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. | |
|---|---|
| Carol Butler | 4/3/2015 11:53:28 AM |
| Dear elected MOA officials and members of the P&Z Commission: As the owner of 1200 I Street, #316 Anchorage, AK 99501 and the Copper Whale Inn on 5th and L and a licensed real estate salesperson/broker in AK since 1977, I fully support and encourage responsible development. However, this rezoning application as presented does not comply with either the 2114 Title 21 or the previous Title 21 specifically based on the amount of land required to support 36 units. Using a conceptional 2020 plan for development and inter-mixing it with rezoning regulations to achieve an overdeveloped parcel of land was not the intent nor desired outcome of the 2020 plan or the rezone. To allow such a manipulation would be a serious disservice to the citizens of Anchorage. It is this Commission's fiduciary responsibility to protect our city from irresponsible development. The need for affordable housing is extreme in Anchorage but unit rentals at $900-$1150/month do not qualify as "affordable" to a demographic with an annual income of $35,000 which is the average income for this area. As a concerned citizen I expect no less than a fair and equitable process that meets the requirements established by the MOA. Specifically where is input from the Fire and Police Departments? Your careful attention to this rezoning application is expected. Thank you for your volunteer service to our community. Carol Butler State of AK licensed real estate Broker and previously with Re/Max Properties, Inc. for 25 years | |
| Karl Bernt | 4/2/2015 11:31:16 AM |
| Weidner must be pretty assured their zone request for a 35+foot tall building in a 2 story neighborhood WILL BE APPROVED! CLEARLY long term opposition from neighbors trying to maintain a decent quality of living for the area. Is Anchorage Planning WILLING to protect the neighborhood? or suppirt corporate America Weidner? The last 20+ years as shown a massuve build of REALLY UGLY residential areas with limited lawns. Look in Scandunavia Europe for high quality urban housing. skip the granite and laminate floors. Go back to wood... 100+year life. Linoleum 50+ year life. I grew up in the area. I am VERY appalled at the CURRENT density which has allowed for 'sample' sized lawns, major shadowing and inadequate green space. Don't add to the density. don't add to the troubles of this area. DO MAKE Weidner use the lot for THEIR CURRENT City View tenants. not a paved lot... rather FOR a RAIN GARDEN parking lot. LOADS of tax deductions for Weidner. Part of the lot should ALSO PROVIDE City View tenants with a community house and barbeque place. REQUIRE relief for the area parking probs from Weidner. Only 25% of Anchorage residents have college degrees. Affordable rent for non degree jobs means $600 for studio to $1000 for 2BR 900 sq ft. | |
| Alex Worthen | 3/27/2015 5:27:12 PM |
| I've been the owner of 4 plex that's a stone's throw away from the area of the proposed rezone for close to a decade, and have seen the neighborhood mostly change for the better. I'm all for further development in our area, but I don't feel like this proposed rezone is in line with the existing properties, and it opens up a lot of doors for detrimental development of much higher density housing than seems appropriate for this neighborhood. Severe lack of parking and crime have already been issues coming from the existing Weidner building, and nothing material appears to have been done to mitigate or resolve them. This doesn't give me much faith that an even larger and denser development on such a small lot will have a positive outcome for our neighborhood, nor will it likely provide additional affordable housing (based on proposed rental rates). Regards, -Alex | |
| Kris Simon | 3/24/2015 7:51:35 AM |
| I strongly object to this rezone request. We are adjacent to this proposed rezone. A building of this scale right next door will block out all of the available winter sunlight. The building itself will be compromised due to being in shadow. Besides, there is already a serious parking issue intensified since the advent of Weidner's City View building which is directly across the street. As it is the alley behind 14th is often used illegally for parking. When we invested here it was with awareness that the lot next door would likely be developed. We were assured that there the zoning regulations in place that set height/ size restrictions. | |
| Mara Carnahan | 3/24/2015 7:38:27 AM |
| I am opposed to the proposed re-zone of this parcel. Like many of my neighbors, I submitted comments on the previous proposed re-zone of this parcel. Please ensure all comments from the petitioner's previous re-zone application are given to P&Z members with adequate time to read them. I am opposed to any increase in the maximum developable height. The restrictions that adjacent properties had to abide by should be held true for this parcel. Any change will rob precious daylight from neighboring buildings. I am also very concerned that there will be negative impacts on the neighborhood unless the municipality ensures that there will be adequate parking, green space, snow storage and safe pedestrian access. This neighborhood already suffers from inadequate parking on adjacent parcels. Anchorage needs quality high density housing. but it must be carefully planned to ensure that residents and neighbors are not negatively impacted. Citizens rely on the Municipality to hold fast and protect our neighborhoods. Please deny this re-zone request. | |
