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. | |
|---|---|
| H. Norman Rokeberg | 4/23/2014 11:16:46 PM |
| I emailed my comments opposing the Southport cell tower lease and location on Monday 4/21/2014 around noon and then snail mailed them. I immediately received an auto response from Ms. Inglis and assumed they were delivered in a timely fashion. However I checked my email yesterday and had received some return emails from assembly members that my attachments were not received. I confirmed this with Jennifer Johnston today. Therefore, I took the time to revise some estimated numbers and submitted ERRATAS tonight. I request that you consider my attempt to deliver my comments as received in a time. Thank you. | |
| George Seymour | 4/22/2014 7:49:29 AM |
| Placed on Web Page per request of Margret Louie BAYSHORE/KLATT COMMUNITY COUNCIL Case No. 2013-163 65 foot Monopole Wireless Telecommunications Tower WHEREAS, The Bayshore/Klatt Community Council serves in an advisory capacity to the Administration and Departments of the Municipality of Anchorage; and WHEREAS, Planned Communities in the Bayshore!Klatt area are important for the lifestyle choice of those that live there; and WHEREAS, The Bayshore/Klatt Community Council and the membership in attendance at the November 7, 2013 regularly scheduled meeting unanimously approved the creation of a resolution opposing the application; and WHEREAS, Southport Master Association is a planned community in South Anchorage composed of 14 individual neighborhoods in which cell towers and other sight restrictive appurtenances were not planned for nor anticipated; and WHEREAS, Failure to protect homeowners in a Planned Community setting because the prospect of cell towers at the time of that communities creation were not considered sets a bad precedent for future support and enforcement of residential zoning and development; and WHEREAS, The application documents contain errors and misrepresentations that violate Municipal code; and WHEREAS, the lease property location agreed to in A0-2013-83 does not align with the location drawings submitted with the application; and WHEREAS, the location of the proposed 65' tower is less than 45 feet from the Fire Station 15 building structure and thus will not clear the building when it collapses; and WHEREAS, the photo of the proposed site submitted with AM 400-2013 is outdated and that new residential housing is now located at approximately 150 feet in distance which is less than the required distance of twice the expected 95 foot height of the completed tower with colocation considered; and WHEREAS, on line 13 of AM 400-2013 it states: "...a proposed 80 foot monopole..." which does not match the applicants stated 65 foot height or with colocations a maximum of 95 feet; and WHEREAS, on line 21 of AM 400-2013 it states: " On May 17, 2013, an agency review request was issued to all municipal agencies, the Federation of Community Councils and the Anchorage School District, soliciting comments on the proposed lease. No objections to the proposed lease were received" is incorrect as this Council has no record of ever receiving this request; and WHEREAS, the applicant states it intends to allow collocation on the proposed tower but failed per AMC 21.50.280 (B)(8) to provide a notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the tower structure will accommodate collocation of additional antennas for future users; and WHEREAS, in the Background section of the Administrative Site Plan review it references a January 3, 2013 meeting with one of the Southport Homeowner Associations and was submitted as meeting the requirement of meeting with the Community Council as per AMC 21.50.280(B)(10) which it does not satisfy; and WHEREAS, when the proposed cell tower and the following actual application were noticed in the Community Council meetings in February and November 2013 where 40-50 people attended each meeting and were 100 percent unanimous in voting against the approval of any tower in this location; and WHEREAS, an alternate location at Admiralty Bay and Bayshore Drive with a property owner willing to discuss a possible lease did not occur; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council supports the Southport Master Association request that the application be denied based on location, proximity to both municipal facilities and private residences, failure to properly follow municipal procedures in its application and the decreased property value and loss of monetary value to all those property owners within sight of the proposed tower and the resulting decrease in tax revenue to the municipality. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council this 4 day of December, 2013. , President att Community Council | |
| James Gill | 4/21/2014 9:35:45 PM |
| I previously submitted comments about this cell tower behind Fire Station 15 but they are not included in the record. So I shall have to repeat most of my prior comments. To begin, however I now note that this is a new case in which the location has been moved with no notice. I have received no notices whatever related to this proposed tower even though we are located inside of 150 feet from the proposed location. Part of the solution seems to be to locate it closer to our house this time around. In fact our house is not shown on the drawing even though it is under 150 feet away and we appear to be the second closest home. I will summarize my previous comments. I have a pacemaker. The effects on pacemakers by cell towers are largely unknown other than the effect is worse than a cell phone. I must keep a cell phone as far away from my pacemaker as possible and at night and during weekends it is not even in the smae room with me. The field from this tower would be with me all of the time I am at home. We bought this place to retire in so that would be most of the time. There was a recent study in Brazil in the City of Bela Horizonte. They determined that 7,000 cancer deaths have been caused by cell tower fields in a city with 600 cell towers. That is just under 12 cancer deaths per tower and they contend the danger zone is up to 500 meters. They are currently removing and relocating towers. This tower field would also affect the firemen who reside at Fire Station 15 much of the time. That is why the International Firefighters Association oppose cell towers at fire stations. Some countries including Scotland will not allow cell towers within 500 feet of residences and schools. Again we live less than 150 feet from this proposed site. We urge you to not approve this location for a cell tower and set a precedent for our city to protect our citizens from harmful fields generated by these installations. I conclude by also reminding you that this tower will also be in the line of site from every window in our home except a few on the south side. We bought this location for the view. If this cell tower is approved we unfortunately will be forced to sell our home for the forgoing reasons and sell it at a significant loss due to the reduced value caused by having a cell tower within 150 feet from our home. | |
| Ginger Mongeau | 4/21/2014 9:28:34 PM |
| I live in Discovery Park and live directly south of the proposed cell tower site. I whole-hardheartedly oppose the building of the cell tower for several reasons, which include • The lease for the cell tower was approved by the assembly based on false information and what appears to be behind the backs of all of the people who live in this neighborhood and it is only by the grace of God that we are now being given a opportunity to voice our objections of this lease. • The zoning behind the fire station is PC zoned which is not appropriate zoning for this structure. • Proper process was not followed in that there was no official public presentation to the Discovery Park HOA, only a mention that they were looking into the location behind fire station #15 as a possibility, of which the Discovery Park Board opposed their idea on the spot. • There are several suitable, alternate locations that do not include putting a tower into the middle of a residential area. Tower Road, cell packs on the discovery park condo buildings, street lights along Klatt road with cell antennas, and the property by old klatt road and toy road, are all viable alternatives that have been discounted by AT&T possibly at our expense. • The Tower Road location appears to achieve the same objective as putting it in the discovery park area, that is if the objective is to increase cell coverage for those residents south of Klatt. • The structure in the current proposed location will devalue those homes immediately surrounding the area (which is where mine is located). This will result in the city losing property tax revenue as everyone will submit for an adjustment in property taxes. The reduction is property taxes will outgrow the amount collected from AT&T for leasing the property. • If AT&T claims the tower can be concealed, this is inaccurate information as the winds are too strong and too frequent for this to be a viable solution. • AT&T’s own coverage maps on their website show that the entire Anchorage Bowl has the ‘Best’ data coverage, which is a high as you can go, these neighborhoods already have very good coverage for voice. Many have already commented that their coverage from AT&T is fine and more is not needed. The southport/bayshore area is a highly structured, planned community of which all residents have paid a premium for their housing and abide by the many CCR’s all with the objection to be able to live in a beautiful neighborhood. If we wanted to live with towers, cables, and the like, we could have lived else where in the city of Anchorage. Please do not approve the lease for the AT&T (and probably verizon and any other cell company) to erect a cell tower behind Fire Station #15. | |
| Tara West | 4/21/2014 8:07:16 PM |
| I oppose the permitting and construction of the proposed cell tower on Southport Drive. Southport is a planned residential community with highly restrictive covenants designed to maintain property values and preserve the visually attractive character of the neighborhood. Homes must satisfy architectural and landscaping requirements, and even modest improvements such as sheds, fences, and planting beds and must be submitted to a review committee to determine whether they will adversely impact neighbors. Southport residents pay significant annual dues to the Southport Master Association to provide landscaping in common areas and along roadways. Although Southport Drive is a public roadway, the association spends almost $100,000 each year to maintain landscaping on either side of the street and in the median. Trees and shrubs are watered and pruned, grass is mowed, beds are weeded, flowers are planted, moose cages are installed and removed seasonally, and custom planters are replaced when necessary. Due to private contributions by area residents, Southport Drive is one of the loveliest streets in Anchorage. We care deeply about the visual appeal of our neighborhood. The notion that a 65-ft. to 95-ft. collocation industrial cell tower may be installed in our neighborhood with little to no public notice is shocking. In driving around Anchorage, I have seen very few cell towers located in strictly residential areas, which is what Southport is. The idea of a cell tower in a community as deeply committed to aesthetics as Southport is especially offensive. Cell towers belong in commercial and industrial areas, not residential neighborhoods. The planned tower is next to an open wetlands area and nature trail highly valued by area residents. It would cast a shadow (both literally and figuratively) on countless nearby homes. It would impede views, ruin the residential nature of the neighborhood, and generally serve as a permanent blight on the community. The application states, “the need for cell towers was not anticipated or planned for in the original [Southport Master Planned Community] development.” Implicit in this statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the proposed cell tower will violate the provisions of the Southport master plan – the same master plan that each of us relied on when we purchased our homes. Every homeowner in the development is expected to abide by the provisions and covenants of the Southport master plan. Why should a profit-based corporation from Georgia be exempt from those same rules? For what it is worth, our home is located in the coverage objective area and our cell phone coverage is just fine. I have not heard any of our neighbors complaining that their cell coverage is inadequate. It is perplexing that AT&T/New Cingular Wireless would seek to install a 95-foot industrial steel tower in a residential neighborhood without so much as bothering to inquire whether nearby residents have expressed a need for better coverage. Our Association, the Southport Master Association, and the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council stand in opposition to this proposal. We have suggested a number of alternative locations to AT&T, including co-locating at the 300+ foot towers adjacent to the Klatt-C street dog park. Many other options exist for AT&T - these should be fully vetted. The application should be denied. The proposed cell tower is unnecessary and wholly at odds with the character of the neighborhood. | |
| Ryan West | 4/21/2014 8:05:45 PM |
