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. | |
|---|---|
| Larry Cleland | 10/13/2014 2:18:48 PM |
| I live one block from the proposed site of the cell phone extension on the pole in the alley between 12th & 13th Streets. I am totally against granting allowance it. It can most certainly be put a few blocks North on a commercial building or somewhere else. This location is a quant residential neighborhood and this church should not have the right to make such a deal with GCI for this project if the residents do not want it there. It will be an eyesore and also potential harmful to people living under it, including children at Chugach Optional school across the street. Please just say no and ask them to go somewhere the code allows for this. This is not acceptable. Thank you, | |
| Jenna Schnuer | 10/13/2014 11:36:16 AM |
| I live catty-corner across the alley from the site of the proposed cell tower. The additional height on the tower would create even more visual pollution for our beautiful little neighborhood. And, a bigger concern: can the telephone poll support that much additional height and weight? If that thing comes down, it could be on my head or on one of my neighbors (or our houses or cars). This is a wonderfully walkable neighborhood and there are always kids and families wandering around to the school and playground across the street. That people are out and about in South Addition is one of the great joys of living here. Would you want this intrusion on your corner? There's no better solution? I'm having a lot of trouble believing that. In a neighborhood where we all, happily, drive 20 mph during school hours to keep kids safe at the school right across the street, how is it ok to add what so many in the neighborhood see as a possibly unstable addition? | |
| Terri Huebler | 10/13/2014 9:14:54 AM |
| A cell phone tower of such stature should be located in a commercial area, not in a residential neighborhood across from a school. Surely GCI could investigate and locate an alternative location. Placing such a tower in this historic area will cause a decline in property values, and could pose as an unknown health risk. If the church is getting compensated for the tower location, shame on them for not consulting their neighbors. If GCI is able to elbow its way through the opposition, GCI should be required to aesthetically hide the tower in a native totem pole or some sort of sculpture so that it is not indeed the eyesore it will inevitably be. | |
| Susan Derrera | 10/4/2014 10:27:11 AM |
| I am concerned about the precedent a proposed change in municipal code would set in allowing for a GCI cell tower to be raised so close to private homes. GCI is a very wealthy corporation with an extensive bottom line. By not changing the code, the city will be encouraging them to invest in research and technology that will benefit the community without impacting property values and the aesthetic beauty of neighborhoods. Financial benefit to one property owner through a monthly lease agreement shouldn't trump the negative impact such an agreement would have on the property values of neighbors. While Robert Frost's aphorism that "good fences make good neighbors" may be true, cell towers most certainly do not. Susan Derrera | |
| Test Test | 10/3/2014 2:50:41 PM |
| Test | |
| Heather Knowlan | 10/1/2014 3:30:56 AM |
| Change number two of the description of the permit. And a one week postponement. This is sad. The information presented at the SACC meeting and that in the permit application were grossly negligent. Who keeps the Proponents honest? Why are they not held to a standard of at least providing specific measurements and renderings. I was able to shoot many holes in their application within a few minutes. We as a community are told to be involved and comment. When I provided all the discrepancies in the permit application the Proponent is able to change their descriptions without starting the process over. As a tax payer and a resident I have felt disenfranchised during this whole process. Lease agreements were signed in April and the first notice received on a poster was July 2nd. Now the church can't back out. This process needs a major overhaul. | |
| Barbara Taylor | 9/29/2014 11:40:21 PM |
| Placing a cell tower in a residential area such as this would not only be a significant eye-sore, but a potential health risk. There must be other options. | |
| Teresa Arnold | 9/29/2014 2:13:36 PM |
| I, as well as a number of my neighbors live in the "fall-zone" of this proposed antenna/tower. My house needed to be remodeled, so permits were required. I asked what the purpose was for so many permits. The gentleman at the counter said, "it's for your protection." Municipal codes are for our protection. This antenna will exceed the 65 foot limit in this R2-M zoned neighborhood by 13.4 feet. (The utility pole, currently, is 68.4 feet, per ML&P). The pole will also not meet the fall-zone requirement for a tower of this type. 200% the height of the pole away from structures (residences, homes) is a code requirement. That means at least 150 feet away from our houses. It would be DIRECTLY out the back, front, side doors of our homes. South Addition is an historic neighborhood. This is well documented. This antenna would be VERY conspicuous. In the proposed location, it can neither be concealed, nor camoglaged. It would be an absolute blight. I've seen the drawing of the proposed antenna. It's not pretty; not inconspicuous. It will not hide. It will not blend. Some of these DAS antennae blend quite well. I've seen photos. That's current technology. Perhaps an alternate site analysis can be conducted. I am not anti-technology. I am pro-neighborhood. E street is a gateway into and out of downtown. I've spoken with tourists exploring the area...guests of hotels or the B&B just up 13th from the proposed site. I think we should respect all of our neighborhoods and I ask that you consider municipal code, the historic significance of this neighborhood, the aesthetics, the viewshed, and the safety of the residents in close proximity. Thank you. | |
