipal Planning Division Case No. 2014-0196 (Corrected) Page 2 of 3 December 18, 2014 would further compromise access, compound traffic problems and increase on-street parking congestion, with no traffic study or proposed mitigation plan. 7. Traffic study necessary before any rezoning or development. SACC further resolves that a reliable Traffic Study must be completed before any request for rezoning, conditional use or development is approved or permitted on the Weidner Corner Property located at the corner of W 14 t" and C Street. The Traffic Study should include: Assessment of traffic increases that would result from 17-unit, 34-unit or greater number of units development at the Corner Property and the necessity of road and access upgrades; ,, Study of the amount of traffic that can be safely tolerated on C Street approaching W 15 t~ Avenue, how the C Street traffic flow would be impacted by the number of units proposed on the Corner Property, and the effect of increased unit density on traffic at W 15 th Ave. and C Street intersection, particularly at rush hour; ~ Determine appropriate number of on-site parking spots that should be required per unit for any size development on the Corner Property, when one space per unit is not enough and on-street parking is already a problem due in large part to insufficient on-site parking at Weidner’s City View property; o Whether VVeidner’s rezoning request would require vacation or further restriction of traffic and access on W 14 th Avenue at C Street and, if so, how will the effect on access, traffic and parking be mitigated; ,, A required mitigation plan for on-street parking overflow in this parking-stressed area (and should not include the unlikely use of the contaminated site at the corner of W 15 t~ Avenue and C Street). 8. No assurance of not increasing density. The SACC members place no confidence that Weidner’s 35% drawings of a proposed 37-unit development provides any guarantee that if rezoned the proposed development would not be change to increase the number of units without traffic study, adequate parking or addressing neighborhood concerns. | |
| James Davis | 1/5/2015 11:48:12 AM |
| I oppose this re-zoning! | |
| Arlene Raney | 1/5/2015 11:15:13 AM |
| My name is Arlene Raney. I own a Duplex directly across the unimproved alley from this proposed rezone lot (R3 to R0). I do not support the rezone application from R3 to R4 or R0. I built my 4 Plex under R3 a few years ago. To allow this company a rezone in order to build a 3,4,5 or higher story building that will dominate my property is a disservice to myself and the neighborhood as a whole. As it is traffic has increased 10 fold with cars parking all over the area that overflow from City View. They want to add more traffic to this area? They have not provided for the building they currently have and now they want to place a further burden on the area and the city by introducing more cars with nowhere to park. If this building is built as designed it will block at least one half of my parking and my building. The alley will become a ice rink for the entire winter and my investment in my property will suffer negatively. I worked long and hard to develop my building with spacious units. Allowing this rezone in order to build a hugh dominate building will impact our investments, our health with the introduction of several idling cars in the winter in such a small space and allow just one property owner to take over this 2 block area. I do not want to see a building that blocks out my views or causes my building to be shadowed for several months. I built a nice building under R3. R3 is the responsible zoning for the long term health and value of this specific neighborhood. | |
| Timothy and Racheali Feller | 1/4/2015 11:57:49 AM |
| We oppose the rezoning of this lot. It has already been re-zoned once to allow for higher density housing. This has been accepted and supported by our community. This neighborhood, is in fact, on the cusp of being developed responsibly, with high value duplexes and triplexes. Allowing a new multiple unit, high rise construction, will have a deleterious effect on such development and the neighborhood itself. We implore the zoning board to abide by the wishes of the community and work with us in improving the neighborhood to the benefit of it's residents and the city as a whole. | |
| Ron Fiscus | 1/2/2015 9:44:27 PM |
| As the owner of 209 W 14th, I oppose the rezone with the concern for parking and additional traffic in the area. The alley way is in poor condition and being one lane it doesn’t support any additional traffic flow. Parking in the area is already a problem, the 14th in front of my property at 209 W. 14th is already very limited. I often have to park double (partially in the roadway) when I visit the property for maintenance or yard work. | |
| Robert Simon | 1/2/2015 8:45:08 PM |
| My wife and I own the property next door. We oppose this rezone. The alley behind us has very serious traffic issues. Plus inadequate drainage. Also the street parking is completely insufficient for the area already; often cars are parked illegally in the alley. Snow removal is already diffcult. This proposed rezone is directly across the street for a school. There are safety issues to consider especially pedestrians and cyclists. The company purchased this lot fully aware of how it was zoned. On a personal note, during the remodel of City View, Weidner's crew showed complete disregard with excessive littering, even though we asked them numerous times to clean up their trash. Once a week I brought a hefty bag and picked up their trash. This went on until they were finished. | |
