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. | |
|---|---|
| Tana Luna | 7/10/2009 10:06:52 PM |
| Dear Commissioners, My family resides in the Skyview neighborhood, a few blocks from this property being discussed as case 2007-117-2. We relocated to Chugiak from Eagle River four years ago. We enjoy the rural community, it's spacious lots, and few properties. While we enjoy getting to know our neighbors and supporting each other in our community, we also greatly value the benefits that come with a rural neighborhood - limited traffic and crime, mostly peaceful, and hopefully enough water for all of us, since we are on wells. We are extremely concerned with the possibility of any increase in multi-family dwellings in the area. Such an addition would increase the traffic, causing higher risk for our children walking to school on streets without sidewalks or paths, and also the potential for crime. Our safety in many ways will decline. The increase in people makes for an increase in noise, which takes away our peaceful rural status. And we will definitely be concerned about the adequacy of water for us all. It would be my request that you decline the proposition to allow any multi-family dwellings in this area. Thank you for your consideration, Mrs. Tana Luna | |
| Gretchen Cusack | 7/7/2009 5:28:44 PM |
| I live across the street of the proposed future PUD, and am concerned and opposed to this proposal. As a geriatric nurse, I am sensitive to the needs of elders and viable housing options; however, placing a city plan within a rural community is unsafe for all involved. I am not sure who this proposal is to benefit. I see no changes made to address the recommendations of previous reviewers. The current plan as it stands places elderly at risk in their water and sewage systems, access to emergency services, narrow, tight turning dark streets, and rural roadways. Despite working loopholes and technical explanations, the big picture remains that this is a negligent plan with incompatible density, and inadequate support for the proposed population. A better plan would be to find another parcel in a developed setting for elderly housing, and develop this property into single family homes on one acre lots. This is a rural community where we families and pets can run, walk, bike, and yes, ski down our roads, and we want to only enhance our neighborhood safely. I request no conditional use platting, and no PUD. Please waste no further tax monies on this unanimously denied inappropriate proposal. | |
| Kristin Vaona | 7/6/2009 10:45:30 PM |
| I have previously worked in a public utilities laboratory in which I served as a certified chemist testing the quality of drinking water for Salt Lake City, Utah. On a weekly basis I tested various water sites for nitrate/nitrite levels using ion chromatography. I understand the health and safety complications associated with high levels of nitrates and I have grave concerns about the impact this project WILL have on our community. National standards have been set for water quality and this development will not help to better the current conditions. Are you willing to risk the health of a community for this development project? | |
| Kelly Hanson | 7/6/2009 10:42:39 PM |
| We are relative newcomers (two years) to the Skyview/Needels neighborhood, but there were a number of things that we took into consideration before purchasing here. We wanted a place that was safe and enjoyable for us as a family, a place that we could build and groom an attractive and comfortable home, and a sense of community with those around us. Essentially we were looking for a place that did not include the type of high-density developement that Mr. John Thomson is trying to force upon the area now. This community is not enterested in further straining the little resources availble here. It is obvious that this development is incongruent with the area around it. It's wells would be a huge burden upon the water table and it's waste product (septic) would be an even larger burden in an area where nitrites are already very high. The streets here are not developed to carry the additional traffic (vehicle and foot traffic) that would result from this development. Also I think that it is telling that the municipality has denied this permit once, that the local fire chief would voice a multitude of concerns, and that 100+ residents around the development are fully against it. Approving a permit for this development would be unwise at best - whose interests would be served? Please count mine among the voices fully against this development. Kelly Hanson | |
| Dale Stevenson | 7/4/2009 10:27:31 AM |
| I want no zoning regs changed because most of the people in this area bought lots here because of the current zoning. We bought because of the low density housing and the rural character of the area.I believe that their should be no exceptions to the current regs. | |
| Linda Vrem | 7/2/2009 10:00:48 AM |
| I have lived on Needels Lp since 1981. I am opposed to the PUD being resurrected. Along with many other neighbors I have water issues including nitrates. Unless the city or the developer plans on supplying us water; this PUD will further exhaust the limited water supply. Find another place to develop that will truly give the Seniors a community, maybe next to the Post Office, the land for sale sign is still up. | |
| BIRCHWOOD COMMUNITY COUNCIL Bobbi Wells, Chair | 7/1/2009 4:04:34 PM |