| Mark Woelber | 9/29/2014 12:15:30 PM |
| Before the hearing scheduled for August 11, I submitted my objections to this co-called “community interest” tower. I reiterate those objections now. My home is on the same block, about 150 feet away, from the proposed tower. I concur with the comments of my neighbors that the tower as planned is unsightly, that it’s harmful to property values, that it does not fulfill a pressing need (except maybe GCI’s promotional needs), and that it compounds the problem of the existing pole (which already violates a policy goal to underground public utility lines). Allowing GCI to exploit a pole that’s already a problem moves our neighborhood and our town in the wrong direction. If GCI actually needs a new antenna on the west side (based on facts, not marketing), I’m sure they can find an appropriate location, and use an unobtrusive design (not just the cheapest one). | |
| Cindy Bowman | 9/25/2014 4:58:55 PM |
| Comments regarding Case 2014-0119 1. Is the church receiving compensation for allowing GCI to build the tower and operate the cell site? If yes, how much money upfront and how much ongoing for rent? 2. GCI and ACS last year announced they were combining their wireless assets (towers, antenna’s, cell sites and switches) and forming an operating company called Alaska Wireless Network (AWN). This merger has been completed. Their stated purpose for the merger was so they could compete with AT&T and Verizon in the capital intensive wireless business. Why not use the facilities that ACS owns across the E street from the church for the tower and cell site? The radio frequency propagation from their would be very similar to that of the church and could be engineered to match it. The address is 1301 E st. also known as North Wire Center. 3. Were other locations considered for the tower? If yes how many and which sites were they? Why was this site selected over the others? 4. Can GCI locate their antenna's and cell site at a nearby existing tower of AT&T’s or Verizon’s. The FCC mandates that tower owners provide access to others at fair and reasonable prices. 5. It appears that the communication companies are targeting non-profit/low income enterprises in order to take advantage of their need for additional income without regard for residential concerns to save their shareholders money. 6. This is about money not providing service. Mike and Cindy Bowman | |
| Mary Fisher | 9/23/2014 2:03:54 PM |
| Locating this tower in one of Anchorage's historic neighborhoods devalues the area. Please don't approve and ask GCI to find a more appropriate location. | |
| Tamara Johannes | 9/23/2014 1:06:13 PM |
| Dear Mr. Odell ~ I have been a resident of South Addition for nearly 20 years & I am vehemently opposed to the proposed cell phone tower on E Street & 13th Avenue. It is an inappropriate intrusion to a quiet, residential neighborhood. The current height limitation on such structures are on record to protect residents from such potential hazards. Another major concern is the close proximity to Chugach Optional Elementary which is directly across the street from this proposed tower. There are numerous studies that have been done showing the impact on children’s developing brains related to concentration, learning, attention to task etc. I attended the South Addition Community Council meeting on September 18th & was not impressed with the representative from GCI who insinuated to the group that the tower was a done deal. He was rude to participants who asked questions. The church ceo who was present said they had a signed contract. This all was very upsetting to me as the church has already presented itself as a poor neighbor related to much of the activity that goes on on that property. I was NOT aware that a vote would be taken at the meeting by those present on the tower variance. I, and 3 others of my neighbors, left the meeting right after the question period. It might have been nice if we had been informed that a vote was to be taken as I would have stayed longer. It’s also recently come to my attention that since the meeting on the 18th of September that GCI has now revised their proposal? Is that correct? If so, I ask GCI to again appear before SACC to answer questions. The October 6th meeting before the Planning & Zoning Commission needs to be pushed back so the residents of South Addition have time to meet & review all aspects & implications of this cell tower. There are short term & long term implications that need to be addressed. I also would suggest that the Anchorage School District & the Principal, Sue Forbes, be included in this discussion. I would think that ALL OF SOUTH ADDITON & valley of the moon area residents need to receive notice of this tower not just those living within a short distance away. My neighbors a couple of blocks away had no idea that this was being proposed. There are more appropriate locations in a more commercial area. Thank you for your time. Again, I’m hoping that GCI will present their changes to the SACC & the Oct 6th meeting is rescheduled | |