| Gil Dickie | 1/2/2015 12:18:43 PM |
| My wife and I oppose the rezoning request for 230 W 14th Ave. Thank you. | |
| Hope McGratty | 1/2/2015 12:18:13 PM |
| I own property in South Addition and am opposed to the rezoning application submitted. Hope McGratty | |
| Thierry Landeau | 1/2/2015 12:01:55 PM |
| No re-zoning in South Addition, please. Thank you! I am opposed to the re-zoning and allowing a higher density of multi-family units. The property is zoned R-3 - neighbors bought into the area knowing it was R-3. Weidner bought the property knowing it was R-3. Now they want a re-zone to a higher density, which would be an adverse impact to the neighborhood. This is precisely WHY we have zoning ordinances, to prevent this exact thing from happening. | |
| David Kasser | 1/2/2015 11:49:10 AM |
| I am writing to voice my opposition to rezone in case 2014-0196 from its current R3 status. If we were to accommodate the developer's application, there would be long term negative impacts to South Addition's residents. It would degrade the community with substandard housing bringing with it the associated ills. Thank you for your careful consideration to oppose rezoning in this case. | |
| Martha Schoenthal | 1/2/2015 11:27:21 AM |
| I am opposed to the re-zoning and allowing a higher density of multi-family units. The property is zoned R-3 - neighbors bought into the area knowing it was R-3. Weidner bought the property knowing it was R-3. Now they want a re-zone to a higher density, which would be a tremendous financial boon to them and only an adverse impact to the neighborhood. This is precisely WHY we have zoning ordinances, to prevent this exact thing from happening. If this re-zoning gets approved I will wonder why the City has any zoning at all...... | |
| Charles Thompson | 12/31/2014 4:16:33 PM |
| This is regarding the plan to rezone near 14th and c. I don't believe this project should have the ability to rezone. R3 can have a density that is great enough and a rezoning will make this property sick out like a sore thumb. | |
| Maryann Alfano | 12/30/2014 9:59:29 PM |
| My husband Kris and I own the 4-plex at 217 W 14thSt. Our building is adjacent to Weidner’s east property line. We are completely opposed to the rezoning request. It poses very serious ramifications to our property and will lower the quality of this neighborhood. A tall building so close to ours with such a small easement will certainly block out most of our western light. As a result our building will remain in shadow all winter which will damage the roof, besides being depressing. Also partially enclosed underground parking is a crime risk and just as important, compromises air quality for my tenants (I am currently in Portland being treated for a respiratory autoimmune illness, lung sarcoidosis).Also, the alley that services W 14th is already stressed by its traffic. Adding more than 20 units on that lot will only exacerbate this serious congestion. When we bought our building the lot next door was empty with just some trees and foliage. We sought out this building because the spacious apartments were completely refinished units, with new kitchens, wood floors, wool carpets and quartz counters. The tenants, young professionals and military employees, all asked to stay. We were thrilled to find something in this part of Anchorage. However had we researched the lot’s owner we would have not bought. Weidner has a reputation in other states for pushing zoning, sub-par housing, and exploiting tenants to an extent that has questionable legal implications. Regardless, the scope of this proposed construction will lower South Addition's quality and on a personal level it will have a negative impact on our tenants and ourselves. | |
| Fran Durner | 12/30/2014 6:14:40 PM |
| The new Title 21 code for all planning and zoning within Anchorage lays out specific guidelines for off-site parking for new developments. In chapter 21.07.090 page 7-77 one of the purposes of the code is, "Ensure that off-street parking, loading, and access demands will be met without adversely affecting other nearby land uses and neighborhood." It also provides a table on page 7-91 to help compute the number of parking spaces required for any new multi-family dwelling. I don't believe the Weidner development will meet code in providing housing and adequate parking without adversely affecting nearby land use, such as the nearby schools, and the present makeup of the neighborhood, which is heavily mixed-use already. Rezoning to R0-SL and the potential to build a large multi-family dwelling would only add more stress to an already congested area to the detriment of the neighborhood. Thank you. | |
| Diana Bauman | 12/30/2014 5:18:54 PM |