| R-7 zone districts depicted on the C-ER Comp Plan Map (approved Dec. 2006) are for 1-2DUA. This is a rural area with limited infrastructure. This current development, taking the neighborhood into consideration, should be at a maximum of 15 dwelling units. PUDs or PCs are acceptable where you have urban development with a full range of necessary infracture but that is not the case here. Noting that there are other areas with 4DUA nearby I can affirm that those were built prior to rezoning in 1985, from unrestricted to R-7, and it was the intent of the community that we no longer can allow this type of development to overload this rural area. The PUD and PC process is counter to the needs of the local residents but serves the needs of the MOA administration function. Aquifir studies have never been completed out here and we run a high risk every time new development comes in because of our on-site systems...i.e. when Chugiak Elementary discovered contamination in their water well and the public health was threatened. There are no sidewalks or pathwways to ensure safe pedestrian crossing of the Old Glenn and it is reasonable to assume any seniors living here would want to partake of activities at the Chugiak Senior Center. We have no grocery stores or other large retain shopping in the area and our public transit system does not function well and is often the first cut in budget crunches. This development has no on-site snow storage, does not meet the requirement mandated for useable open space by the residents, and inadequate buffering to protect the adjacent rural properties. This would be a fine plan in downtown urban Eagle River but not a good plan for this location. Because of these concerns the development presented cannot adequately mitigate the negatives at this denisty and should be denied. Birchwood also affirms and supports the comments made by the Chugiak residents and their Coucil's concerns. | |
| Boyd Homelvig | 7/1/2009 10:32:43 AM |
| This is the wrong development for this area. The water supply is already stressed and this would have a negative impact on existing wells. The Fire Chief's comments should be enough to deny this application. No lights, no hydrants, no sidewalks and narrow roads are not a good combination for walking anywhere much less the 3/4 mile to the Senior Center. Do not let this pass. | |
| Deborah Jones | 7/1/2009 10:29:37 AM |
| After Channel 2 did a short piece on this development I was surprised at Mr. Thompson's comment about some people liking new things & others not liking them. No one in this neighborhood likes this idea. Not the Fire Chief, the neighbors for a 3 block radius nor have we heard from any Senior that would buy a condo way out here. This is an idea that would work near the Chugiak Center and there is a large track of land across from the Post Office. Why did Mr Thompson decide that in the middle of a single family neighborhood this development was needed? Please deny this application. | |
| Kimberly Shaw | 7/1/2009 8:55:55 AM |
| I am opposed to allowing this PUD conditional use permit.My family and neighorhoods health and safty will be effcted in a negative way,if you allow this permit.I am not saying C&T Const.should not be allowed to develope this land,but a 30 unit PUD belongs in downtown Anchorage not in Chugiak. | |
| Louie Shaw | 7/1/2009 8:41:49 AM |
| Once again I find I need to express my opposition to granting a conditional use permit for this PUD.My Wife and I purchased our home 9yrs ago off of Needels Lp. The peace,quietness and safty of the neighorhood,all are factores of your purchase. Allowing this PUD will change all of that. The extra traffic on the small two lane road of Needels Lp,As well the intersection with the Old Glenn Hwy,will increase the safty risk to everyone living here. Sherman Ln surely cannot handle any extra traffic. I have concerns to our water supply and quality. My water well produces 15GPH,I have to haul water a few times each year. The test well for this PUD is maybe 200 yards from our well. Which I am sure will be effected with 30 new families using this aquafur.The ground water and possibily the drinking water quality may effected by the sewage created by this PUD.To sum it up the quality of your neighorhoods will be change forever if this PUD permit is granted.We have lived in the Chugiak,Eagle River area for 30yrs and have seen many changes to or village,many good. But this 30 unit PUD is not a good thing.Thank You for your time and allowing me to express my opposition to this PUD permit. | |
| Chelsie Saxe | 6/30/2009 10:38:05 PM |
| Stick with the regulations. We like our neighborhood the way it is. That's why we live here. This type of density in one location with a history of water and sewer problems will only create overload in so many ways. Think of the future. Deny this PUD for the good of all. | |
| Lorelei Crewdson | 6/30/2009 10:21:01 PM |
| I am concerned about how the planned unit development would affect traffic in the area. Our roads are narrow, and it does not seem that they could adequately handle such an increase in traffic. The corner of Needels Loop & Wildwood is a 90 degree corner, with limited visibility. If each unit had 2 vehicles, this would add 60 more vehicles to our narrow roads, and greatly multiply traffic problems. I do not support a variance in this case. | |
| Micah Goocey | 6/29/2009 9:19:04 AM |
| No street lights, no sidewalks, slow or no water, no fire hydrants, no public sewer, no PUD. | |
| Judith Lindenfelser | 6/27/2009 7:27:44 AM |
| I live on Dogwood. I am concerned about the impact on our community of the proposed condo development. There already are difficulties with water and nitrates not to mention the impact of traffic, etc. I live here because this is a rural community. The condos will change our rural, subsistance farming community. If I wanted to live in or near condos I'd move to town. I figure I'll be able to outlive the dirt, noise and traffic of the gravel pit that's probably going in across the road. But not the condos - once that's in - rural Chugiak is gone. | |
| Glen Pomeroy | 6/26/2009 4:12:42 PM |
| 30 homes on 7 acres in a bad drinking water area? Smack in the middle of a neighborhood of single family, large lot homes? This request for a planned unit development makes no sense at all. Please reject it. | |
| Thom Connelly | 6/26/2009 11:17:27 AM |