| Charles Thompson | 3/23/2015 3:13:42 PM |
| This plan had been revised but has not addressed the concerns from the last submission. I've made a previous comment that should also be taken into consideration for this project. My feeling in general is that if this redistricting is approved it will be against the approval of the surrounding community. | |
| Daniel Cheyette | 3/23/2015 12:01:18 PM |
| The notice and the information on-line contains no information about the re-zone request. The notice states the rezone request is to RO-SL and that "SL" means "special limitations". Nowhere does the printed notice or the online database explain what "special limitations" are to be included. It is also not explained what the anticipated use of the property would be. If one hits the "details" button on the website, you are redirected to a page stating there is no pending case. What is the owner planning to do at the site? Create an office building? The public needs this information to be able to form an opinion on this request. Our office is located near-by the proposed rezone site. We are concerned about pedestrian traffic through our parking lot. We may or may not be opposed to the rezone request. More information is needed. | |
| Michelle Coombs | 3/23/2015 11:09:07 AM |
| I am opposed to this rezone. If allowed, it will create unreasonable traffic and parking burdens on the surrounding area, which already has a parking shortage. The land should be developed, but in character with the surrounding area. New construction height should not exceed 35 feet. | |
| Wendy Weber | 3/23/2015 8:10:08 AM |
| One of the joys of South Addition is the views and the sun exposure. I believe it is stealing these things from current property owners to change the zoning to allow a tall building to block both view and sun. Lack of parking onsite for new development is irresponsible. If you move the parking out onto the streets throughout the neighborhood you face increased traffic issues and difficulties with snow removal. | |
| Dave Syren | 3/23/2015 6:51:08 AM |
| I oppose this rezone. The neighborhood is opposed to a structure of a height that is not compatible with the surrounding development. It is requested the height of new development on the parcel affected by this rezone not exceed 35 feet. Furthermore, consideration of shadowing from any new construction along "C" Street needs to be evaluated carefully since it is a downhill slope for vehicles passing by shortly before a signal light. This shadowing in spring and fall can create dangerous icy sections on a busy street. Adequate parking and snow storage planning also needs to be considered carefully, especially since a nearby facility is already compromised in this way, thus creating unwanted congestion. | |
| GV Ganz | 3/22/2015 10:10:02 PM |
| John Thurber | 3/22/2015 3:14:33 PM |
| I object to the rezone from R3 to RO-SL. The Weidner City View Property does not have adequate parking spaces and the neighborhood suffers from the congestion of vehicles from the residents of the Wiener City View Complex. You just have to walk around the neighborhood and see that there is inadequate parking for the current apartment residents. The rezone will allow additional congestion of vehicles without providing adequate parking. Parking is a critical component of a beneficial neighborhood development. The Weidner proposal fails to provide adequate parking and will adversely impact the neighborhood. | |
| Shawn PROUDFOOT | 3/22/2015 1:51:03 PM |
| I oppose this plqn | |
| Lucy W Groh | 3/22/2015 10:15:54 AM |
| As a very long resident of Anchorage, I am concerned that we are neglecting the safety of ALL Anchorage residents by granting this unnecessary rezone application. Thank you all for your community service for the people of Alaska. Lucy Groh | |
| Michael Teo | 3/20/2015 9:38:24 PM |
| I am opposed to this rezone. If allows to proceed it will create unreasonable traffic and parking burdens on the surrounding area. The area already has a shortage of parking. The land should be developed, but in character with the surrounding area. The developer can create a reasonable structure adding to the available housing while keeping the current zoning. | |
| Claire Donahue | 3/20/2015 7:01:00 PM |
| I oppose this rezoning. It is unfair to people who live and have invested in the area. Changing the zoning in a way that negatively impacts the current residents should not be allowed unless they unanimously agree. | |
| Diana Bauman | 3/20/2015 1:57:11 PM |