| I am an adjoining property owner and oppose this rezone application from R3 to R4, RO or R0-SL. The current R3 zoning allows for Weidner to build up to 17 units or a 2 story building with that many apartments. Notwithstanding the 2020 Comprehensive plan, which was developed in 2006, (over 8 years ago), the introduction of a 4 story or higher building on less than 0.48 acres is unhealthy for this community (SACC) which is primary comprised of 2 story buildings at or less than 35 feet in height. At the time the 2020 plan was developed there were several lots vacant. In the past 8 years those lots have been built on in compliance with the R3 zoning. This has added affordable housing and allowed the neighborhood to thrive and grow. The most recent example of a responsibly developed lot is 227 E 13th Ave. This owner built 12 - 2 story units with 17 parking spaces. They provide for more than enough living space, are aesthetically pleasing, have actual green space for children without having to use a loophole of adding balconies to offset for the green space and fit into the symmetry of the neighborhood in a non intrusive way. Allowing this rezone to anything other than R3 will greatly impact the surrounding property owners. While adding 37 or more apartments for rent, they will be at market rate as we were told and that is anywhere from $1,100.00 to $1,800.00 per unit for 348 to 955sf. This may fit into the 2020 plan of adding more rentals or housing units to the overall Anchorage Bowl area….it does not make the housing affordable. It makes for a great profit being deposited in a corporate bank account held outside the state of Alaska. Allowing this rezone to anything other than R3 will change the dynamics of our neighborhood. It will have 2 buildings dominate the sky line and remove mature trees from the area. Weidner has represented that the lot is ungraded and cleared of vegetation. This is a false representation. One half of the lot is graded and paved with crushed gravel. This was done when Weidner attempted to build a parking lot on the plot and was stopped by the Muni due to unauthorized land use and lack of required permitting. The other half of the lot has mature trees as tall at 30 feet on it. The overgrowth is native grass and flowers, with the exception of some construction debris dozed over and left partially exposed from the City View Remodel. It was represented by Weidner at the SACC meeting that no traffic study was required due to meeting a national standard derived from publications, not an actual today environment review, but a decision based on historical data years past. I live on the intersection of B St and W 14th Ave and I can tell you that traffic has increased 200% since City View re-opened. Traffic uses Bridge St to circumvent the turn lane at the intersection of C St and w 15th Ave Southbound and backup several cars deep to turn south on C St. Traffic diverts from w 15th Ave to Cordova and then W 13th Ave, crosses over A St and enters C St via W 13th St, the undeveloped Alley next to my property and W 14th St. During Aces Games the traffic is so backed up that vehicles are using the entire two blocks waiting to enter C St. Introduction to the local roadways of estimates from 75 to 150 vehicles will overrun our 3 block area and create a serious safety hazard to children and those that walk along the local roads. Every year we have the Muni grade the undeveloped Alley because of the current traffic usage. It is poorly drained and during breakup and is flooded which creates several deep and large potholes. R3 is the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood. R4, R0 or R0-SL will allow an unrestricted development which is not in the best interest, welfare, and safety and health concerns for those that currently reside in the charming little area we call home or the Muni at large. Property values will drop because the sky views will be severely restricted, the area will be become overpopulated and the infrastructure will require constant upgrade to handle the volume of traffic. Additionally it will develop the only remaining vacant lot for the benefit of a Outside corporation. It will defeat any future plans to develop a City Center common area. We will start becoming a Seattle or Portland, where when you look around all you see are buildings and cars parked everywhere because zoning allowed for the area to be over built without looking to the future ramifications such decisions today have on our future. | |
| Michael Teo | 12/24/2014 12:06:37 PM |
| After attending the presentation put on by representatives of Weidner's firm at my community council meeting, I am opposed to the rezone of this property. First, Weider has demonstrated a disregard for the concerns of the existing residents near their City View apartments when those neighbors have raised concerns about congestion and parking in the area. Allowing a rezone that increases the density using the plans they proposed at the community council meeting will make the current congestion problems worse. If the rezone is allowed, it would allow Weidner to build a building that creates a large impact on the neighbors without any plans to mitigate that impact. Weidner said they wanted to use an old gas station's lot for parking, but they admitted that have not secured a commitment that is available to them. They also have not indicated that they do not want to create any underground parking to add additional parking for the residents they hope to move into their building. Rezoning will also place a heavy burden on streets that were designed as residential streets and make them a higher volume corridor. Those streets are already used for maximum street parking. I would encourage any development that does not overshadow the neighborhood and includes parking that meets more than 1 car per unit. | |
| ayse Gilbert | 12/22/2014 2:00:55 PM |
| I strongly oppose the Weidner City View rezone and project for this neighborhood. The presentation by T. Potter in front of the community council was vague and incomplete, and dismissive of the valid concerns expressed at that meeting. The proposed project, as is, will have long term negative impacts on the greater neighborhood area. | |