| Katie Hickey | 9/22/2014 9:57:16 PM |
| In the middle of this great little neighborhood? I oppose this location; it would be visual pollution and a detriment to homeowners, downtown park users and downtown workers facing south as well as all of us looking up that way. | |
| Heather Knowlan | 9/22/2014 6:54:41 PM |
| I would like to know when the description of the permit changed and how it can change arbitrarily. The public notice has always said "90 foot tall tower". This has gotten to be absolutely absurd. What kind of game is this? You wait for comments and then let the petitioners change their story. How as a community are we supposed to provide proper feedback if the rules of the game keep changing? The lack of proper community engagement (community council meeting with an introduction and presentation from the petitioner with enough time between the public hearing to actually be able to write a resolution should be a minimum requirement) and providing adequate time for the neighborhood to have questions answered for this proposal has been appalling. The discrepancy of what is in the permit application and the information presented at the South Addition Community Council meeting are ludicrous. | |
| Anne Morris | 9/22/2014 6:36:10 PM |
| Please consider placing this tower and others like it in commercial areas, not residential. Long-term health effects are still unknown for placing them in and near residential areas. | |
| Andrea Rosenberg | 9/22/2014 11:28:31 AM |
| I strongly oppose the plan to install a cell antenna that would reach 80 feet in this neighborhood. It would be an eye sore, obstruct views and decrease property values for homeowners in this community. | |
| Lori Jones | 9/20/2014 10:11:47 PM |
| Please do not place a cell tower in this location. Find a place less harmful to this neighborhood. | |
| Heather Knowlan | 9/20/2014 8:38:50 AM |
| I oppose the location of the proposed cell tower. There are many reasons Anchorage’s South Addition and downtown are highly desirable areas to live. Obviously the convenience to businesses, shops, restaurants, entertainment and the trail system are all important. But there is a quaintness of South Addition that makes it a neighborhood. It is a mix of historical houses and a testament to the ingenuity of those that took part in developing this community. Anything that is above two-stories really sticks out and is obtrusive and prominent in the view sheds of downtown, the Chugach Range, Mid-Town and to the Anchorage Range. Poor / Misleading Representation and Information: At the South Addition Community Council (SACC) meeting, Nick Miller, presented about the proposed cell tower. Consistent with photos provided to the SACC President, Nick, described 12” panels making up the cell tower. However, directly under the 12” panel on the drawing (there is no existing example anywhere in the Anchorage area of the proposed tower, so all we have to go from are drawings and simulated photos) there are other larger rectangle like shapes. I asked Nick what they were and their size. Apparently, these are the radio antennas and he descried their size with hand gestures saying “..about ye big, by ye big…” indicating a size significantly bigger than the 12” panels. It is apparent the size of the proposed cell tower was grossly minimized. All conversation about alternative sites was immediately rebuffed and there was no criteria of how alternative sites were eliminated as possibilities provided. Not in the Permit Application and not at the SACC meeting. There are other churches within two blocks that have tall steeples that the antennas could be placed on to avoid introducing a new obstruction to the horizon and views. Aesthetics - Unreasonable Height in Neighborhood: The utility pole proposed in the permit application is already taller than the baseline height under AMC 21.45.265(A)(3)(c)(1) of 65 feet. ML&P conducted a survey on the proposed utility pole on September 18th, 2014. Marty Smith, P.E. and Senior Engineer for ML&P advised that their survey showed the actual height of the pole above ground level is 68.4 feet. Therefore, the existing pole is already above regulation. AMC 21.45.265A.b. The minimum separation distance as measured from any principal structure built on any protected land use to the base of a tower shall be 200 percent of the allowable tower height. The permit application is requesting a 90’ tower therefore the separation distance should be calculated at180’, not the 150’ being used on the Acuteck Site Overview submitted with the permit application. At a minimum 156’ using the actual height of the existing pole’s 68’ (per ML&P) plus the proposed 10’ extension resulting in 78’ total. 