| I oppose the permitting and construction of the proposed cell tower on Southport Drive. Southport is a planned residential community with highly restrictive covenants designed to maintain property values and preserve the visually attractive character of the neighborhood. Homes must satisfy architectural and landscaping requirements, and even modest improvements such as sheds, fences, and planting beds and must be submitted to a review committee to determine whether they will adversely impact neighbors. Southport residents pay significant annual dues to the Southport Master Association to provide landscaping in common areas and along roadways. Although Southport Drive is a public roadway, the association spends almost $100,000 each year to maintain landscaping on either side of the street and in the median. Trees and shrubs are watered and pruned, grass is mowed, beds are weeded, flowers are planted, moose cages are installed and removed seasonally, and custom planters are replaced when necessary. Due to private contributions by area residents, Southport Drive is one of the loveliest streets in Anchorage. We care deeply about the visual appeal of our neighborhood. The notion that a 65-ft. to 95-ft. collocation industrial cell tower may be installed in our neighborhood with little to no public notice is shocking. In driving around Anchorage, I have seen very few cell towers located in strictly residential areas, which is what Southport is. The idea of a cell tower in a community as deeply committed to aesthetics as Southport is especially offensive. Cell towers belong in commercial and industrial areas, not residential neighborhoods. The planned tower is next to an open wetlands area and nature trail highly valued by area residents. It would cast a shadow (both literally and figuratively) on countless nearby homes. It would impede views, ruin the residential nature of the neighborhood, and generally serve as a permanent blight on the community. The application states, “the need for cell towers was not anticipated or planned for in the original [Southport Master Planned Community] development.” Implicit in this statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the proposed cell tower will violate the provisions of the Southport master plan – the same master plan that each of us relied on when we purchased our homes. Every homeowner in the development is expected to abide by the provisions and covenants of the Southport master plan. Why should a profit-based corporation from Georgia be exempt from those same rules? For what it is worth, our home is located in the coverage objective area and our cell phone coverage is just fine. I have not heard any of our neighbors complaining that their cell coverage is inadequate. It is perplexing that AT&T/New Cingular Wireless would seek to install a 95-foot industrial steel tower in a residential neighborhood without so much as bothering to inquire whether nearby residents have expressed a need for better coverage. Our Association, the Southport Master Association, and the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council stand in opposition to this proposal. We have suggested a number of alternative locations to AT&T, including co-locating at the 300+ foot towers adjacent to the Klatt-C street dog park. Many other options exist for AT&T - these should be fully vetted. The application should be denied. The proposed cell tower is unnecessary and wholly at odds with the character of the neighborhood. | |
| West Taylor | 4/21/2014 8:01:09 PM |
| I am writing in opposition to the permitting and construction of the proposed cell tower on Southport Drive. As President of the Discovery Heights Homeowners Association, which is within the shadow of the tower, I can state that our Board and majority of residents also oppose this tower. Southport is a planned residential community with highly restrictive covenants designed to maintain property values and preserve the visually attractive character of the neighborhood. Homes must satisfy architectural and landscaping requirements, and even modest improvements such as sheds, fences, and planting beds and must be submitted to a review committee to determine whether they will adversely impact neighbors. Southport residents pay significant annual dues to the Southport Master Association to provide landscaping in common areas and along roadways. Although Southport Drive is a public roadway, the association spends almost $100,000 each year to maintain landscaping on either side of the street and in the median. Trees and shrubs are watered and pruned, grass is mowed, beds are weeded, flowers are planted, moose cages are installed and removed seasonally, and custom planters are replaced when necessary. Due to private contributions by area residents, Southport Drive is one of the loveliest streets in Anchorage. We care deeply about the visual appeal of our neighborhood. The notion that a 65-ft. to 95-ft. collocation industrial cell tower may be installed in our neighborhood with little to no public notice is shocking. In driving around Anchorage, I have seen very few cell towers located in strictly residential areas, which is what Southport is. The idea of a cell tower in a community as deeply committed to aesthetics as Southport is especially offensive. Cell towers belong in commercial and industrial areas, not residential neighborhoods. The planned tower is next to an open wetlands area and nature trail highly valued by area residents. It would cast a shadow (both literally and figuratively) on countless nearby homes. It would impede views, ruin the residential nature of the neighborhood, and generally serve as a permanent blight on the community. The application states, “the need for cell towers was not anticipated or planned for in the original [Southport Master Planned Community] development.” Implicit in this statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the proposed cell tower will violate the provisions of the Southport master plan – the same master plan that each of us relied on when we purchased our homes. Every homeowner in the development is expected to abide by the provisions and covenants of the Southport master plan. Why should a profit-based corporation from Georgia be exempt from those same rules? For what it is worth, our home is located in the coverage objective area and our cell phone coverage is just fine. I have not heard any of our neighbors complaining that their cell coverage is inadequate. It is perplexing that AT&T/New Cingular Wireless would seek to install a 95-foot industrial steel tower in a residential neighborhood without so much as bothering to inquire whether nearby residents have expressed a need for better coverage. Our Association, the Southport Master Association, and the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council stand in opposition to this proposal. We have suggested a number of alternative locations to AT&T, including co-locating at the 300+ foot towers adjacent to the Klatt-C street dog park. Many other options exist for AT&T - these should be fully vetted. The application should be denied. The proposed cell tower is unnecessary and wholly at odds with the character of the neighborhood. | |
| George Seymour | 4/21/2014 12:23:37 PM |
| DISCOVERY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Resolution Opposing Proposed Cell Phone Tower Installation at 11301 Southport Drive, Case No. 2014-057 WHEREAS, the Discovery Park Home Owners Association ("the Association") is the homeowners association representing all owners in Tract H of the Southport including 207 units in the Discovery Park Subdivision, located in Anchorage, Alaska; and WHEREAS, the Association represents all of the owners in Discovery Park the properties contained in Tract H 2A & 3A, and is actively managed with restrictive covenants enforced to maintain home values and the quality of life and the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Discovery Park Homeowners Association implements the governing covenants Tract 2A that Fire Station 15 is located on at 11301 Southport Drive, Anchorage Alaska; and WHEREAS , the Discovery Park HOA has not received any request from the lot owner the City of Anchorage for building a new structure or tower on the lot: and WHEREAS, telecommunications provider, AT&T is proposing to install a cell phone tower (height equivalent of a 6 -10 story building) and the industrial support equipment including Power Panels, Generators, Battery Plant, Transport and Radio equipment behind the Southport Fire Station 15 on the lot owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and zoned as part of the Southport PC (Planned Community) part of the Residential Zoning of Discovery Park; and WHEREAS, the proposed cell tower location is surrounded by Discovery Park and neighborhoods that are part of the Southport Master Planned Community, each with actively managed associations, restrictive covenants,: and WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the Discovery Park Association believes that the proposed cell tower offered under Case No. 2014-057 has not been proven to be in compliance with the Discovery Park covenants and the owner has not filed an application for the structure and the structure is “not” compatible with existing building requirements & residential zoning and has not been approved by the Discovery Park HOA; and WHEREAS, ,the Executive Board of the Association believes that there are many other more suitable tower locations within the Bayshore/Southport area that will have less negative impact to the community; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Discovery Park Home Owners Association Executive Board opposes installation of a cell phone tower behind the Southport Fire Station 15 and respectfully asks the MOA Planning Department to disapprove the application for the tower. PASSED AND APPROVED, by the Discovery Park Home Owners Association Executive Board this 17th day of April, 2014. George Seymour, President Discovery Park Home Owners Association April 14 2014. | |
| George Seymour | 4/21/2014 10:57:21 AM |
| Placed on the record for the owner. Ms. Inglis, I need to correct a statement you are making in your return emails to owners who are objecting to the proposed cell tower in Southport. The January 3, 2013 meeting was NOT a meeting of all the owners in the area, but a meeting requested by the woman representing AT&T with the board of directors of Discovery Park Owners Association and the Southport Master Association who at the meeting who expressed their objections clearly to the tower being built. If someone told you that it was a meeting with all the owners in the area, they are incorrect. I do not appreciate you using my name in conjunction with an outright untruth! Please correct the error and I am requesting you communicate with all who you have told this misinformation to and clarify that the meeting was only with the board of directors of Discovery Park Owners Association and the Southport Master Association. In the future, if you chose to use my name in any communications you have, you must contact me first, not only to get my permission but to verify the information you are transmitting is correct as there seems to be many untruths going around. Regards, Natalie Travers-Smyre Associate Broker Real Estate Unlimited (907)345-4110 ext 103 (907) 345-5173 (fax) "You can't control the wind, but you can adjust the sails" This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Please be aware that Board Communications may contain information that is confidential in nature and may only be discussed with other Board members. From: Inglis, Jillanne M. [mailto:InglisJM@ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:53 PM To: 'kurterobertson@aol.com'; Weaver Jr., Jerry T.; !MAS Assembly Members Cc: gseymour@gci.com; Natalie Smyre; bayklattcc@hotmail.com; Ward, Robin E.; McConnell, Erika B.; Kimmel, Corliss A. Subject: RE: Objection to ATT Cell Tower at Fire Station 15 in Southport Hello Mr. Robertson, Thank you for sending in your comments. We will include it the public record. At this time, I cannot respond to all of your concerns. However, I did want to address #5 on the list. The property has not been rezoned. The property is located within a Planned Community Development (Area H) according to Anchorage Ordinance 92-105. The underlying zoning of the property is R-O, residential office zoning district. Cell towers are a permitted in the R-O zoning district subject to Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 21.45.265 (old code) or 21.05.040K (new code). For one year after enactment of the new code, the applicant can choose to have their project reviewed under the “old code” or the “new code”. AT&T requested review under the old code. It is my understanding that a meeting with the residents of the area was organized by the Southport Master Planned Community agent (Natalie Smyre) on January 3, 2013 in order to introduce the project and discuss potential issues and concerns. Real Estate Services and AT&T entered into an agreement to lease the property at Southport Fire Station. The lease specifically outlines the terms of the lease and the location of the tower lease area. The lease was approved by the Assembly in July 2013. However, that was just the approval of the lease. In Residentially zoned land, tower sites are required to go through an administrative site plan review. October 29, 2013 representatives of AT&T submitted an application for an administrative site plan review (Case 2013-163). During our review of the case, we found that the proposed location of the tower on the site and the approved lease area were in two different places. Hence, we notified the representative and postponed the application indefinitely. Real Estate Services and AT&T worked on a new lease agreement and both parties have tentatively agreed to a lease. I want to be clear… the new lease agreement has not been approved by the Assembly! Real Estate Services required that AT&T submit the application for an administrative site plan review. This is the process we are currently in. If the site plan is approved, then AT&T is required to attend another community council meeting before the lease goes to the Assembly. If the lease goes to the Assembly, then it will be a public hearing. In addition, if the tower site plan is approved or disapproved, there is an appeal process by either party. If you have information as it relates to cell towers and property valuation, please send it to me. The decision date for the administrative site plan review is April 25, 2014. It likely will not be uploaded to the website until the following Monday. I will send the community councils a copy of the decision. We are currently working on rewriting the section of the code that governs towers. Thank you for your comments and concerns. I understand your frustration and concern. Respectfully, Jillanne M. Inglis Lead Plan Reviewer Land Use Review Section Planning Division Community Development Department 907-343-8353 inglisjm@muni.org ________________________________________ From: kurterobertson@aol.com [mailto:kurterobertson@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 3:37 PM To: Inglis, Jillanne M.; Weaver Jr., Jerry T.; !MAS Assembly Members Cc: gseymour@gci.com; nsmyre@reullc.com; bayklattcc@hotmail.com Subject: Objection to ATT Cell Tower at Fire Station 15 in Southport Hello Jerry and Jillanne, I live at 11359 Discovery View Drive in Southport. You are once again trying to push through an ATT cell tower and I am distressed to say this is the 3rd email to you regarding this topic. What about “NO” do you not understand? My comments below are based on my notes from an April 3 meeting of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council regarding yet another attempt by ATT and apparently their embedded Municipality supporters to place a cell tower on the Fire Station 15 property, about 100 yards from my front door. The meeting was well attended and Bob Hoffman, President of the Master Homeowners Association, along with several other attendees, were armed with some disturbing information that would lead me to believe the Municipality is either corrupt or inept, or possibly both. Here are just a few things that disturb me: 1. Last summer a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly had a 45 second discussion regarding the tower and stated there were no objections and moved on. I know that is a base lie. I have twice objected in writing to this tower. I am told we have the video of that self-serving fiasco. We were never notified of or invited to that meeting. It sounds like possibly you or our Anchorage Assemblyman, or someone in an influential position on Municipality staff may have some funded or unfunded biases. 