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. | |
|---|---|
| Carel Nagata | 5/3/2011 10:34:19 AM |
| I am writing in support of the Brother Francis Shelter Conditional Use for their facility on 1st avenue. I appreciate the help that the shelter is providing our community and feel they are successfully achieving their mission while helping Anchorage battle homelessness. I drive by the facility often, volunteer at Bean's Cafe and appreicate that the building and grounds are always clean and well maintained. I feel that CIHA/CSS make good neighbors. I would like to see BFS continue in operation and am eager for RuralCAP's Karluk Manor project to proceed so that those staying in the shelter will have more options of graduating to permanent housing- esp. housing that includes case management and social services. BFS helped over 3,000 citizens last year and we need to help that demand decrease by letting them continue without any disruption. Carel Nagata, Architect Commissioner- Housing and Neighborhood Development Board of Directors- Habitat for Humanity Anchorage | |
| Ron Alleva | 4/23/2011 6:13:33 AM |
| 8 years out of compliance with no punishment,no suspension of the conditional use. If the commission does not enact a punishment such as a temporary suspension of the conditional use, a annual review of status with the possible cancelation fo the conditonal use,the violations are gurantee to continue as they presently are. How sad to have CATHOLIC social services have to enter into memo. of agreement with the community council in the neighborhood in which as Catholics had a moral obligation to be good stewards of privelege they were given but now by demand have enter into a legally binding agreement which carries no punishment. This is a cheap settlement no different than the child sexual abuse settlements except the 160 million they had to pay out. The neighborhood impact will still be that of molestation. CCS will just move on to expand,expliot using morals standards of dignity,care and compasion as thier shield against punishment.Where is their punishment? to be continued by the yellow mailing ,a written statement to the planning dept. and to each commissioner as well as a personal appearence request at 5/2 meeting. | |
| Nancy Mundy | 8/19/2010 2:17:05 PM |
| As a resident of Fairview I am concerned with the way the conditional use process appears to work or not work in our neighborhood. As I understand it, a conditional use permit (CUP) allows the municipality to consider special categories of land uses which may be essential or desirable to a particular community, but which are not allowed as a matter of right within a specific zoning district. The St. Francis Shelter was granted a CUP because it is located in a designated industrial zone. Several conditions were attached to the conditional use in part to ameliorate potential impacts on the neighborhood. However the shelter was apparently out of compliance for more than seven years. Indeed, I was in attendance at the Fairview Community Council Meeting when the Director of the St. Francis Shelter announced that she was not even aware of those conditions attached to the shelter’s conditional use permit. I understand the shelter is now in compliance but I fail to understand how this situation could go on for so long. Is compliance to be left up to the institutional memory of shelter employees or to neighborhood watch dogs? Who is supposed to protect the general welfare of a neighborhood when a conditional use permit is granted to a project that may be detrimental to the public welfare and as in the case of the St. Francis Shelter injurious to adjacent property owners. And will the series of events in Fairview repeat with the conditional use permit recently granted to the Karluk Manor project? | |
| Lorne Bailey | 8/14/2010 11:51:11 AM |
| If Brother Francis Shelter and Bean's Cafe are to remain in operation at the current location, then there needs to be a cross walk with a traffic light on 3rd Avenue and Karluk Street, and sidewalks on both sides of 3rd Avenue, with a street light every 110' within 8 blocks of Brother Francis Shelter and Bean's Cafe for the safety of everyone in that area (especially in the winter). However, if there is no budget for this improvement, or Catholic Social Services is unwilling to pay for these necessary safety improvements, then Brother Francis Shelter and Bean's Cafe should not be allowed to continue to operate in the current location. Furthermore, I don't think that it is a good idea to have a facility like Brother Francis Shelter and Bean's Cafe within 1 mile of a bar, liquor store, or any other business that sells alcoholic beverages, except distributors. Therefore, I suggest that a place that is most suitable for a facility like Brother Francis and Bean's Cafe would be on a 10 acre parcel of land somewhere between Eklutna and Mirror Lake, where the residents can farm. I believe that if such a facility were in that area, People Mover or some other shuttle (i.e. provided by Catholic Social Services or third party) can be used to transport people out to that location from downtown, airport, or where ever they may need to get to, especially to their jobs. Therefore, I believe that Brother Francis Shelter and Bean's Cafe needs to be closed at their current location. | |
| Annette Alleva | 8/6/2010 5:05:53 PM |
| It was only when the violations to its conditional use permit were brought to the attention of the Brother Francis Shelter, that it began to "clean up its act." The attention getter was the threat of a lawsuit. Up to this point the shelter has been unresponsive to our requests to address its board and that of Catholic Social Services, and moreoften hostile. This from an agency which purports to care for the "least of these" without regard for its nearest neighbors, visitors to the neighborhood and the public in general. The public face is one of supposed care and compassion, but BFS has failed to care for its own property and shows no compassion for its neighbors impacted by actions of its clientele, or suggests that we "call the police" when we, our employees, our children and vistors are threatened by the behavior of the homeless that they dump back on the street every morning, or don't allow in their facility when they are inebriated. When the shelter sought to build its current facility its employees courted the neighbors, but basically shut the door to us once they got what they wanted. Because of their poor record of compliance, their disdain for folks in this neighborhood who are trying to conduct business, raise families or simply enjoy our homes and our neighborhood, and their downright hostility toward those most impacted by their activities, they don't deserve to continue offering services at this location. They never should have been allowed to continue in the first place. As we have always said, this is the wrong location, and the reasons have been enumerated ad nauseum. | |
| Ron Alleva | 8/4/2010 3:29:48 PM |
| Mr. Weaver, Commissioners and Planning Department staff, Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Just look at case 2010-098. That’s another moral panic that led to bad policy decisions that put homeless, the least among us, with all their issues (mental, physical, addiction, disease) to a location on a truck route. There are no crosswalks in the I-2 Heavy Zoning industrial area in seismic zone 5, next to PCB’s filled transformers. They are being warehoused like toilet paper, yet it’s called dignity, care and compassion. RurAL CAP’s location decision is just wrong! You wouldn’t put a senior center and senior housing next to a nursing home next to a funeral home across from the cemetery and call it spiritually uplifting. But here comes RurAL CAP like a freight train with no stopping, no pre-communication with the neighborhood already burdened from problems with the silver bullet – “Housing First”. Let’s push this project – “no matter what fails we will deal with it later”; it’s just another moral panic decision with poor zoning policy results. This project is another conditional use with an exception to a park; another horse on the carousel of enabling going in the wrong direction. This application failed to meet all four conditions to grant RurAL CAP’s request. Stick to the rules; another failure here will mean long term failure. Last, if their program is so wonderful then they will have no problem finding another location. Please stick to the merits, not emotions, and what is required to meet all four conditions. These conditions have not been met and the application must be denied. | |
| ron alleva | 7/23/2010 9:28:08 AM |
| I request a public appearence as the violations of this conditioal use are on going and have caused permanant harm to the surrounding area. The overflow impact is negative and is not being addressed as required. | |