6’ additional feet could result in additional structures being included into the fall zone. AMC 21.45.265(A)7 The tower structure and any other structure(s) directly related to the operation of any antenna mounted on the tower structure shall be neutral in color and, to the extent possible, shall be compatible with the appearance and character of the neighborhood or location unless obstruction marking is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. This is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. GCI Permit Application Narrative Inconsistencies: Factors considered in granting condition use permits for antennas and tower structures AMC 21.50.280(C) The wrong height of the existing pole has been used. This makes me wonder if other numbers or information provided in the permit application is incorrect. 6. “…introducing minimal visual obstructions to the area…” The existing pole is completely conspicuous and already pops up above the tree line. Adding another 10’ will absolutely obstruct the views. 10. SACC was contacted in June right before SACC took recess. A Public Hearing was scheduled for August 11th and a few short days before, it was reschedule to Oct 6th, two weeks after the SACC meeting. Availability of suitable existing tower structures AMC 21.50.280(D) What is the desired coverage? The diagram submitted to PNZ in the permit application depicts a much larger area of “no indoor coverage” than the area presented at the SACC meeting. What survey was used to find out the actual need? There is a total lack of providing what criteria was used to identify the desired coverage. What actual due diligence has been done? The color topographical maps submitted with the permit application indicates there is “no indoor coverage” for the whole area between 15th and 10th and L street to Eagle. This is representing that approximately 60 blocks of South Addition have “no indoor service. I have spoken with dozens of neighbors and only one indicated his calls are dropped but that is different than stating there is “no indoor coverage.” Again, it seems the facts have been a little misrepresented. If the proposed structure is not suitable height and requires additional separation from the power lines why wouldn't another tall structure without the complication of the power lines be sought out? (See Recommendations) Flawed Process: SACC was first made aware of the proposed tower in June of 2014, the month the SACC went on summer recess. July 2nd the Notice of Public Hearing posters went up at the proposed site. Initial Public Hearing Scheduled 8/11/14 prior to presenting to SACC Public Hearing rescheduled to Oct. 6th because GCI had not presented to SACC in accordance with AMC 21.40.045D.14 GCI presented to the SACC on Sept 18th, the Public Hearing is scheduled October 6th. This has provided no time for the residents to put forth a motion for a resolution with the SACC. muni.org web site links provided on the Notice of Public Hearing flyer do not work, making providing comments very difficult (I finally provided a screen shot to Shawn Odell and asked where to go on the page.) Recommendations: Place cell antenna in/ on the tall steeple at church on 10th Avenue to avoid blight on views. The Alyeska Tram building at the Prince Hotel in Girdwood is a perfect example of how these antennas can be placed without making this a focal point on the land scape and disrupt views. They are tucked under the tram buildings eaves. Inlet Towers is another example of how the antennas can be “hidden” and not change the scape of of neighborhood. Thank you, for your consideration and please do not approve this permit. The facts have been misrepresented and the process has been fractured. | |
| Steve Birdsall | 9/20/2014 8:27:55 AM |
| Please do not destroy this wonderful neighborhood with an unattractive tower that could also cause health risks. | |
| Lora Birdsall | 9/20/2014 8:22:39 AM |
| I oppose the location of the proposed cell tower. The addition of this tower will change the character of this historic neighborhood. | |
| k Sullivan | 9/19/2014 10:31:14 PM |
| I oppose the location of the proposed cell tower. The addition of this tower will change the character of this historic neighborhood. | |
| Cindy Bowman | 9/19/2014 9:51:54 PM |
| 1. Is the church receiving compensation related to the construction and operation of GCI's tower and cell site? If yes how much? 2. Were other locations considered for the tower by GCI? If yes what locations and why weren't they chosen? It seems the communication companies are taking advantage of non-profit, low income businesses to provide money to advance their business agenda, regardless of the resident's concerns regarding their quality of life in this area. Why not approach the Anchorage citizens with some "options"? Unfortunately I don't think the Anchorage citizens realize they could have voted 20-0 to deny the tower construction........ The tower is going to be built. The comments expressed by the people that will have to look at this monstrosity on a daily basis are not "petty". | |
| Jayne Marshall | 9/19/2014 8:38:07 PM |
| I oppose the proposed location of this cell tower. It will lower property values and destroy the view. | |
| Kathy Wisthoff | 9/19/2014 8:50:19 AM |
| Please don't build a cell phone tower at this location. It will ruin the views and character of the neighborhood! | |
| Alicia Garcich | 9/19/2014 8:34:56 AM |
| I oppose the location of the proposed cell tower. This will lower property values and destroy the view. | |
| Jen Bersch | 9/19/2014 7:52:43 AM |