2. A person in the cell phone/transmitter/tower business informed us property values near newly constructed cell towers decline 15%-20%. I can’t afford that, and neither can the city. There was a general consensus among the attendees we would apply for property tax adjustments if you place the proposed tower our planned upscale community. If that occurred, you would lose far more in tax revenue than you would gain from the $25,000 annual lease to ATT. 3. Further, when the Municipality approved the last request for the tower it apparently left open the possibility of the proposed 90’ cell tower growing to some yet undetermined height, creating an even more serious blight that would industrialize our neighborhood. 4. The proposed telecommunications site will not improve my own cell coverage. 1st, my coverage is fine. 2nd, this tower won't benefit coverage in the Southport area. 5. You have apparently violated your own procedures 1st because the currently approved lease is improperly zoned. Apparently the ground composition of the original location on the property wouldn’t support the cell tower, so quite arbitrarily and seemingly in secret, the location within FS 15 was rezoned, without a proper hearing, to accommodate a better footing for the tower. There was some discussion of Title 21 and its rewrite relative to your improper rezoning of the cell location. 2nd, you are required to make a presentation to the affected HOAs. There was a 100% affirmation from the group you haven’t done that. To her credit, Robin Ward from the Municipality’s Real Estate Department, on short notice, attended the meeting and attempted to field numerous questions. Unfortunately she could not address most of the questions which should have more properly been fielded by a representative from another Municipality department. That lack of clear information further agitated an already agitated gathering. Her presence reminded me of Ambassador Rice appearing on 4 Sunday talk shows trying to defend an inept and less-than-transparent Obama Administration on Benghazi. In fact, from what I think I know about this issue, the Municipality is beginning to remind me of the Obama Administration. 6. I guess I wouldn’t be so upset if I felt due process had ruled, that the process were truly fair, and that there was accountability among the Municipality Staff and Anchorage Assembly sworn to serve and protect our rights and the process. But it doesn’t appear to be a fair fight and the working stiffs paying your salaries appear to be getting screwed. I absolutely loathe corrupt politicians and civil servants, people who are supposed to be servants of the people and guardians of the process. 7. This is my 3rd “NO”. Let’s make it the last. At least infuse some accountability and honesty in the process. Even better, put the tower someplace else. Kurt Robertson | |
| George Seymour | 4/21/2014 10:33:51 AM |
| Added for the Owner From: aksuper_mom@att.net [mailto:aksuper_mom@att.net] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: Inglis, Jillanne M.; Weaver Jr., Jerry T.; Bill Starr Cc: Natalie Smyre; Kirsten McNamara; Mike McNamara Subject: Re: Proposed cell tower Hello again, I have heard that the cell phone tower for the neighborhood of Southport has again been revived. Please see my original letter below to see reasons for my firm objections for a cell tower in that area. As homeowners in that area, I believe it is an unfounded assumption by Cingular that they have the right to put a cell tower next to homes in a quiet, upscale neighborhood. I know of no one in the neighborhood who believes that the cell tower should be put there. Please consider community and homeowner voices on this subject and take into account the logical reasons I gave below to finally put an end to this cell tower plan. Thanks again for your further consideration, Joanne McNamara | |
| George Seymour | 4/21/2014 8:15:02 AM |
| Sent in for the Owner by request. Hello Jerry and Jillanne, I live at 11359 Discovery View Drive in Southport. You are once again trying to push through an ATT cell tower and I am distressed to say this is the 3rd email to you regarding this topic. What about “NO” do you not understand? My comments below are based on my notes from an April 3 meeting of the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council regarding yet another attempt by ATT and apparently their embedded Municipality supporters to place a cell tower on the Fire Station 15 property, about 100 yards from my front door. The meeting was well attended and Bob Hoffman, President of the Master Homeowners Association, along with several other attendees, were armed with some disturbing information that would lead me to believe the Municipality is either corrupt or inept, or possibly both. Here are just a few things that disturb me: 1. Last summer a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly had a 45 second discussion regarding the tower and stated there were no objections and moved on. I know that is a base lie. I have twice objected in writing to this tower. I am told we have the video of that self-serving fiasco. We were never notified of or invited to that meeting. It sounds like possibly you or our Anchorage Assemblyman, or someone in an influential position on Municipality staff may have some funded or unfunded biases. 2. A person in the cell phone/transmitter/tower business informed us property values near newly constructed cell towers decline 15%-20%. I can’t afford that, and neither can the city. There was a general consensus among the attendees we would apply for property tax adjustments if you place the proposed tower our planned upscale community. If that occurred, you would lose far more in tax revenue than you would gain from the $25,000 annual lease to ATT. 3. Further, when the Municipality approved the last request for the tower it apparently left open the possibility of the proposed 90’ cell tower growing to some yet undetermined height, creating an even more serious blight that would industrialize our neighborhood. 4. The proposed telecommunications site will not improve my own cell coverage. 1st, my coverage is fine. 2nd, this tower won't benefit coverage in the Southport area. 5. You have apparently violated your own procedures 1st because the currently approved lease is improperly zoned. Apparently the ground composition of the original location on the property wouldn’t support the cell tower, so quite arbitrarily and seemingly in secret, the location within FS 15 was rezoned, without a proper hearing, to accommodate a better footing for the tower. There was some discussion of Title 21 and its rewrite relative to your improper rezoning of the cell location. 2nd, you are required to make a presentation to the affected HOAs. There was a 100% affirmation from the group you haven’t done that. To her credit, Robin Ward from the Municipality’s Real Estate Department, on short notice, attended the meeting and attempted to field numerous questions. Unfortunately she could not address most of the questions which should have more properly been fielded by a representative from another Municipality department. That lack of clear information further agitated an already agitated gathering. Her presence reminded me of Ambassador Rice appearing on 4 Sunday talk shows trying to defend an inept and less-than-transparent Obama Administration on Benghazi. In fact, from what I think I know about this issue, the Municipality is beginning to remind me of the Obama Administration. 6. I guess I wouldn’t be so upset if I felt due process had ruled, that the process were truly fair, and that there was accountability among the Municipality Staff and Anchorage Assembly sworn to serve and protect our rights and the process. But it doesn’t appear to be a fair fight and the working stiffs paying your salaries appear to be getting screwed. I absolutely loathe corrupt politicians and civil servants, people who are supposed to be servants of the people and guardians of the process. 7. This is my 3rd “NO”. Let’s make it the last. At least infuse some accountability and honesty in the process. Even better, put the tower someplace else. Kurt Robertson | |
| Nelson Alger | 4/20/2014 7:51:10 PM |
| I am a first-time home buyer at 10500 Constitution St and while the tower does not immediately impact the view out of my windows, I am appalled at the actions taken by AT&T and our MOA Zoning and Planning Division. I saved and worked tirelessly on the North Slope so I could buy a house in a covenant protected neighborhood. It is my understanding that there was a breakdown in the process whereby AT&T applied for a lease behind our fire station 15 and did nothing with the ardent objections provided by community council representatives. It is also my understanding that AT&T needed to meet certain requirements such as present the idea in a public community meeting that was advertised with advanced notice. It turns out they only notified people within 500 ft of the proposed tower location even though the impact on property values reaches much farther than the notification radius. Furthermore, unnamed individuals within the MOA Division of Zoning and Planning did nothing with the objections presented by community council representatives and pushed the process forward to the point where AT&T now possesses a legal lease that is technically ineffective until approved by the Division of Zoning and Planning. I am quite sure that public comment is needed when land is rezoned for a different purpose other than originally planned as was the case with the Fire House 15 land. Hats off to the representative from the Division of Real Estate who came to the Bayshore Clubhouse early this month and explained where the blame lies. That took guts. As for the unscrupulous individuals within the Zoning and Planning Division who furthered the process of AT&T's application without due process or input from the communities that will be impacted by this development, shame on you. How could you, MOA representatives and legal tenants of the land where Fire Station 15 is located, break our covenants by not following the same procedures we all adhere to as part of being home owners in this neighborhood? I urge you to carefully consider your decision on whether to approve this development or not and what it will mean for the integrity of our public process and a possible protracted legal engagement as a result of it. | |
| Margaret Louie | 4/20/2014 7:37:06 PM |
| I am opposed to the construction of the proposed AT&T cell tower at Fire Station 15. I think everyone recognizes there’s expanded use of cell phones and wireless tablets. But a mammoth cell tower does not belong in a high-end residential neighborhood. There was no public hearing on this tower, there are recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions that restrict the height of structures that should apply and, the simple fact is, there are many more appropriate locations for a cell tower utilizing higher ground. In fact, I understand AT&T already plans to build a 450’ tower on tower road which is down the road from the fire station off of Southport Drive. Planning, your guidelines produced beautiful residential neighborhoods. Please do not veer off the course you set. The community is counting on you to listen to the strong objections voiced (including petitions from surrounding homeowners) and use good judgment and common sense. Please disapprove this application. | |
| George Seymour | 4/17/2014 11:44:53 AM |
| This is the resolution from the Discovery Park HOA on the tower from Case 2013-163. As this older case is part of the record this resolution needs to be carried on also. DISCOVERY PARK HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION Resolution Opposing Proposed Cell Phone Tower Installation at 11301 Southport Drive, Case No. 2013-163 WHEREAS, the Discovery Park Home Owners Association ("the Association") is the homeowners association representing 207 units in the Discovery Park Subdivision, located in Anchorage, Alaska; and WHEREAS, the Association represents high-end Single, Townhome and Apartment properties, and is actively managed with restrictive covenants enforced to maintain home values and the quality of life and the neighborhood; and Whereas, the Discovery Park Homeowners Association borders Fire Station 15 located at 11301 Southport Drive, Anchorage Alaska and is located within 15’ of the proposed tower site. and WHEREAS, telecommunications provider, AT&T is proposing to install a cell phone tower (height equivalent of a 6 -10 story building) and the industrial support equipment including Power Panels, Generators, Battery Plant, Transport and Radio equipment behind the Southport Fire Station 15 on Municipality of Anchorage-owned land and zoned PC (Planned Community) not zoned for Cell Tower use; and WHEREAS, the proposed cell tower location is surrounded by neighborhoods that are part of the Southport Master Planned Community, each with actively managed associations, restrictive covenants, and home values ranging from $300,000 to $1.8 million: and WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the Association believes that the proposed cell tower offered under Case No. 2013-163 will be out of place within this residential setting and will detract from the aesthetics of the Neighborhoods and depress home prices; and WHEREAS, ,the Executive Board of the Association believes that there are many other more suitable tower locations within the Bayshore/Southport/Kliatt area that will have less negative impact to the community; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Discovery Park Home Owners Association Executive Board opposes installation of a cell phone tower behind the Southport Fire Station 15 and respectfully asks the MOA Planning Department to disapprove the application for the tower PASSED AND APPROVED, by the Discovery Park Home Owners Association Executive Board this 11th day of November, 2013. George Seymour, President Discovery Park Home Owners Association November 11, 2013. | |
| Debbie Hill | 4/15/2014 2:39:04 PM |
| I am a property owner at 11351 Discovery View Drive in Anchorage 99515, and I am strongly opposed to the 65 foot cell tower AT&T is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I recognize the need for companies to expand their networks – but it should not be done in the middle of a planned residential area. AT&T should not be allowed to build this tower on land zoned as planned community property. Residents in this community purchased their homes at a premium to have the advantages and protections of a planned community. This cell tower is not only completely inappropriate for the zoning of the community, but also will result in substantive loss in property values for adjacent homeowners. I know everyone wants better, faster service – and the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) term is used a lot – but in this situation it would be directly in my back yard, and it would obstruct my view. This is completely unacceptable to the residents of Discovery Park. I am in agreement with the Discovery Park Owners Association and other adjacent Southport communities that there are other - more appropriate - locations AT&T should build. Please do not approve this cell tower build request. Sincerely, Karl and Debbie Hill | |
