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. | |
|---|---|
| Jesse James | 12/11/2017 4:25:31 PM |
| To whom it may concern, I oppose the Carol Creek Land Development proposal as it is currently written. I believe that the high density housing proposed will cause increases in crime and will have negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Please consider sticking to the current comp plan recommendations for this area. | |
| Margaret Yadlosky | 12/11/2017 1:31:49 PM |
| I live in the area behind the Fire Lake Elementary School, off of Fish Hatchery & Savage Drive, which is within the Area proposed for this change. I am opposed to the proposed change to Medium and High Density housing. The current road system can not handle any more traffic on Old Glenn in that area without major improvements being made first. There is no city water/sewer available and current residents in my area are not for city water/sewer services at this time. Current eagle river residents are already impacted from traffic accidents occurring on inbound when they divert onto Old Glenn. The steady stream of traffic comes thru the school zones and areas that do not have stoplights to allow you to merge onto the road safely. There are no (or very very limited) bus services available in this area. I value my community as I have lived here for over 50 years. I do not wish to see high or medium density put into this area. Thank you. | |
| Kimi Donnelly | 12/8/2017 1:03:14 PM |
| Dear Planning and Zoning, Please reconsider the Carol Creek Proposed project. I have read through through the proposal and attended Community Council meetings as has my neighbors. It is clear that there is unanimous opposition to developing this area into higher density than what the 2010 Land Use Plan had established. We trust that the agents of the government are representing the citizens. That would seem to be in question in this case. Please think about a responsible plan forward rather than a pushed agenda. | |
| Gary & Mary Lemings | 12/8/2017 12:25:37 PM |
| Our property is 13720 Malaspina St., Eagle River. As stated in our correspondence and during public meetings regarding the land use project next to us, we are still in opposition to high density housing. This project went from low to medium density, then a few months ago reported in the Star newspaper that this project was not going to happen. Now you have changed the original plan to high density housing. As our property is on the corner of Malaspina and Mendenhall where the new road is planned, the increase of traffic would negatively impact a formerly quiet neighborhood. We strongly oppose the way this was handled. This project should not go forward as you have now changed it from the original plan to higher density. I remember the pictures presented at the elementary school showing a beautiful landscaped single housing area. Where is that? This project has taken on many forms but this last change will not be good for the existing neighborhood. Do not allow high density housing there. | |
| Patrick Donnelly | 12/8/2017 11:19:27 AM |
| Hello, As a citizen and resident I am very disappointed that I need to submit this comment. The premise is supposed to be that agents of the government are to act in the best interest of the community. Now here we, the residents of Fire Lake and Brandywine are at odds with the muni. This should not be happening. Maximizing tax revenue to the detriment of a community also should not be happening. No one in these neighborhoods has any problem with the AWWU water reservoir. But everyone here has a problem with the muni jamming high density housing in where it doesn’t belong. Especially when the actual need for high density housing is partly fictional. If the Muni would honor the 2010 Land Use Plan which was a reasonable compromise that we all worked so hard on, everyone would not be up in arms. Put in the reservoir and stick with the 125 units in Carol Creek and everyone will settle. Carol Creek is undeveloped today for good reason. Some of it is steep and some of it is wetlands. This isn’t the place for riser apartments. Although it isn’t fair to say that everyone living in affordable housing is a problem it is un arguable that problems and crime go up with density like this. One only has to look at any dense development in Eagle River to see this for oneself. This kind of development is very much NOT in the character of the existing neighborhoods. Additionally, No one should have to point out to the muni that an affordable housing demographic isn’t readily or easily going to have the money to commute. Even though some want to say that Anchorage is out of room and needs more affordable housing those numbers are somewhat massaged. Anchorage is not “out of room” and this “need” isn’t concrete. A lot more thought needs to go into “Redeveloping” areas of Anchorage where the jobs are. The bottom line here it that it is irresponsible for the muni to permanently destroy the character of a community merely for maximizing tax revenues. The character of these neighborhoods is precisely why the residents are here. The muni’s main responsibility is to the community not to it revenues. | |
| Ryan Deines | 12/7/2017 7:45:09 PM |