| John Thurber | 12/22/2014 12:05:27 PM |
| I object to the rezone of the R-3 status to R-4 of the Weidner Property at C Street and West 14th Avenue. The amount of parking that is proposed for the new development is not adequate. New development in the neighborhood should contain sufficient parking as not to force occupants and/or visitors to park on the street. This development will undermine the integrity of the neighborhood. The increase in density in the neighborhood should only be allowed with an increase in corresponding parking spaces of off-street parking. The plans presented to the South Addition Community Council Meetings do not contain sufficient parking spaces to mitigate the impact to the quality of life and character of the neighborhood. | |
| Jerome McArthur | 12/21/2014 4:17:04 PM |
| We own the property east and north (B st.) of the proposed rezone. We are opposed to the rezoning of these two properties. The City View Apartments is currently zoned R0 and the vacant lot is zoned R3. The 4 plots were rezoned in the past 6 months to R3 so that Weidner could join the 4 separate plots into one under R3. This was done and not opposed because Weidner representatives made assurances that any development of the co-joined 4 plots would not overly impact the surrounding property owners or the neighborhood any further than the current City View Apartments already do. Weidner discovered that the lot even after rezone to R3 was too small to accommodate their planned construction. The land is 21000 sf, well below the require 1.75 acres required to construct the development as they desire. Currently zoned as R3 allows for up to 17 units be developed on the 4 plots. Weidner has three times now attended community council meetings (SACC) seeking support to rezone this property. Except for the initial request to join the 4 plots under R3, the SACC has voted to “oppose” further rezoning from R3 to R4. This is because after making assurances in May 2014 that any development would be minimal impact, that have presented plans to develop 1st a 50 unit apartment building (60 ft high) and then 2nd, a 37 unit apartment building (50 feet high) in a neighborhood that is zoned R3 with height restrictions of 35 feet. If approved to rezone from R3 to R4, Weidner will have unabated rights to develop and construct a building as high as they wish with the only restriction being that of Airport Height Impact. In order to accomplish their development of a Apartment complex which will take over the neigorborhood, they have offered to rezone the current City View Apartments from R0 to R4 stating that this would prevent any business operations, even though this building has been zoned R0 for over 41 years and the only business that has been in the building is the Leasing Office. They need to rezone to R4 in order to co-join the undeveloped R3 property with the currently developed property and thus meet the 1.75 acres required to build more than 17 units on the R3 plot. They have applied to rezone the R3 plot to R4 and co-join them so they can build a complex unrestricted in height. While I agree that Anchorage needs affordable housing and new construction, we do not need a 4, 5, 6, 7 or higher apartment building builds in a R3 zoned neighborhood. The infrastructure is already stressed with the current 90 unit complex via inadequate parking for the 90 unit complex; the roads (B st & W14th) are already heavily traveled primarily by transit traffic off W 15th, A st and C st cutting trough to avoid the C st and W 15th traffic light. The affordability of such housing construction is questionable at best. When asked the rental rates for such a new construction, the SACC was told “Market Rates”, that is $955.00 to 1,065.00 for a 355sf studio of which 24 have been proposed. The 2 Bd @ 855sf would lease for $1,376.00-$1,541.00. These are current “Market Rates” of the City View Apartments, a 41 year old building although recently remodeled. A new construction would be at least these rates or higher. This does not make housing affordable, this makes profit to a corporation owned and operated from Washington State. Weidner has come to 3 Community Council meeting this year and each time they have asked for more of the community in order to increase their profits. They have played a shell game with the Rezoning requests, stating one thing and then doing another. They are taking small bites of the Apple, nibbling their way to the core. The current R0 for the City View Apartments is appropriate and has not incurred any loss of revenue to the property owner, changing the R0 to R4 only allows them to co-join the undeveloped property if or when it is rezoned from R3 to R4. The undeveloped plot zoned R3 is appropriate for the size and location of the property as well as merging into an already developed and established neighborhood. 17 units would have a impact to the area, but 37 to 90 units would be a takeover of the area and a serious blow to the welfare of the existing property owners and renters of those property’s. I urge the zoning department to look beyond a written document and look into the impact such a rezone approval will have on the 10 plus property owners as well as the 68 people already outnumbered by one building with 180 residents. Do not approve a zoning request that allows unrestricted development such as the R4 approval will do. Our area cannot absorb another 180 residents living in a less than 2 acre area. | |