| Margaret Louie | 4/14/2014 7:42:47 PM |
| DISCOVERY HEIGHTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION Resolution Opposing Proposed Cell Phone Tower Installation at 11301 Southport Drive WHEREAS, the Discovery Heights Owners Association ("the Association") is the homeowners association representing 81 units in the Discovery Heights Subdivision, located in Anchorage, Alaska; and WHEREAS, the Association represents high-end and bluff properties, and is actively managed with restrictive covenants enforced to maintain home values and the quality of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Discovery Heights Subdivision borders Southport Drive, immediately adjacent to the Southport Fire Station 15, located at 11301 Southport Drive, Anchorage, Alaska; and WHEREAS, telecommunications provider, AT&T is proposing to install a cell phone tower (height equivalent of a 6 story building) behind the Southport Fire Station 15 on Municipality of Anchorage-owned land and zoned PC (Planned Community); and WHEREAS, the proposed cell tower location is surrounded by neighborhoods that are part of the Southport Master Planned Community, each with actively managed associations, restrictive covenants, and home values ranging from $350,000 to $1.8 million; and WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the Association believes that the proposed cell tower will be out of place within this residential setting and will detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and depress home prices; and WHEREAS, the Executive Board of the Association believes that there are other more suitable tower locations within the Bayshore/Southport/Klatt area that will have less negative aesthetic impact; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Discovery Heights Owners Association Executive Board opposes installation of a cell phone tower behind the Southport Fire Station 15 and respectfully ask the MOA Planning Department to disapprove the application. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Discovery Heights Owners Association Executive Board this 13th day of November, 2013. Taylor West, President Discovery Heights Owners Association | |
| Neal Therrien | 4/10/2014 10:30:16 PM |
| I am a property owner in Discovery Park and within 500 feet of the proposed cell towers site in Anchorage 99515. I am strongly opposed to the 65 foot cell tower AT&T is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I recognize the need for companies to expand their networks – but it should not be done in the middle of a planned residential area. AT&T should not be allowed to build this tower on land zoned as planned community property. Residents in this community purchased their homes at a premium to have the advantages and protections of a planned community. This cell tower is not only completely inappropriate for the zoning of the community, but also will result in substantive loss in property values for adjacent homeowners. This is completely unacceptable to the residents of Discovery Park. Please do not approve this cell tower build request. | |
| Trudy Aklin | 4/10/2014 2:46:22 PM |
| I will be quoting from a book written and researched by Carleigh Cooper called Cell Phones and The Dark Deception "RADIOFREQUENCY (RF)" "Rate of oscillation in electrical circuits or electromagnetic radiation within the range of 3 Hz to 300 GHz." "RADIOFREQUENCY MICROWAVE (RF/MW) RADIATION" "The non-ionizing energy used to transmit and receive wireless signals." Chapter 10 – Tower Trauma (page 133) “After learning that a direct correlation exists between RF/MW radiation and all types of cancer at current residential exposure levels, it becomes apparent that the sources emitting this harmful energy into our environment are making people sick. Not only are there increases in cancer because of this carcinogenic irritant, all of the symptoms of Microwave Sickness are similarly escalating. Unfortunately, whether you’re a cell phone user or not, you are under attack; constantly being bombarded by RF/MW radiation emissions from cell towers, their sites, and antennas." “emissions radiate through every body within signal range. In other words, every person within a 5-mile radius of the source, or in the same range of multiple sources, is chronically being irradiated, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year.” “tower emissions in the U.S. are higher than any where else in the world, with the exception of the United Kingdom. For example, U.S. towers are allowed to emit 5800 times more RF/MW radiation that similar base stations in Salzburg, Austria. Now that’s a point to ponder. If Austria’s towers serve the same fundamental purpose at significantly reduced levels of radiation, then why are Americans being exposed to so much more radiation?” “While cell phone operators seem to be willing to accept some degree of undisclosed risk in regards to their wireless communication decisions, those residing or working in close proximity to cell towers are not so privileged.” “Tower Exposure Studies” “RF/MW radiation emissions from cell towers around the world exhibit a consistent and very significant dose-response relationship between dozens of neurological symptoms and cancer development.” “those who live closest to the radiating sites are posed with the greatest threat. The farther you reside from a cell tower, the safer you are. Distance has continually proven to be the one determining factor between residential levels of exposure and health risk.” “Over the past 5+ years, as concern surrounding these questionable radiating devices has escalated, residents of various communities have tried to fight the erection of cell towers around their homes.” The 1996 Telecommunications Act “In order to overcome potential problems that could interrupt the steady and rapid erection of cell towers throughout the nation, the cellular industry established the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This act became law on February 8, 1996. It was devised to significantly restrict the ability of local communities, authorities, and residents to resist the placement of cell towers, especially where health related issues were concerned.” “the U.S. Government does not govern the cell phone industry, the industry governs itself. Therefore it possesses the same rights and freedom as utility companies. Service providers can place and position their cell towers and counterparts wherever they want them, without restriction, except on private property where a contractual agreement for lease does not exist. The industry is also its own final authority and even though they are supposed to abide by set guidelines, the FCC has admitted that it simply doesn’t have the manpower to police all of their efforts. Instead, the government empowers and trusts the cellular industry to conduct its own monitoring of tower and phone emission levels.” “The Act also limits the FCC’s power to intervene when local communities or authorities object to tower placement. Instead of listening to or effectively addressing legitimate concerns, the service provider pacifies disgruntled residents by allowing them to choose from a number of tower construction options. In doing this, they can eliminate the ‘eye sore’ issue, but little less.” “In order to mask their identity, cell towers are being hidden on rooftops and above water towers; they are being discreetly housed inside flag poles, church steeples, bell towers, crosses, silos, and clock towers. They are also being concealed in road signs, commercial signs, telephone poles, and billboards.” "Cell Tower Placement" “Schools are an easy target for service providers, because they are always in such desperate need of revenue. School administrators are constantly seeking ways to make ends meet. They’re willing to consider just about anything to get their needs met, including placing cell towers on top of the school or on school property. This usually provides a very lucrative stream of monthly income.. It is extremely worrisome that such a desirable technological device which offers numerous benefits can cause so many adverse health effects, especially in our youth.” "Firefighters Fight Back" “Over the past several years, there has been growing concern among U.S. and Canadian firefighters, regarding the placement of cell towers on the rooftops of fire stations. As with schools, when it comes to positioning towers, wireless service providers target municipal buildings. Fire stations are also considered key locations, because of their centralized locations and the fact that the industry can avoid any unnecessary red tape. Local authorities receive tremendous compensation from such contractual arrangements, benefiting handsomely from each and every tower placed on all city, county, state, or government owned properties, including fire stations, schools, and the like.” "In august of 2004, the issue was formerly addressed at the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) convention in Boston, MA. There, Lt. Ron Cronin of the Brookline, MA, Fire Department openly expressed concern." “Some firefighters with cell towers currently located on their stations are experiencing symptoms that put our first responders at risk. It is important to be sure we understand what effects these towers may have on the firefighters living in these stations. If the jakes in the fire houses are suffering from headaches, can’t respond quickly and their ability to make decisions is clouded by a sort of brain fog, then entire communities they are protecting will clearly be at risk. No one wants the guys responding to their family emergency to be functioning at anything less that 100 percent capacity.” I will close with this, I have nothing against technology, I have, and use a cell phone but I do so with responsibility. We just need to get smarter with how and where we place the towers. | |
| Gail Forrest | 4/10/2014 1:49:31 PM |
| I am a property owner at 11569 Discovery View Drive in Anchorage 99515 and am strongly opposed to the 65 foot cell tower AT&T is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I recognize the need for companies to expand their networks – but it should not be done in the middle of a planned residential area. AT&T should not be allowed to build this tower on land zoned as planned community property. Residents in this community purchased their homes at a premium to have the advantages and protections of a planned community. This cell tower is not only completely inappropriate for the zoning of the community, but also will result in substantive loss in property values for adjacent homeowners. I know everyone wants better, faster service – and the NIMBY ( Not in My Back Yard ) term is used a lot – but in this situation it would be directly in our backyards. This is completely unacceptable to the residents of Discovery Park. I am in agreement with the Discovery Park Owners Association and other adjacent Southport communities that there are other - more appropriate - locations AT&T should build. Please do not approve this cell tower build request. | |
| Marla Thompson | 4/10/2014 12:46:25 PM |
| I am opposed to the tower proposed by AT&T and I am appalled by AT&T and more importantly our Assembly for pushing this thru without guaranteeing that the boxes are checked and that everyone has seen the issues. I understand that a meeting was held with the HOA for Discovery Park but Discovery Heights and Southport HOA and more importantly the city council for our area were not involved. I pay for 2 HOA’s and I live by stringent rules to keep my property values up. Why is the firehouse exempt from the CCR’s that we have? Is it because the zoning was changed to make this money for the MOA (which by the way is ridiculously cheap rent for a co-location tower). I cannot even put up a Dish that can be seen from the front and I can’t park more than 2 cars in my driveway- I like this! It keeps our property values up and our neighborhood looking great. A tower that size is an eyesore and is not what we need in this neighborhood. There were 4 other ideas that were given as alternatives to AT&T- did they look at them? I don’t know because they did present to us about options. I expect a response on this email and what the next steps are for our community. | |
| John & Catherine Dewar | 4/9/2014 4:01:38 PM |
| I am a property owner at 11351 Discovery View Drive in Anchorage 99515 and am strongly opposed to the 65ft. cell tower AT&T is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I realize the need for companies to expand their networks - but it should not be done in the middle of a planned residential area. AT&T should not be allowed to build this tower on land zoned as planned community property. Residents in this community purchased their homes at a premium to have the advantages and protections of a planned community. This cell tower is not only completely inappropriate for the zoning of the community, but also will result in substantive loss in property values for adjacent homeowners. I know everyone wants better, faster service- but in this situation it would be directly in my backyard. This is completely unacceptable to the residents of Discovery Park. I am in agreement with the Discovery Park Owners Association and other adjacent Southport communities that there are other-more appropriate-locations AT&T should build. Please do not approve this cell tower build request. | |
| jerry and Rosalind Headley | 4/8/2014 8:06:31 PM |