| I am an adjoining property owner and oppose this rezone application from R3 to R0-SL. The current R3 zoning allows for Weidner to build up to 17 units or a 2 story building with that many apartments. Notwithstanding the 2020 Comprehensive plan, which was developed in 2006, (over 8 years ago), the introduction of a 4 story or higher building on less than 0.48 acres is unhealthy for this community (SACC) which is primary comprised of 2 story buildings at or less than 35 feet in height. At the time the 2020 plan was developed there were several lots vacant. In the past 8 years those lots have been built on in compliance with the R3 zoning. This has added affordable housing and allowed the neighborhood to thrive and grow. The most recent example of a responsibly developed lot is 227 E 13th Ave. This owner built 12 - 2 story units with 17 parking spaces. They provide for more than enough living space, are aesthetically pleasing, have actual green space for children without having to use a loophole of adding balconies to offset for the green space and fit into the symmetry of the neighborhood in a non intrusive way. Allowing this rezone to anything other than R3 will greatly impact the surrounding property owners. While adding 37 or more apartments for rent, they will be at market rate as we were told and that is anywhere from $1,100.00 to $1,800.00 per unit for 348 to 955sf. This may fit into the 2020 plan of adding more rentals or housing units to the overall Anchorage Bowl area….it does not make the housing affordable. It makes for a great profit being deposited in a corporate bank account held outside the state of Alaska. Allowing this rezone to anything other than R3 will change the dynamics of our neighborhood. It will have 2 buildings dominate the sky line and remove mature trees from the area. Weidner has represented that the lot is ungraded and cleared of vegetation. This is a false representation. One half of the lot is graded and paved with crushed gravel. This was done when Weidner attempted to build a parking lot on the plot and was stopped by the Muni due to unauthorized land use and lack of required permitting. The other half of the lot has mature trees as tall at 30 feet on it. The overgrowth is native grass and flowers, with the exception of some construction debris dozed over and left partially exposed from the City View Remodel. It was represented by Weidner at the SACC meeting that no traffic study was required due to meeting a national standard derived from publications, not an actual today environment review, but a decision based on historical data years past. I live on the intersection of B St and W 14th Ave and I can tell you that traffic has increased 200% since City View re-opened. Traffic uses Bridge St to circumvent the turn lane at the intersection of C St and w 15th Ave Southbound and backup several cars deep to turn south on C St. Traffic diverts from w 15th Ave to Cordova and then W 13th Ave, crosses over A St and enters C St via W 13th St, the undeveloped Alley next to my property and W 14th St. During Aces Games the traffic is so backed up that vehicles are using the entire two blocks waiting to enter C St. Introduction to the local roadways of estimates from 75 to 150 vehicles will overrun our 3 block area and create a serious safety hazard to children and those that walk along the local roads. Every year we have the Muni grade the undeveloped Alley because of the current traffic usage. It is poorly drained and during breakup and is flooded which creates several deep and large potholes. R3 is the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood. R0-SL as proposed will allow a development which is not in the best interest, welfare, and safety and health concerns for those that currently reside in the charming little area we call home or the Muni at large. Property resale values will drop because the sky views will be severely restricted, the area will be become overpopulated and the infrastructure will require constant upgrade to handle the volume of traffic. Additionally it will develop the only remaining vacant lot for the benefit of an outside corporation. It will defeat any future plans to develop a City Center common area. We will start becoming a Seattle or Portland, where when you look around all you see are buildings and cars parked everywhere because zoning allowed for the area to be over built without looking to the future ramifications such decisions today have on our future. | |
| Arlene Raney | 3/20/2015 1:48:10 PM |