| I have lived in this neighborhood since the 70's. There have been many changes over the years, but putting a huge tower in the middle of this quaint residential area is a terrible idea. Not only will it be an eyesore, it will bring down property values and dramatically change the landscape of this cute and charming neighborhood. | |
| Kathy Russell | 9/19/2014 7:50:06 AM |
| This is an historic neighborhood in the heart of downtown Anchorage. Cell towers of this type don't belong in a neighborhood, nor this near to an elementary school. This can't be the best area for a tower. Come to think of it, what ever became of moving the power lines in this area underground? | |
| Candace Knowlan | 9/19/2014 6:16:48 AM |
| I oppose the location of the proposed cell tower. The addition of this tower will change the character of this historic neighborhood. It also creates a possible negative health situation. | |
| Tara Davis | 9/19/2014 5:34:45 AM |
| I oppose putting up a cell tower in this beautiful historic area. This will dramatically affect home owner's views and decrease property values. | |
| Steven Rusak | 7/16/2014 1:19:58 PM |
| The presence of a 90-foot-tall communications tower would be inconsistent and incompatible with the existing residential and historic character of our neighborhood. It is the duty of the Planning Department to prevent such incompatible uses. I urge the Planning Department to deny the petition to construct a 90-foot-tall tower at 1220 E street. The encroachment of industrial infrastructure (e.g., construction of a 90-foot-tall tower) into Anchorage's historic neighborhoods is a step in the wrong direction. The petitioner should be encouraged to explore opportunities for co-location of their new tower with existing nearby businesses or industrial facilities. In addition, the process for promulgating information related to this petition has been seriously flawed. I called the number on the sign on four separate occasions between July 10 and July 15, and the phone was not answered. The online mechanism for researching the petition is not working either. When I followed the instructions, the online system says: "There are no pending cases in the database with case number 2014-0119." In summary, I urge the Planning Department to deny the petition to construct a 90-foot-tall tower at 1220 E street, and I respectfully suggest that the Planning Department explores mechanisms for improving the stakeholder involvement process related to this petition. | |
| Vicki Riendl | 7/10/2014 3:12:45 PM |
| I just received the notice of public hearing from the Muni describing the proposed request for Block 22C, Lot 4A as a "90-foot tall community interest tower". Upon further discovery the true nature of the proposal came to light. I've lived in this area for the last 17 years and am aware of the delicate balance we experience between crime and safety, homeless and alcoholics and long term families all seeking a peaceful balance. I believe we as a community of South Addition cannot safely handle a project such as the one proposed. I would also appreciate a more transparent description of what would be coming to our neighborhood and full disclosure in letter form be sent to all South Addition families, it would only be right to let the people know what someone else is trying to chose for them. | |
| M. Elise Huggins | 7/10/2014 10:47:06 AM |
| South Addition Community Council has requested the under grounding of utility poles for almost two decades. This project takes the community one step further from being able to underground that pole. In a similar unrelated project, the utility removed its lines but left the pole stating that other entities needed the pole. It will likely be a long time before poles are underground in South Addition, however it would be good to support that ultimate goal. Could a condition be placed that GCI identify an alternate location and agree to relocate their facilities should the opportunity to underground the pole arise and that GCI would in no way impede under grounding of poles in the neighborhood? | |
| Carl Hild | 7/3/2014 12:46:04 PM |
| What are the possibilities of GCI using in partnership, one of the two other existing communication towers that are just south of 15th, one east of Gamble and one east of Ingra? What are the possibilities of GCI partnering with the Municipality and placing its tower in partnership with the emergency communications building on the SE corner of 13th and E St? What necessitates placing this new communication mast at this particular location? What impact will this tower have on local property values as it impacts the view-shed? It appears that GCI should first consider using existing commercial towers, before adding an appendage to municipal infrastructures that were designed and built for other primary purposes. We do get high winds in this neighborhood as evidenced in the lack of large trees. We also get wet heavy sticky snow that builds up on structures, and adding a 15 foot mast with additional equipment on top of a 75 foot tall single-tree (not laminated) pole that is already carrying major electric transmission lines, appears unsound. What are the results of a Municipal engineering review of the structural concerns of adding this additional mast and equipment to a single wooden pole that is already carrying three heavy transmission lines and eleven (11) other cables? Does this GCI system need to be here? Is this the best location? Is this placement wise in light of the Municipal electric distribution system? | |