| We are opposed to a cell tower being built in the Southport neighborhood. Southport is one of the prettiest neighborhoods in Anchorage and I feel a cell tower would have a negative aesthetic impact on the whole area. Also, the proposed location is dangerously close to homes in Discovery Park and the #15 fire station. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:42:08 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 12/9/13 Subject: Fwd: Proposed Southport Cell Tower Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:16:45 -0900 From: Keith Burke To: inglisjm@muni.org, weaverjt@muni.org, nsmyre@reulic.com Municipal Planning Department: I have been a resident of Anchorage for the past 35 years and moved into the Southport Peterson Group Development specifically because of the natural surrounding and access to those surroundings. The visual experience that one has in ones life is critical to their mental health. I lived in Potter Creek for 15 years and being able to see the Cook Inlet, Alaska Range and Sleeping Lady from our home was a very pleasurable experience. Having a 60+ foot communication tower in your backyard is not a pleasurable calming visual experience. I like the majority of residence in Anchorage enjoy the fact that we have cell phone coverage throughout the community and we do have excellent coverage here in Discovery Park. Home ownership is a major if not the major investment of ones life. Having a Major communication tower in close proximity to that investment will have a negative effect on that investment. I am confident that if in fact there needs to be a communication tower in the Southport area there a better less impacting location for that tower. I do request that you do not proceed with a plan to place a call tower in this neighborhood. Thank you for considering my comments and concerns, Sincerely Keith D. Burke 11307 Discovery View Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99515 907-830-4444 | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:40:52 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 12/4/13 Jim and Roxanne Reid PO Box 241714 Anchorage AK 99524-1714 This letter is to protest the building of the cell tower at Fire Station 15, located at 11301 Southport Drive. We are owners and members of the Discovery Park Homeowners Association representing 207 units. We are also members of the Southport Master Association representing several HOAs. We would appreciate your considering an alternate site, as we believe there are many other possible locations, which would be more appropriate. Our Executive Board has suggested Tower Road, or land near Klatt and C Street. The landscaping along Southport Drive is open and scenic. Our carefully planned community allows for magnificent views of mountains and countryside. Why destroy this to install a 65 ft cell tower, which because of collocation with other telecommunication carriers could become 100 ft. or more? Our beautifully planned community would begin to give the appearance of an industrial area and could cause our property values to drop. We support the Discovery Park Executive Board's resolution opposing the proposed cell phone tower. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:39:36 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 12/3/13 Melvin Nichols 11303 Discovery View Drive Anchorage AK 99515 My wife and I live Discovery Park. Our home is immediately adjacent to northeast corner of the fire station property. I am concerned that I have not been able to find out any details about the site plan, more specifically exactly where the antenna is proposed to be sited. In general I am not opposed to cell towers. However, if the tower were placed in the northeast corner of the fire station property it would be 15 feet from my home. That would definitely be something I would be strongly opposed to. I have concerns about the tower anyplace on the site, but how and where it was located is important and I need to see such details. If for example it were next to the fire station just behind the north wall, that would be more acceptable. My preference though is not to have it there at all. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:38:33 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 12/2/13 From: Chris Phillips [mailto:chris.phillips@me.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:40 AM To: weaverjt@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org Cc: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; Natalie Smyre Subject: Proposed AT&T Cell Phone Tower in Klatt Bog We live at 2825 Discovery Bay Drive and believe that we will be adversely affected visually by the construction of a 65ft cell tower, which in all probability would have future additions. The land is zoned PC, which indeed the whole of Southport is. We would suggest that the tower be constructed in a non-residential area, such as Tower Road where there are already two towers 350ft high. We believe that construction of the tower will spoil an area which has been preserved and is inconsistent with the plans for Discovery Park and Southport. Lastly, we don't think that the offer to disguise the tower is a realistic or feasible one. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Chris & Tamera Phillips (907) 229-2180 (Chris) (907) 632-1290 (Tamera) (678) 432-5033 (Georgia) chris.phillips@mac.com tamera.phillips@mac.com | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:37:15 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/28/13 Anton Villacorta 11324 Discovery View Dr Anchorage AK 99515 Dear Zoning and Planning Professionals: My wife (Joanna) and I are vehemently opposed to the erection of any cell tower in the field or near Fire Station 15 near the Southport and Discovery Park planned communities. We agree with many of the comments already posted such as: 1. Cell towers have no place in a residential area, and especially a planned community; 2. Cell coverage is already excellent now; 3. There are other non residential locations better suited for a cell tower. The area should be maintained as public recreational space for kids, dog walkers, etc. Best regards, Anton | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:36:16 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/24/13 Victoria Malone 11009 Northfleet Drive Anchorage AK 99515 Dear Zoning and Planning; I am against a cell tower being installed in proximity to Fire Station 15 in the Discovery Park and Southport subdivisions. I agree with many of the reasons that have already been submitted. I do not feel that a structure such as this is safe for a residential area. Especially since these towers do fall and we do get ice storms and wind in this area which could cause for structure failure. Recent homes which have been built and sold in this area would also have this tower directly in their view shed of the green space. Please allow the local planned communities to keep this area a green space with no towers, no industrial installations and allow for neighbors to enjoy more open spaces. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:35:16 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/24/13 Allen Cornelison 11009 Northfleet Drive Anchorage AK 99515 Please add my name and address as being opposed to the erection of any cell tower in the field or near Fire Station 15 near the Southport and Discovery Park planned communities. My comments mirror those which have already been stated such as; 1. A cell tower should not be installed in a residential area. 2. Residents get great cell coverage now. 3. If there is truly a need for a new cell tower, Tower Road would be a much better fit with having towers already erected and being the correct distance from homes. I would like to see the area kept as a green space meaning it could remain as is for kids to play, dogs to walk and to have more space as a wildlife corridor to and from the Klatt Bog. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:30:03 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/21/13 robert kniefel 11351 Discovery View Drive, #303 Anchorage AK 99515 I wish to make comments regarding the wireless tower proposed for the fire station at 11301 Southport Drive. I bought the specific unit in the Condominium building at 11351 because of its views of the inlet and the Alaska mountain range seen from our third floor windows. When the wind farm was added to Fire Island the view was improved as we really appreciate the serene quality of a moving wind vane. Now the proposal is to add a Cingular Wireless Tower directly in the middle of our view to the west. In addition, there does not appear to be any location on the fire station site where the applicant can meet the required safety distance of 190' (65' tower plus 30' colocation height doubled) which does not hit the existing residential units or the fire station with its residential quarters for the firemen. It also appears the location shown on the application is different than the lease location recently granted by the Assembly for this tower. I am an ATT cell phone user and the improvements in the recent years now provide me with 4 bars of signal strength from my home location. I don't understand all the calculations for why this tower is needed, but know I have good service now. There has been a discussion of a new wireless tower at the existing tower sites off Tower Road. It seems to be a much better location, within a mile of this site, existing tower usage there, and no danger to residential or fire station personal if the tower falls. Please consider this my letter of opposition to the tower application as submitted. Please let me know if any changes or additions are proposed. | |
| Jillanne Inglis | 4/8/2014 1:21:00 PM |
| Hello, IT informed me they transferred all the online comments from the previous case to this case. Thank you, Jillanne Inglis | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:09:32 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/19/13 From: Gail Forrest [gail.forrest@chugach.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:16 AM To: Flynn, Patrick P.; Demboski, Amy; Starr, William E.; Hall, Ernie; Steele, Tim; Traini, Dick; Gray-Jackson, Elvi; Honeman, Paul S.; Johnston, Jennifer; Birch, Chris J.; World Wide Web Municipal Clerk Subject: PLEASE REJECT THE CELL TOWER PROPOSAL FOR DISCOVERY PARK I am on the Discovery Park Board of Directors and urge you to deny the cell tower proposal for Discovery Park, as requested by AT&T. The resolution below outlines our concerns. Thank you for your help. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:08:36 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/18/13 From: Jenny Paz [mailto:jennypaz3@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:22 PM To: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; weaverjt@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org Cc: Natalie Smyre; Jenny Paz Subject: Planning Dept. Case Number: 2013-163 - Wireless Communication Tower Planning Dept. Case Number: 2013-163 Petitioner: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Request: Administrative site plan for a Cellular or Wireless Communication Tower As a resident of Discovery Park and owner of a house located within 500 feet of the proposed cell tower I do not support the placement of cell towers in our residential neighborhood. The cell tower will detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood and depress home prices. I believe that there are other locations for the tower that will not affect the residential areas. Regards, Jenny J Paz-Sanchez 11515 Discovery Park Dr Anchorage, AK, 99515 | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:07:07 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/13/13 Sheri Ryan 11081 Bow Circle Anchorage AK 99515 So much has changed in the Southport Planned Community from when we first purchased our home ten years ago. We went from only single family homes to 3-story condo structures, to a municipal fire station - now a proposed 65-foot cell phone tower! Not exactly the "planned" community we had in mind. My husband and I are vehemently opposed to placing a cell phone tower on or near the fire station in Southport as this area should not be utilized for commercial use. This is not an industrial area, but a residential area. Any green space areas within Southport should be used for parks or recreation and not for profit commercial entities. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:05:57 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/13/13 George Seymour I am posting another comment for one of our owners with an Objection to the Tower. From: Michelle Tabler [mailto:mtabler@alaska.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:46 PM To: wwmas@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org; weaverjt@muni.org; johnstonj@muni.org; birchc@muni.org Cc: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; Natalie Smyre Subject: AT&T Cell Tower To: Anchorage Assembly, Muni Planning Dept and Land Use Review: I was out-of-town last week for the November 7th hearing on the planned AT&T Cell Tower proposed to be built behind the Southport Fire Station so I was not able to voice my opposition. This will directly impact me and my home's value as I live on Discovery Park Drive, within 500 feet of the proposed site. The tower will be clearly visible from my home as it will be at least 65 feet tall (depending on collocation). There is absolutely no reason to put a cell tower directly in a residential neighborhood, especially when there are alternative sites close by. Tower Road is close by at Klatt and C and has higher land. This proposed tower will negatively impact our neighborhood and depress home prices. I am very much opposed to AT&T building a cell tower at the proposed location. I also sent an email opposing this project when the first notice went out, but I did not hear from any members of the Assembly, including my 2 representatives in South Anchorage. I hope that this time this issue will be addressed and opposed by the Assembly and the Muni Planning Dept. Sincerely, Michelle Tabler 11417 Discovery Park Drive Anchorage, AK 99515 907-229-6776 mtabler@alaska.net Sent from my iPad 11/12/13 George Seymour gseymour@gci.com ANchorage AK 99515 Hi Jerry and Jillanne, It looks like the cell tower behind Fire Station 15, case 2013-163 is the topic of discussion in Southport again. We thought after telling AT&T that it is “not wanted” or “needed” we had put this to rest a few months ago. So, once again I am writing in protest. I paid a lot of money to buy a house in an upscale neighborhood and Planned Community. Now you want to give it nothing less than an industrial look and rezoning by placing a cell tower less than 200 Feet from my home. If we allow this first tower then it will be followed by others in the area to allow the other carriers to have their own tower also. This is not what we had signed up for and not in the spirit of a Planned Community. With an Antenna Farm less than 1 mile from the site, it is unreasonable to approve the placement of a tower at this site creating a second tower one mile for the first is great for the carrier but is destroying the community / Alaskan feeling we signed up for. . The applicant should be asked to use the existing Klatt site and by re-design of the antennas and their placement make the site work for the South Port area. If the real serving area they want to address is along Minnesota Dr as the studies in their application indicate then they can use different antennas on the existing Klatt towers and on the existing Dimond and Minnesota towers to reach all of Minnesota and all of South Port. That would eliminate their perceived need for a new tower that is being provided in their application. As mentioned by another owner he used the "broken window" theory prevalent in law enforcement, you should understand when I say a cell tower is just the first step in diminishing the status of the neighborhood. When the area was Zoned PC and the plan published then that is what all of us (owners) signed up for and now to have someone changing the zoning to an Office Park (RO) to allow AT&T to build a tower for some reason is not in the betterment of the community or the city. Cell tower locations should be in the plan from the start, in this case it looks like they were as the Klatt site is zoned AF Antenna Farm and is less than 1 Mile from South Port we need to maintain the existing zoning and not provide changes to companies to accommodate companies that increase their value at the