| My name is Arlene Raney. I own a Duplex directly across the unimproved alley from this proposed rezone lot (R3 to R0). I do not support the rezone application from R3 to R0-SL/R4.I built my 4 Plex under R3 a few years ago. To allow this company a rezone in order to build a 3,4,5 or higher story building that will dominate my property is a disservice to myself and the neighborhood as a whole. As it is traffic has increased 10 fold with cars parking all over the area that overflow from City View. They want to add more traffic to this area? They have not provided for the building they currently have and now they want to place a further burden on the area and the city by introducing more cars with nowhere to park. If this building is built as designed it will block at least one half of my parking and my building. The alley will become a ice rink for the entire winter and my investment in my property will suffer negatively. I worked long and hard to develop my building with spacious units. Allowing this rezone in order to build a hugh dominate building will impact our investments, our health with the introduction of several idling cars in the winter in such a small space and allow just one property owner to take over this 2 block area. I do not want to see a building that blocks out my views or causes my building to be shadowed for several months. I built a nice building under R3. R3 is the responsible zoning for the long term health and value of this specific neighborhood. Nothing in this new application has changed from the old one #2014-0196, except they removed the City View I property and my opposition remains to this rezone request. | |
| Ayse Gilbert | 3/20/2015 12:29:50 PM |
| I do NOT support this Weidner request for rezoning, not did i support the previous one. What is being proposed in no way enhances this area, or helps the community at large. | |
| Maryann Alfano | 3/20/2015 11:49:44 AM |
| It was my understanding that the comments made prior regarding the rezone proposal by Weidner would be included with commentary here. Since I only see one comment included, I am assuming that this isnt the case.So I will reiterate our position. This rezone application is an extremely serious issue. If it succeeds it will impact the neighborhood negatively on many levels. As I wrote in a previous comment (0196) submitted, it has dire implications for our property (217 W 14th) which is adjacent to the proposed site. As it stands now it is very difficult to deal with snow removal, trash and parking issues. Parking is so tight that I regularly get calls from tenants who have their assigned parking areas taken. Or they are blocked in with non tenants parking behind them. This is an extremely overused alley and the parking on 14th Street is scarce at best, as the result of the Weidner City View Renovation. Add another large building of 35 + units with more inadequate parking and it will only intensify the situation. Besides this, is the fact is that a building of such size will completely block out my tenants' access to any western sun. Our building is of 4 unit townhouse style side by side with no exposure to southern light. This proposed building will tower over ours blocking out all light from our adjacent side which is the entire length of the 4 plex. The back of our building is where the windows are. There is no way to get around that fact. Sunlight is a premium during Alaskan winters however even in the summer our building will get no west light. This lack of light will ultimately compromise our building's roof. Plus lower desirability of the building as a rental. It is frankly surprising that this rezone could even be entertained. 17 to 24 would have considerable impact. 35 + is a whole other situation. When you start allowing this type of overcrowding you start to alter the neighborhood's demographic. People become more vested in their neighborhood the longer they live in it. Those renting tiny apartments that barely have parking access tend to not stay as long. My question remains why did Weidner invest in this property in the first place? Considering that is a very large outside company with the requisite law team to peruse local zoning requirements. Unfortunately my husband and I thought we were protected by the zoning that was in place. | |
| Jerome McArthur | 3/19/2015 5:10:48 PM |
| We own the property East and North (B st.) of the proposed rezone. We are opposed to the rezoning of this property from R3 to R4-SL (R4 stipulations). The property is currently zoned R3 which allows for up to 24 units if designed properly. The 4 plots were rezoned in the past 12 months to R3 so that Weidner could join the 4 separate plots into one under R3. This was done and not opposed because Weidner representatives made assurances that any development of the co-joined 4 plots would not overly impact the surrounding property owners or the neighborhood any further than the current City View Apartments already do. Assurances they have now step back from at 2 Community Counsel meetings by saying it was the Municipality that made the statement, not them. Weidner discovered that the lot even after combining the 4 plots under R3 it is was too small to accommodate their planned construction. The land is 0.48 acres (21000 sf) combined; well below the require 1.75 acres required to construct the development as they desire. Weidner has four times now attended community council meetings (SACC) seeking support to rezone this property. Except for the initial request to join the 4 plots under R3, the SACC has voted to “oppose” further rezoning from R3 to R0-SL/R4. This is because after making assurances