| I'm opposed to the Comp Plan Amendment to 2010 Chugiak-Eagle River Site-Specific Land Use Plan for "Carol Creek Property". I have lived in Anchorage areas where such high density housing was allowed and it brings too many people in a confined area where police and fire are always being called too. There is no adequate transportation for these people to daily travel to Anchorage for work. This housing would destroy the appeal to live out here. No way to the change! | |
| Kerri Deines | 12/7/2017 7:33:48 PM |
| As a resident of Chugiak/Eagle River for the last 32 years I am strongly opposed to the proposed update to the Chugiak Eagle River Site Specific Land Use Plan that would allow an increase in the high density housing for certain areas. I live in Eagle River because it allows for a more rural setting unlike Anchorage. I have seen what this type of high density housing does to an area and it should not be permitted in Eagle River. Our schools, fire department and public transportation are limited in this area. We can not handle this increase of people in such a small area. I would encourage the Planning and Zoning Committee to deny this request as the people in this area are clearly opposed to these changes and our community cannot support this high density housing complex in this area. | |
| Michael Quimby | 12/6/2017 10:17:10 PM |
| To Whom It May Concern: I am a nearby homeowner (Brandywine Subdivision on Beaujolais Drive) to the current land use area. I grew up next to Fire Lake Elementary School and attended school there. I am concerned with the density of the housing proposed for the HLB parcels in the 2016 plan however; and do not support it for several reasons, including the following: 1. The increased density of housing will change the makeup of the neighborhoods in a detrimental manner. The makeup of Eagle River is changing from having a varied mix of housing, including a sizeable base of middle income housing, to increased housing in only upper income neighborhoods or slightly lower income neighborhoods. While house shopping in 2012-2013, my wife and I spent extensive time looking over the housing available in the Eagle River area. There were older houses with medium sized lots (roughly 4-7 dwelling units per acre); however, in the newer housing built in the last 10-20 years we could only find houses or condos with either very small lots, or newer large lots and expensive houses. It appeared that no one has built any new single family houses in the middle range (7-10 dwelling units per acre) that the current 2010 Chugiak Eagle River Site-Specific Land Use Plan calls for in the Carol Creek development. This is change in housing makeup is not supported by any of the nearby residents, as clearly evident from all of the public meetings held regarding it. It will change the community in a negative way. 2. There is not sufficient infastructure or planning for the proposed increase in housing density. A significant concern that has been raised, and with which I agree, is that there has not been an attempt to review the infastructure impacts of the added housing and that the infrastructure is insufficient. The Anchorage Housing Market Analysis (March 2012) stated that "Chugiak-Eagle River has enough land to meet its own projected demand for all housing types. The surplus land capacity in Chugiak-Eagle River could accommodate some of the Bowl’s single family detached housing demand; however, it is not the ideal location to address the Bowl’s need for dense urban multifamily development and cannot accommodate all of the projected demand." The Carol Creek area is not the proper location to add higher density housing. Regarding the specific infrastructure for the development: a.Schooling - It was stated by an Agnew/Beck representative that a new elementary school site is located across the highway, which will address the needs. This, however, does not mean that there is funding available for this new school to be built, especially in the State of Alaska's current economic situation. b.Fire Department - There will be an increase in demand for the volunteer fire department. c.Traffic - There will probably need to be a street light added and the increased traffic may cause problems. d.Transportation - There is no nearby access to public transportation, with the nearest bus stop being 1 1/2 miles away with limited service to Anchorage. e.Services - The nearest restaurant is a mile away, with the majority of the Eagle River businesses and services are 1 1/2 to 2 miles away at best. f.Accessibility - I run on the surrounding sidewalks and bike paths regularly year-round and during the winter the sidewalks are not regularly plowed and are very difficult to navigate. The housing market analysis which was done specifically state that Eagle River is not the proper location for increased lower income housing for the Anchorage Bowl, it should continue to cover all housing types. The housing density should not increase. 