cost of decreasing the value of the existing owners, there are too many existing owners in the area with co-located homes to allow the tower to be built. I am confident we/ they (AT&T) can find a more suitable locations, such as the ones mentioned above or the east side of the Klatt Bog on C Street. But not in my back yard, and not now. I trust you will work to find another location for the cell tower. Please call me at 907-868-5648 or 907- 248-2323 if you have questions. Thanks, George Seymour 2861 Discovery Bay Dr | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:04:43 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/12/13 George Seymour gseymour@gci.com As the President of the association this is just one of the many comments on the tower how do we answer this? Hi Jerry and Jillanne, Once again a microwave cell tower behind Fire Station 15 is the topic of discussion in Southport. I thought we had put this to rest a few months ago. So, once again I am writing in protest. I paid a lot of money to buy a house in an upscale neighborhood. Now you want to give it nothing less than an industrial look by placing a cell tower 100 yards from my front door. If you are familiar with the "broken window" theory prevalent in law enforcement curriculae, you understand when I say a cell tower is just the first step in diminishing the status of the neighborhood. Cell towers should be built ahead of building the subdivisions around them, so buyers of co-located homes know what they are buying into. I am confident you can find a more suitable location, such as the east side of the Klatt Bog on C Street. But not in my front yard, and not now. I trust you will work to find another location for the cell tower. Thanks, Kurt Robertson 11359 Discovery View Dr | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:03:06 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/11/13 Laura Rykaczewski 2817 Discovery Bay Anchorage AK 99515 Jerry Weaver & Jillanne Inglis MOA Planning Department I am a property owner at 2817 Discovery Bay Dr and I am Against the cell tower ATT is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I work in the telecommunications industry and recognize the need for companies to expand their networks – yet it does not have to be done in the middle of residential area. ATT should not be allowed to build on land zoned as planned community property. I know everyone wants better, faster service – and the NIMBY ( Not in My Back Yard ) term is used a lot – in this situation it would be in my back yard. Placing a 65ft Cell Tower in this location WILL depress home prices. I am agreement with the Discovery Park Owners Association there are other locations ATT could build. Do not approve this cell tower build request. Laura Rykaczewski Email: lrykaczewski@gci.com Work: 907 868 5351 Mobile: 907 350 8907 | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:01:28 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/10/13 Pete Nolan On Thursday, Nov 7th, I was in a room of about 100 people that were in attendance at the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council. ALL of them were opposed to placing a cell tower in this particular location. These numbers alone indicate that Case #2013-163 deserves a Public Hearing, not an administrative decision. Thank you. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 1:00:19 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/8/13 Karen Girvan 11503 Discovery Park Dr Anchorage Ak 99515 My husband and I live in Discovery Park. We recently became aware of a proposition to be build a wireless tower in our neighborhood on municipal property. We are strongly opposed to this location and believe there are better options. We hope you will support the opposition of placing this tower in the middle of our neighborhood. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 12:58:15 PM |
| This is a comment to be added to the current case 2014-057 on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-157 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/7/13 Stephanie Hoyt 2866 Discovery Bay Dr Anchorage Ak 99515 My family and I reside in Discovery Park in Southport. We were just informed that a Cingular cell tower is proposed to be built in our neighborhood on municipal property. We are strongly opposed to locating a cell tower in the middle of our residential neighborhood. There are commercial locations nearby which are far more suited to this type of construction, such as Tower Road and the C Street/Klatt Road area. We hope that we can count on your support in the opposition of placing this tower in the middle of our neighborhood. Stephanie Hoyt and Lyle Ashworth 2866 Discovery Bay Dr (907) 337-9619 | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 7:23:37 AM |
| 11/19/13 George Seymour I am adding this to the site for an additional record. From: Gail Forrest [gail.forrest@chugach.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:16 AM To: Flynn, Patrick P.; Demboski, Amy; Starr, William E.; Hall, Ernie; Steele, Tim; Traini, Dick; Gray-Jackson, Elvi; Honeman, Paul S.; Johnston, Jennifer; Birch, Chris J.; World Wide Web Municipal Clerk Subject: PLEASE REJECT THE CELL TOWER PROPOSAL FOR DISCOVERY PARK I am on the Discovery Park Board of Directors and urge you to deny the cell tower proposal for Discovery Park, as requested by AT&T. The resolution below outlines our concerns. Thank you for your help. | |
| George Seymour | 4/8/2014 7:06:22 AM |
| This is a comment on the tower from the carry over case information referenced in this case. 2013-163 that was provided by one of the home owners of Discovery Park HOA: 11/19/13 From: Gail Forrest [gail.forrest@chugach.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:16 AM To: Flynn, Patrick P.; Demboski, Amy; Starr, William E.; Hall, Ernie; Steele, Tim; Traini, Dick; Gray-Jackson, Elvi; Honeman, Paul S.; Johnston, Jennifer; Birch, Chris J.; World Wide Web Municipal Clerk Subject: PLEASE REJECT THE CELL TOWER PROPOSAL FOR | |
| Susan West | 4/7/2014 11:10:25 PM |
| I live approximately ¼ mile from the proposed cell tower and am strongly opposed to construction of a cell tower on Southport Drive. Southport is a planned residential community with highly restrictive covenants designed to maintain property values and preserve the visually attractive character of the neighborhood. Homes must satisfy architectural and landscaping requirements, and even modest improvements such as sheds, fences, and planting beds and must be submitted to a review committee to determine whether they will adversely impact neighbors. Southport residents pay significant annual dues to the Southport Master Association to provide landscaping in common areas and along roadways. Although Southport Drive is a public roadway, the association pays thousands of dollars every year to maintain landscaping on either side of the street and in the median. Trees and shrubs are watered and pruned, grass is mowed, beds are weeded, flowers are planted, moose cages are installed and removed seasonally, and custom planters are replaced when necessary. Due to private contributions by area residents, Southport Drive is one of the loveliest streets in Anchorage. We care deeply about the visual appeal of our neighborhood. The notion that a 65-ft. to 95-ft. collocation industrial cell tower may be installed in our neighborhood with little to no public notice is shocking. I am generally opposed to cell towers in any residential area, but the idea of a cell tower in a community as deeply committed to aesthetics as Southport is especially offensive. Cell towers belong in commercial and industrial areas, not residential neighborhoods. The planned tower is next to an open wetlands area and nature trail highly valued by area residents. It would cast a shadow (both literally and figuratively) on countless nearby homes. It would impede views, ruin the residential nature of the neighborhood, and generally serve as a permanent blight on the community. The application states, “the need for cell towers was not anticipated or planned for in the original [Southport Master Planned Community] development.” Implicit in this statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the proposed cell tower will violate the provisions of the Southport master plan – the same master plan that each of us relied on when we purchased our homes. Every homeowner in the development is expected to abide by the provisions and covenants of the Southport master plan. Why should a profit-based corporation from Georgia be exempt from those same rules? For what it is worth, our home is located in the coverage objective area and our cell phone coverage is just fine. I have not heard any of our neighbors complaining that their cell coverage is inadequate. It is perplexing that AT&T/New Cingular Wireless would seek to install a 95-foot industrial steel tower in a residential neighborhood without so much as bothering to inquire whether nearby residents have expressed a need for better coverage. The application should be denied. The proposed cell tower is unnecessary and wholly at odds with the character of the neighborhood. | |
| Jan Timmons | 4/5/2014 11:17:16 AM |
| I fully support construction and operation of a 65-foot cellular communications tower at 11301 Southport Drive. Our part of Anchorage has long needed better cellular communications! Thank you. | |
| Howard Marsh | 4/4/2014 1:59:53 PM |
| I support the construction and operation of a 65 foot cellular communications tower at 11301 Southport Drive. This part of Anchorage needs better cellular communications. | |
| Ronald Funatake | 4/4/2014 1:06:12 PM |
| The case Detail for the "Southport Cell Phone Tower" includes an application from AT&T dated March 3/2014. The application on page 2 states that the zoning is RO within PC (Planned Community). It appears this would require a Rezoning. If so I would like to receive the records of notice requirements per Chapter 21.03 Review and Approval Procedures, table 21.03-1 showing when the actions occurred changing the zoning to RO. If this does not require a rezoning then in my opinion, Title 21 Land Use Planning is seriously flawed. Great care was taken in the new Title 21 to ensure that homes have a beautiful street facade, but if that facade has a view of a 95 foot cell tower it is all for naught. If it is possible for Administrative Staff alone to change property zoning we have a really big concern. | |
| Brian Aklin | 4/4/2014 6:49:14 AM |
| I would like to express that I'm opposed to the proposed installation of a cell Tower in our Southport neighborhood. We have residence that have health issues that are not compatable with the cell tower emitances. The legal zoning for this type of structure is legally questionable. Furthermore, as a resident of the neighborhood, I was never informed of any public meeting for public comment. Please consider cancelling the approval of this structure as to avoid any furthere legal action by our HOA. We will fight this to the bitter end. | |
| Teri Lembeck | 4/3/2014 9:22:50 PM |
| My concerns : 1) Health would be affected 2) Taxpayer lawsuit involving the city for not following due process, meaning no open públic meeting advertised and held for comments we shouldn't even be this far in overall progress yet. 3) A recall of our Assembly Members for allowing/participating in this to happen. 4) Not zoned for this. 5) Read the CCR 's 6) An embarassment to all departments when it makes its way to the TV news. | |
| Alex Gimarc | 4/3/2014 5:58:17 PM |
| While I am not normally a NIMBY, I oppose this cell tower on purely procedural grounds. AT&T / Cingular reportedly told the Municipality that the Southport homeowner's Associations had agreed with the proposal when in fact they had not. I am sick and tired of companies using friendly government agencies and fraudulent claims of public involvement to further their corporate goals. My recommendation would be to stop this process, revoke all prior approvals, start over and do it right. Otherwise you publicly reward liars. | |
| Jeanne Funatake | 4/3/2014 7:36:57 AM |
| After further reviewing the maps on the case file I noticed our home is supposedly in an area with inadequate coverage. I can attest that this in in fact false. Our cell phone service is with AT&T and the coverage at our home has no issues. Perhaps they should survey the homeowners in the "inadequate" coverage areas to determine there service level before proposing the Southport location. | |
| Jeanne Funatake | 4/3/2014 7:22:45 AM |
| We built our home in 1991 in the Southport area for the specific reason that it had strict Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs) to keep property values high and an amount of visual clutter control. I live about a half mile from the proposed cell tower location and was not notified of any public hearing on this issue. The petition site for this cell tower should absolutely NOT be allowed. It is right in the middle of a carefully planned and longstanding residential neighborhood. I believe it will cause my property values and those of the entire neighborhood to be adversely affected. There is NO reason to put this tower at the proposed site when there are other properties that could be used as alternatives available close by such as Tower Road off Klatt, or near there. MOA controls the south Anchorage sports park. How about using a portion of the original soccer fields? They have been rendered useless for soccer due to MOA allowing dumping of peat and silts on the fields. I am AGAINST the Southport site as a cell tower location. | |
| Peter Ryan | 3/31/2014 9:50:06 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to this proposed cell tower in my back yard. There was a meeting a few months back the neighborhoods turned out in force. Afterwards, we were assured that the proposal was defeated. Now, I find out it's going ahead in spite of what was promised. I understand the proposed tower is in violation of community CC&R's and published MOA guidelines. Community Reps voiced our strong opposition.I have no desire to have this tower built in my back yard, and I am very concerned about the potential health hazards, not to mention the aesthetic blight.I bought and built here because of how nice this area was. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Please don't ruin it any more with an industrial cell phone tower, blanketing homes in EMF signals. Current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from EMF pollution, as published recently in the British Medical Journal.DO NOT ALLOW this tower to be built ANYWHERE in Southport! | |
| Travis Tollefsen | 3/31/2014 6:49:30 PM |
| I moved into Southport due to its strict rules and regulation keeping the community looking clean, attractive, prohibiting such items. It is against our CCR's and By-laws to have cell/radio towers and if allowed to be built it will likely cause a drastic reduction in property values due to the new eye sore. This is not needed in our area as our cell coverage is already adequate. If the MOA allows this to go through I will be the first in line to organize a class action lawsuit against the city of Anchorage, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, AT&T, and any other parties that might be involved for damages to real property, possible violation of human rights (by not originally having a public notice period), and any other items the attorney's see fit. | |