in May 2014 that any development would be minimal impact, that have presented plans to develop 1st a 50 unit apartment building (60 ft high) and then 2nd, a 37 unit apartment building (50 feet high) and most recently in February 2015 a 45 foot building which in reality will be closer to 50-52 feet depending on the Roof Cap design which is not calculated into the height as it is permitted for by other Title 21 variances in a neighborhood that is zoned R3 with height restrictions of 35 feet. If approved to rezone from R3 to R0-SL/R4, Weidner will have unabated rights to develop and construct a building as high as they wish with the only restriction being that of the special height limitation, which just happens to already be stipulated in the R4 height restriction. While I and the surrounding property owners agree that Anchorage has a need for affordable housing and new residential construction, we do not need a 4 story building that looms 2 stories’ over the surrounding property’s in a R3 zoned neighborhood. The infrastructure is already stressed with the current 90 unit complex via inadequate parking for the 90 unit complex; the roads (B st & W14th) are already heavily traveled primarily by transit traffic off W 15th, A st and C st cutting trough to avoid the C st and W 15th traffic light. The affordability of such housing construction is questionable at best. When asked the rental rates for such a new construction, the SACC was told “Market Rates”, that is $955.00 to 1,065.00 for a 355sf studio of which 24 have been proposed. The 2 Bd @ 855sf would lease for $1,376.00-$1,541.00. These are current “Market Rates” of the City View Apartments, a 41 year old building although recently remodeled. A new construction would be at least these rates or higher. This does not make housing affordable, this makes profit to a corporation owned and operated from Washington State. Weidner has come to 4 Community Council meetings in the past year and each time they have asked for more of the community in order to increase their profits. They have played a shell game with the Rezoning requests, stating one thing and then doing another. Most recently they withdrew rezone application 2014-0196 and submitted this new one because they realized that the stipulations would prevent a replacement of the building or addition to in the future. They are taking small bites of the Apple, nibbling their way to the core. The undeveloped plot zoned R3 is appropriate for the size and location of the property as well as merging into an already developed and established neighborhood. 17 to 24 units would have a impact to the area, but 37 on top of the already 90 units would be a takeover of the area and a serious blow the welfare of the existing property owners and renters of those property’s. I urge the zoning board to look beyond a written document and look into the impact such a rezone approval will have on the 10 plus property owners and well as the 68 people already outnumbered by one building with 180 residents. Do not approve a zoning request that allows unrestricted development such as the R0-SL/R4 approval will do. Our area cannot absorb another 180 residents living in a less than half an acre area. By allowing this rezone to extend the R0 boundary from the South to North, you the board will be allowing a takeover of the two block area with a building that will dominate the area, it will be 2 story’s taller than the surrounding buildings, which include R3, PL, R0 and if you want to put in the R4 property’s more than 300 feet away, this planned development will tower over all these buildings as well. Weidner representatives have stated that they can develop the property as currently zoned (R3), they however won’t see a return on the investment as lucrative as they would under R0-SL/R4. The 35% development plans clearly show a ground foot print that will take up every inch of ground-green space in order to cram in 36 units on an undersized lot. Not withstanding the desire to add more residential properties, taking the last available plot of land in this neighborhood and over building on it will not enhance the immediate area, nor will it provide affordable housing in a area where the average income is $35,000.00 and a tenant will have to use 1/3 of their gross income to rent it. When we as a city start to allow via exceptions a builder to rezone land in order to maximize a profit at the expense of our quality of life, we will begin the journey of becoming like every other city in the Lower 48 that just looks to tax revenue. Our 2020 Plan has many examples of the desired development and citizen values for their communities, this planned development is not one of them if it restricts our view, our air quality and our sunlight. I urge you to reject this rezone application and should you not? I strongly urge you to restrict the height of the proposed building to 35 feet. This would still allow them to use every inch of property, but it would also a-line the building with the surrounding area as opposed to being the dominate feature. | |