3. I do not feel that medium to high density housing immediately adjacent to the Elementary School is particularly safe or desirable. I attended the March 2016 workshop at Fire Lake Elementary (as well as other meetings) and expressed my concerns. The representative explained which types of housing which would constitute residential medium density housing. Their comparisons included several locations in Anchorage (Strawberry Village, etc.) where I personally know people who have lived there. The people who lived there expressed concerns with the safety of those neighborhoods over time. I feel that initially there may not be concerns, but overtime they will likely become outdated and less well kept, attract lower income residents, and will results in lowered safety for the nearby school. Police reports for Eagle River (Raids Online, to which I subscribe and review daily) recently shows more frequent crime in denser Eagle River neighborhoods. I do support the addition of the water storage reservoir, as currently proposed. Please do not approve the HLB Carol Creek Plan or revise the 2010 Plan's housing density for the area. Sincerely, Michael Quimby | |
| William Groom | 12/4/2017 10:19:41 AM |
| Sirs Concerning the Carol Creek Development I am worried about four aspects about this development. 1. Proposed extention of Juanita road. This road shows being extended right behind my house on a hillside that is around a 45% grade. The original development plan changed this to a trail which might be possible with the permission of the Brandywine owners but a road would have to cut into the hill or extend into our property. I suggest that this portion of the plan be scrapped. 2. The deletion of park space for more housing. The original plan included parking and extended park area as part of the proposal. This would ensure parking space for visitors to this green belt and provide parking so visitor would not park along Brandywine streets. The new proposal will make it so visitors will have to cut through residential yards to access the trail system cutting off access from that side of project. 3. Design criteria. The developer plan shows houses that look nice but how are we in Eagle River to ensure that they build houses that are the same and not like the houses across the road that are not appeasing to the neighborhood and poorly built. 4. Lastly what kind of lighting is the developer suggesting to minimize light pollution from the project. I hope the developer can address these concerns. | |
| Lucas Smith | 12/4/2017 2:50:17 AM |
| I am opposed to the development plan presented in Planning & Zoning Case # 2017-0118. | |
| Darlene Dunn | 12/3/2017 4:56:44 PM |
| The proposed changes of density from the original 2010 plan are twice what the original plan called for. The "updated" plan references the future needs of Anchorage homes to validate the increased density request. I do not believe this development in Eagle River needs to carry that entire load. Currently there are 54 units of housing being built on the west side of the Old Glenn Highway about a half mile north of this proposed subdivision. Honestly, it appears that all the work that was done, meetings attended, conversations engaged in for the 2010 plan seems to have been totally disregarded as back door entry was made to update the plan under the guise of the much needed water tank. I understand the need for housing, but believe the city Anchorage should be part of that solution. I would request that the original 2010 plan be followed as closely as possible, reducing the proposed density of up to 378 to the 125 units in the original plan. These kinds of situations are what keeps Anchorage citizens from getting involved. Repeatedly, it feels like shoveling sand against the tide. Thank you for attention. | |
| Joann L Hoover | 11/20/2017 8:12:06 AM |
| I have been a resident of the Eagle River/Chugiak community since 1986. The area was enticing due to being more spacious than the Anchorage City limits. I do not feel the current plan for Carol Creek supports the established atmosphere of the community. We already have experienced the density housing style and the crime increases it brought. I totally do not support the development of Carol Creek to be dense housing, in my opinion 2-3 units per acre should be the limit. | |
| George Humm | 11/17/2017 11:56:19 AM |
| We have lived in Eagle River for over 20 years and have watched it grow to a congested mess over the years, overpopulated with auto parts stores and small businesses that offer few real employment opportunities other than minimum wage. The development of the Carol Creek property will drastically increase the population density in the immediate area resulting in increasing congestion on the already congested Old Glen Highway and will require residents to commute to Anchorage or the valley for employment. The public transportation system is in the midst of re-evaluating the service to the area with likely cutbacks. The original plan called for much lower density and dwelling units and would have been marginally ok. The revised plan calls for 378 dwelling units packed together with 15-30 units per acre. This is not smart city planning, a subject that I studied as an architecture student at Notre Dame. This level of density is out of character with the surrounding community and will do nothing to enhance lifestyles or property values. Our city planners and council members need to take a hard look and reject the proposed revisions. | |