| Penny & Tim Johnson | 3/31/2014 5:59:40 PM |
| My husband and I are vehemently opposed to the proposed cell tower construction in our planned community. We paid a PREMIUM to live here and have a greenbelt and restrictions on junk/eyesores/commercial endeavors. Please reconsider and find an alternate, more suitable site for this project. It is foreseeable that costly litigation will ensue and any evidence of wrong doing will cause it's subsequent removal. Clearly this is not a well thought out project. Respectfully yours, Tim and Penny Johnson | |
| Jillanne Inglis Lead Land Use Plan Reviewer | 3/31/2014 11:01:38 AM |
| Hi, I am working with IT to transfer the community comments from case 2013-163 to this case. I will update if it can be done. Thank you, Jillanne Inglis | |
| GEORGE P STECKO | 3/30/2014 2:53:04 PM |
| As one of the first residents of Lookout Landing Subdivision (2), I cherish the natural beauty I came to enjoy looking onto the Klatt Trail, when I built my home in 1997. At the time, the cul-de-sac was the furthest south past Seagate Ct., about 108th south, only meeting up with Discovery Heights down the road and nothing in between. Since then, I've watched the construction of homes explode over the years and the pristine wetlands deteriorate and shrink. I'm fortunate that I had the foresight to build in an area that would remain untouched into perpetuity, but now it appears that I was wrong. The proposed tower which was stealthily passed and developed into a project ready to break ground, was done illegally and underhandedly, and for that reason, it should not be built. Also, as in many of the MOA's projects, it was done, in my opinion, "as a thief in the night", without consulting residents for feedback, a common ploy used by the MOA over the last few years. We, the residents of Southport, demand answers, and we won't stop until we get them. No one knows what effect this structure will have on the power grid or the noise factor, not to mention that it will be a terrible eye sore. It seems that no other developed area in Anchorage wants this tower, and so the last bastion of hope for saving the wetlands will fall prey to corporate greed. I wonder how many employees at Cingular live in Southport? Don't they list an address in Atlanta? Respectfully, George Stecko | |
| Timothy Hroza | 3/29/2014 7:32:19 PM |
| Southport is an organized, beautiful and safe neighborhood by design. Owner associations strive to keep it that way for the good of all who elected to become part of it. That being said, why would the MOA want to jeapordize the "beauty" part of the above statement with an gigantic tower that would stick out like a sore thumb? We all moved and invested in this neighborhood knowing there would be "declarations" that we all must adhere to. Why would we expect anything less from the MOA? | |
| Cheryl Konter | 3/29/2014 4:42:02 PM |
| I would like to reiterate my objection to the proposed Cell tower in Southport. I do not believe this is an appropriate location for this installation. Our cell coverage in this area is already adequate. I believe this type of commercial structure would be better suited near "C" Street which is a more more industrial or commercial site, versus this completely residential area. Cheryl Konter | |
| Michelle Tabler | 3/29/2014 4:21:18 PM |
| The petition site for this cell tower should absolutely NOT be allowed. It is right in the middle of a planned residential neighborhood. It will cause my property values to be adversely affected as it will e visible from my house. There is NO reason to put this tower at the proposed site when there are other alternatives available close by (Tower Road and Klatt??). I am AGAINST this site as a cell tower site. | |
| George Seymour | 3/26/2014 8:39:25 AM |
| Sent in for the Owner (Below) March 18, 2014 Ms. Jillanne Ingles Planning Department Municipality of Anchorage PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Subject: Comments on Planning Dept. Case Number 2014-057 Proposed Cell Tower at Southport Fire Station Dear Ms. Ingles: Thank you for taking the time to speak to me Monday about the above referenced case. My wife and I recently purchased a new home in Discovery Park. We moved in last September. If you refer to the Alaska Rim Engineering site plan our home is labeled "Dwelling" just east of the northeast corner of the fire station tract. A dimension to the tower location of 130 feet is shown on that site plan. We were made aware of this proposed cell tower on the first station site after we purchased the home and while it was under construction. We are aware that there has been considerable opposition already expressed against locating a cell tower on the fire station property or anywhere in the immediate area. We are writing to you as individuals and not representing any group, so the opinions and suggested expressed herein are ours alone. Our home is the closest to and therefore the most significantly impacted by the proposed tower as located. However, any of the other homes adjacent to the fire station that look out onto the fire station property are significantly impacted. My wife Sharon and I have spoken about this matter extensively and are in agreement. We have waited to contact you until the case was reactivated and we had access to the proposed site plan. I have considerable experience with site plans and with the community planning and permitting process. I was a registered civil engineer working in Alaska from 1973 until my retirement in April 2007. From 1980 until my retirement I was a principle owner in DOWL Engineers (now DOWL HKM) and was president and CEO ofDOWL from 1988 until2001. I have often been on the client side proposing site plans and projects to which there was considerable opposition by local residents. I make my comments and suggestions thoughtfully with the hope of contributing to your review and analysis of this proposed project. Furthermore I am more than glad to meet with you, the developers, or anyone else you think appropriate to address the concerns that my wife and I have. 11303 Discovery View Drive, Anchorage, AK 99515 (() 907-330-9813 ® nicholsmr@gmail.com We are "not-in-my-back-yard" people. We, as are most of the citizens of our community are consumers of cell phone service and wireless data bandwidth. We are the beneficiaries of the towers located on other parcels and realize that a top notch wireless communication system is vitally important to the entire community. We know that you and the Planning Department have a broad responsibility to the entire community as well as a responsibility to the local homeowners most significantly impacted by this project. We want to be part of the solution to the extent possible and to come to some sort of balance with regard to this project. Who will own and operate the tower? Both Cingular Wireless and AT&T seem to be associated with this project. Is this an error or are both companies involved? We would appreciate clarification on this. With regards to options on this project our first choice would be to abandon the fire station as a cell tower site. We would like to see the project denied by your department. However, if you determine that a cell tower on this site is of compelling interest to the broader community and to the Municipality of Anchorage, and favor granting the location of a cell tower on this property we have a number of suggestions that we feel can lessen the cell tower's impact on our home and hopefully on adjacent homes too. For reference I have attached a copy of the site plan submitted by the applicant showing the proposed tower site. I have also attached an aerial photo of the site and some photographs of our home and the view of the proposed site from windows in our home. Our biggest concern when we first heard of the project was that it would be in the northeast comer of the fire station site nearest our home. We are grateful that it is proposed to be at least 130 feet to the west of us and not next to the property boundary. However, the further the tower is to the west the better from our perspective. Our first choice would be to have the tower on the north side of the fire station. This puts it the maximum distance away from us and screens the lower part of the tower from the adjacent homes to the south. If that is not possible the next best location would be immediately next to the fire station on the east side of the station near its northeast corner. Again the further away the better. If the tower caru10t be located next to the fire station then we prefer it to be placed west of what is called the "Existing Building" on the site plan, which is further from us and would at least screen some of the pole near the base. I took the attached photos with no magnification. The pole would be just to the right and slightly to the east (closer to us) from the Existing Building. You can plainly see that even at 130 feet distance the tower would be quite prominent from the windows of our home. There is no way to make a cell tower attractive. I have seen a number of attempts to do so including making them look like palm trees and it simply doesn't work. My wife and I have purposefully looked at cell towers around town and there are a variety. From that we feel that some attributes of cell towers are more unattractive than others and would like to avoid the worst of these if this project is approved. A monopole as proposed is much preferred to any kind of a truss antenna with multiple legs. We have generally seen that monopole antennae are either a "bare steel rust color" or silver. We prefer the silver color to the "bare steel rust color". Normally the cell towers have a small structure at the base I assume to house equipment for the tower. No such structure is shown on the site plan. Will there be one? If so that structure should be as unobtrusive as possible. We would also like a sight-obscuring fence if there is such a structure. We are not concerned about safety, either from the tower falling over or from electromagnetic radiation it might emit. We are not concerned about noise or employees periodically attending to the facility. We already have the fire station there who are good neighbors. We are not concerned about disruption during construction. Our entire focus is the unsightliness of a cell tower and its proposed, prominent position next to our home. I hope that these comments are helpful in your evaluation ofthis proposal. We urge you to consider this project's impact on us and our neighbors. I think if this were your home you would have similar concerns. But we also respect and understand your responsibility to the larger community of Anchorage. We are leaving town Friday for a trip. The best way to contact us for the next short while is through my cell phone at 907-330-9813 or via email at nicholsrnr@gmail.com. Meanwhile if you would be so kind as to keep us informed of the progress of this project we would appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration of our circumstance and opinions. ij'tr J£ Melvin R. Nichols Attachments: Proposed Site Plan Aerial View Photos Cc: Discovery Park Homeowners' Association Drawings in the file | |
| Jillanne Inglis | 3/25/2014 9:02:42 AM |
| On the main page of case 2014-057, please look at the top right of the screen. Under staff report you will find the case submittal and drawings for this case. | |
| George Seymour | 3/25/2014 8:11:41 AM |
| I have been asking for the new Tower Application but do not see it in the case information. Please add it. | |
| Stephanie Hoyt | 3/23/2014 4:36:10 PM |
| My family resides in Discovery Park at Southport. We strongly oppose the construction of the Verizon Cell tower located adjacent to this residential area. The tower will adversely impact the value of Discovery Park homes and has no place in the middle of a residential housing area. There are areas close by which are far more suited to commercial construction including C St and Tower Road. Wireless service in this area is already outstanding. It is impossible to believe that the benefits to this project can in any way offset the negative impacts to hundreds of home owners and families residing in this area. We respectfully request that the MoA reconsider approval of a contract to place a cellular tower in our neighborhood. | |
| George Seymour | 12/9/2013 10:07:07 AM |
| Posted for another owner
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Southport Cell Tower
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:16:45 -0900
From: Keith Burke |
|
| Jim and Roxanne Reid | 12/4/2013 9:01:03 PM |
| This letter is to protest the building of the cell tower at Fire Station 15, located at 11301 Southport Drive. We are owners and members of the Discovery Park Homeowners Association representing 207 units. We are also members of the Southport Master Association representing several HOAs. We would appreciate your considering an alternate site, as we believe there are many other possible locations, which would be more appropriate. Our Executive Board has suggested Tower Road, or land near Klatt and C Street. The landscaping along Southport Drive is open and scenic. Our carefully planned community allows for magnificent views of mountains and countryside. Why destroy this to install a 65 ft cell tower, which because of collocation with other telecommunication carriers could become 100 ft. or more? Our beautifully planned community would begin to give the appearance of an industrial area and could cause our property values to drop. We support the Discovery Park Executive Board's resolution opposing the proposed cell phone tower. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Melvin Nichols | 12/3/2013 12:06:10 PM |
| My wife and I live Discovery Park. Our home is immediately adjacent to northeast corner of the fire station property. I am concerned that I have not been able to find out any details about the site plan, more specifically exactly where the antenna is proposed to be sited. In general I am not opposed to cell towers. However, if the tower were placed in the northeast corner of the fire station property it would be 15 feet from my home. That would definitely be something I would be strongly opposed to. I have concerns about the tower anyplace on the site, but how and where it was located is important and I need to see such details. If for example it were next to the fire station just behind the north wall, that would be more acceptable. My preference though is not to have it there at all. | |
| George Seymour | 12/2/2013 9:13:21 AM |
| Adding to the WEB page for the record. From: Chris Phillips [mailto:chris.phillips@me.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:40 AM To: weaverjt@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org Cc: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; Natalie Smyre Subject: Proposed AT&T Cell Phone Tower in Klatt Bog We live at 2825 Discovery Bay Drive and believe that we will be adversely affected visually by the construction of a 65ft cell tower, which in all probability would have future additions. The land is zoned PC, which indeed the whole of Southport is. We would suggest that the tower be constructed in a non-residential area, such as Tower Road where there are already two towers 350ft high. We believe that construction of the tower will spoil an area which has been preserved and is inconsistent with the plans for Discovery Park and Southport. Lastly, we don't think that the offer to disguise the tower is a realistic or feasible one. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Chris & Tamera Phillips (907) 229-2180 (Chris) (907) 632-1290 (Tamera) (678) 432-5033 (Georgia) chris.phillips@mac.com tamera.phillips@mac.com | |
| Anton Villacorta | 11/28/2013 1:18:28 PM |
| Dear Zoning and Planning Professionals: My wife (Joanna) and I are vehemently opposed to the erection of any cell tower in the field or near Fire Station 15 near the Southport and Discovery Park planned communities. We agree with many of the comments already posted such as: 1. Cell towers have no place in a residential area, and especially a planned community; 2. Cell coverage is already excellent now; 3. There are other non residential locations better suited for a cell tower. The area should be maintained as public recreational space for kids, dog walkers, etc. Best regards, Anton | |
| Victoria Malone | 11/24/2013 2:10:10 PM |
| Dear Zoning and Planning; I am against a cell tower being installed in proximity to Fire Station 15 in the Discovery Park and Southport subdivisions. I agree with many of the reasons that have already been submitted. I do not feel that a structure such as this is safe for a residential area. Especially since these towers do fall and we do get ice storms and wind in this area which could cause for structure failure. Recent homes which have been built and sold in this area would also have this tower directly in their view shed of the green space. Please allow the local planned communities to keep this area a green space with no towers, no industrial installations and allow for neighbors to enjoy more open spaces. | |
| Allen Cornelison | 11/24/2013 1:57:34 PM |
| Please add my name and address as being opposed to the erection of any cell tower in the field or near Fire Station 15 near the Southport and Discovery Park planned communities. My comments mirror those which have already been stated such as; 1. A cell tower should not be installed in a residential area. 2. Residents get great cell coverage now. 3. If there is truly a need for a new cell tower, Tower Road would be a much better fit with having towers already erected and being the correct distance from homes. I would like to see the area kept as a green space meaning it could remain as is for kids to play, dogs to walk and to have more space as a wildlife corridor to and from the Klatt Bog. | |
| robert kniefel | 11/21/2013 10:52:18 AM |
| I wish to make comments regarding the wireless tower proposed for the fire station at 11301 Southport Drive. I bought the specific unit in the Condominium building at 11351 because of its views of the inlet and the Alaska mountain range seen from our third floor windows. When the wind farm was added to Fire Island the view was improved as we really appreciate the serene quality of a moving wind vane. Now the proposal is to add a Cingular Wireless Tower directly in the middle of our view to the west. In addition, there does not appear to be any location on the fire station site where the applicant can meet the required safety distance of 190' (65' tower plus 30' colocation height doubled) which does not hit the existing residential units or the fire station with its residential quarters for the firemen. It also appears the location shown on the application is different than the lease location recently granted by the Assembly for this tower. I am an ATT cell phone user and the improvements in the recent years now provide me with 4 bars of signal strength from my home location. I don't understand all the calculations for why this tower is needed, but know I have good service now. There has been a discussion of a new wireless tower at the existing tower sites off Tower Road. It seems to be a much better location, within a mile of this site, existing tower usage there, and no danger to residential or fire station personal if the tower falls. Please consider this my letter of opposition to the tower application as submitted. Please let me know if any changes or additions are proposed. | |
| George Seymour | 11/19/2013 8:34:13 AM |
| I am adding this to the site for an additional record. From: Gail Forrest [gail.forrest@chugach.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:16 AM To: Flynn, Patrick P.; Demboski, Amy; Starr, William E.; Hall, Ernie; Steele, Tim; Traini, Dick; Gray-Jackson, Elvi; Honeman, Paul S.; Johnston, Jennifer; Birch, Chris J.; World Wide Web Municipal Clerk Subject: PLEASE REJECT THE CELL TOWER PROPOSAL FOR DISCOVERY PARK I am on the Discovery Park Board of Directors and urge you to deny the cell tower proposal for Discovery Park, as requested by AT&T. The resolution below outlines our concerns. Thank you for your help. | |
| George Seymour | 11/18/2013 10:15:30 AM |
| I am posting this from another one of our owners. From: Jenny Paz [mailto:jennypaz3@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:22 PM To: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; weaverjt@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org Cc: Natalie Smyre; Jenny Paz Subject: Planning Dept. Case Number: 2013-163 - Wireless Communication Tower Planning Dept. Case Number: 2013-163 Petitioner: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Request: Administrative site plan for a Cellular or Wireless Communication Tower As a resident of Discovery Park and owner of a house located within 500 feet of the proposed cell tower I do not support the placement of cell towers in our residential neighborhood. The cell tower will detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood and depress home prices. I believe that there are other locations for the tower that will not affect the residential areas. Regards, Jenny J Paz-Sanchez 11515 Discovery Park Dr Anchorage, AK, 99515 | |
| Sheri Ryan | 11/13/2013 3:19:57 PM |
| So much has changed in the Southport Planned Community from when we first purchased our home ten years ago. We went from only single family homes to 3-story condo structures, to a municipal fire station - now a proposed 65-foot cell phone tower! Not exactly the "planned" community we had in mind. My husband and I are vehemently opposed to placing a cell phone tower on or near the fire station in Southport as this area should not be utilized for commercial use. This is not an industrial area, but a residential area. Any green space areas within Southport should be used for parks or recreation and not for profit commercial entities. | |
| George Seymour | 11/13/2013 9:03:42 AM |
| I am posting another comment for one of our owners with an Objection to the Tower. From: Michelle Tabler [mailto:mtabler@alaska.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:46 PM To: wwmas@muni.org; inglisjm@muni.org; weaverjt@muni.org; johnstonj@muni.org; birchc@muni.org Cc: bayklattcc@hotmail.com; Natalie Smyre Subject: AT&T Cell Tower To: Anchorage Assembly, Muni Planning Dept and Land Use Review: I was out-of-town last week for the November 7th hearing on the planned AT&T Cell Tower proposed to be built behind the Southport Fire Station so I was not able to voice my opposition. This will directly impact me and my home's value as I live on Discovery Park Drive, within 500 feet of the proposed site. The tower will be clearly visible from my home as it will be at least 65 feet tall (depending on collocation). There is absolutely no reason to put a cell tower directly in a residential neighborhood, especially when there are alternative sites close by. Tower Road is close by at Klatt and C and has higher land. This proposed tower will negatively impact our neighborhood and depress home prices. I am very much opposed to AT&T building a cell tower at the proposed location. I also sent an email opposing this project when the first notice went out, but I did not hear from any members of the Assembly, including my 2 representatives in South Anchorage. I hope that this time this issue will be addressed and opposed by the Assembly and the Muni Planning Dept. Sincerely, Michelle Tabler 11417 Discovery Park Drive Anchorage, AK 99515 907-229-6776 mtabler@alaska.net Sent from my iPad | |
| George Seymour | 11/12/2013 8:37:10 AM |
| Hi Jerry and Jillanne, It looks like the cell tower behind Fire Station 15, case 2013-163 is the topic of discussion in Southport again. We thought after telling AT&T that it is “not wanted” or “needed” we had put this to rest a few months ago. So, once again I am writing in protest. I paid a lot of money to buy a house in an upscale neighborhood and Planned Community. Now you want to give it nothing less than an industrial look and rezoning by placing a cell tower less than 200 Feet from my home. If we allow this first tower then it will be followed by others in the area to allow the other carriers to have their own tower also. This is not what we had signed up for and not in the spirit of a Planned Community. With an Antenna Farm less than 1 mile from the site, it is unreasonable to approve the placement of a tower at this site creating a second tower one mile for the first is great for the carrier but is destroying the community / Alaskan feeling we signed up for. . The applicant should be asked to use the existing Klatt site and by re-design of the antennas and their placement make the site work for the South Port area. If the real serving area they want to address is along Minnesota Dr as the studies in their application indicate then they can use different antennas on the existing Klatt towers and on the existing Dimond and Minnesota towers to reach all of Minnesota and all of South Port. That would eliminate their perceived need for a new tower that is being provided in their application. As mentioned by another owner he used the "broken window" theory prevalent in law enforcement, you should understand when I say a cell tower is just the first step in diminishing the status of the neighborhood. When the area was Zoned PC and the plan published then that is what all of us (owners) signed up for and now to have someone changing the zoning to an Office Park (RO) to allow AT&T to build a tower for some reason is not in the betterment of the community or the city. Cell tower locations should be in the plan from the start, in this case it looks like they were as the Klatt site is zoned AF Antenna Farm and is less than 1 Mile from South Port we need to maintain the existing zoning and not provide changes to companies to accommodate companies that increase their value at the cost of decreasing the value of the existing owners, there are too many existing owners in the area with co-located homes to allow the tower to be built. I am confident we/ they (AT&T) can find a more suitable locations, such as the ones mentioned above or the east side of the Klatt Bog on C Street. But not in my back yard, and not now. I trust you will work to find another location for the cell tower. Please call me at 907-868-5648 or 907- 248-2323 if you have questions. Thanks, George Seymour 2861 Discovery Bay Dr | |
| George Seymour | 11/12/2013 7:47:38 AM |
| As the President of the association this is just one of the many comments on the tower how do we answer this? Hi Jerry and Jillanne, Once again a microwave cell tower behind Fire Station 15 is the topic of discussion in Southport. I thought we had put this to rest a few months ago. So, once again I am writing in protest. I paid a lot of money to buy a house in an upscale neighborhood. Now you want to give it nothing less than an industrial look by placing a cell tower 100 yards from my front door. If you are familiar with the "broken window" theory prevalent in law enforcement curriculae, you understand when I say a cell tower is just the first step in diminishing the status of the neighborhood. Cell towers should be build ahead of building the subdivisions around them, so buyers of co-located homes know what they are buying into. I am confident you can find a more suitable location, such as the east side of the Klatt Bog on C Street. But not in my front yard, and not now. I trust you will work to find another location for the cell tower. Thanks, Kurt Robertson 11359 Discovery View Dr | |
| Laura Rykaczewski | 11/11/2013 10:58:08 AM |
| Jerry Weaver & Jillanne Inglis MOA Planning Department I am a property owner at 2817 Discovery Bay Dr and I am Against the cell tower ATT is proposing to build behind the Southport Fire Station. I work in the telecommunications industry and recognize the need for companies to expand their networks – yet it does not have to be done in the middle of residential area. ATT should not be allowed to build on land zoned as planned community property. I know everyone wants better, faster service – and the NIMBY ( Not in My Back Yard ) term is used a lot – in this situation it would be in my back yard. Placing a 65ft Cell Tower in this location WILL depress home prices. I am agreement with the Discovery Park Owners Association there are other locations ATT could build. Do not approve this cell tower build request. Laura Rykaczewski Email: lrykaczewski@gci.com Work: 907 868 5351 Mobile: 907 350 8907 | |
| Pete Nolan | 11/10/2013 4:32:38 PM |
| On Thursday, Nov 7th, I was in a room of about 100 people that were in attendance at the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council. ALL of them were opposed to placing a cell tower in this particular location. These numbers alone indicate that Case #2013-163 deserves a Public Hearing, not an administrative decision. Thank you. | |
| Karen Girvan | 11/8/2013 4:37:22 PM |
| My husband and I live in Discovery Park. We recently became aware of a proposition to be build a wireless tower in our neighborhood on municipal property. We are strongly opposed to this location and believe there are better options. We hope you will support the opposition of placing this tower in the middle of our neighborhood. | |
| Stephanie Hoyt | 11/7/2013 5:09:15 PM |
| My family and I reside in Discovery Park in Southport. We were just informed that a Cingular cell tower is proposed to be built in our neighborhood on municipal property. We are strongly opposed to locating a cell tower in the middle of our residential neighborhood. There are commercial locations nearby which are far more suited to this type of construction, such as Tower Road and the C Street/Klatt Road area. We hope that we can count on your support in the opposition of placing this tower in the middle of our neighborhood. Stephanie Hoyt and Lyle Ashworth 2866 Discovery Bay Dr (907) 337-9619 | |