| Having read the comments made by the chief of the Chugiak Fire Dept.,I am immediately struck by the thought that this development could be the catalyst for a California type fire with cataclysmic results to the area of Chugiak,Eagle River and possibly Anchorage. Can you imagine a hot,dry and windy day with high water use from the aquafier,and a fire starts in a congested area of buildings with very low fire fighting capabilities in the area? How fast and how far is that fire going to move? How many homes and how many lives are going to be lost? Today, throughout Anchorage and all the surrounding areas we are being urged to take fire prevention measures to minimize the effects of a wildfire in our community. Millions of dollars are being spent by local,state,and the federal governments to achieve this end. Home owners are investing their time and money for the same purposes.I believe that this building project is ill conceived and should be rejected . We should take the fire chiefs comments to heart before the fire starts.This development is dangerous for all of us.I believe it is imperative that we make the proper decisions today and not wait for the horrible consequences of a poor decision or no decision at all. Please, reject this C&T Construction application for a conditional use permit.Keep us safe. Listen to the fire chief! | |
| Lorelei Crewdson | 6/24/2009 8:28:40 PM |
| I am concerned that this case is being brought up again, as the problems are the same as the last time. This area already has had difficulty with adequate water wells and septic systems, and such a high density project would definitely add to already existing challenges. There is a reason that these lots were set up as they were, and I do not support a variance in this case. | |
| Anna Wiggins | 6/24/2009 7:57:04 PM |
| I bought my home here just a year ago. I walk in the neighborhood very frequently with my children. I love the peacefulness or this neighborhood. As I've learned of the proposal before the Commission from my neighbors and it's history I reflect on why I chose this neighborhood. I wanted a functional single family property, in a quiet and small neighborhood, in the boundaries of the schools that I want my children to attend. We have just that here. Allowing this building plan brings in just what I don't want; a higher population density, more traffic (which really scares me because the roads are narrow with no sidewalks and particularly on the corner of the proposed building site there is a 90 degree blind curve. We purposely choose this route to walk down to Peters Creek Park because it is safer than walking along the Old Glenn where there isn't a sidewalk or easement. That corner needs special consideration from a traffic safety perspective). I am also concerned about the water production. My neighbors who have been here for many years have already reported a decrease in production due to new wells being placed in the neighborhood. My property has two wells on it because the first didn't produce enough water at some point and a second needed to be added. It is clear that the water production has already been an issue. This plan would adversely affect the water system in this neighborhood. When I was home shopping, I turned down a home that I dearly loved because of poor water production. AS for the schools, high population density always affects schools adversely. We tout argueably the best Middle School in the State. I'm concerned that by allowing this proposal, it would pave the way for future multifamily structures to be errected in the area. Please protect our water, our quiet and peaceful neighborhood, and our wonderful schools by denying this proposal. | |
| James Crewdson | 6/24/2009 6:36:07 PM |
| I live on the corner of Needels Loop and Wildwood. Shown below are the items concerning me regarding this project: 1. Nitrates: Possible increase to the nitrate level in our drinking water. Mine was at 6.2 when last tested. 2. Traffic: The traffic at Wildwood and Needels Loop is already busy at cetain times of the day. Additionally, if a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was done, it wouldn't be surprising to see it recommending a traffic light be installed at the Old Glenn and Needels Loop intersection, which will become more dangerous with the increased traffic flow. 3. Fire protection: Shouldn't a development with this type of density have fire hydrants? 4. Zoning: The current zoning has worked well. It would not be fair to change the rules at this late point in the development of the subdivision. 5. Proposed use: What happens if the project fails as a facility for the elderly? To stay afloat they would probably have to sell the units to families. While I'm in no way against families, the increased number of people should be considered when reviewing this project. | |
| Gerri Ladner | 6/24/2009 1:21:41 PM |
| Are we going to go through this every year? Why is this being brought up again when it was decided that it wasn't a good idea the last time this development tried to be built. Has something changed that we are not aware of? | |
| mary graves | 6/24/2009 11:08:32 AM |
| This Planned Unit Development must be denied. Our neighborhoods safety concerning roadway infrastructure need not be subject to hazards by this development. Needels Loop, as well as the connecting roadways, are considered in the Chugiak- Eagle River Comprehensive Plan which is designed to protect our community from the hazards that will arise due to irresponsible developments. Our children cannot be jeopardized by the additional traffic volume in this area. MOA needs to approve a safe development of this land. | |
| Linda Kovac | 6/24/2009 10:44:18 AM |
| On 10/23/07, Mr. Daniel Roth, former Program Manager of the MOA On-Site Water and Wastewater Program formally commented to the Platting Officer on Planning & Case No. 2007–117. Since the On-Site department is currently undergoing a re-organization and loss of personnel, I am copying Mr. Roth’s previous review here to ensure that his pertinent comments become part of the public record for Planning & Case No. 2007–117-2… “The subject proposed subdivision is located south of Delucia Subdivision. Water wells in the Delucia Subdivision in some cases have extremely high nitrate levels. Many of the wells in this subdivision also have shallow bedrock and have limited production sometimes becoming non-productive during the dryer times of the year. The requirement for nitrate modeling and a well water production test of the area should be mandated. As nitrates are documented in the immediate area it should be a requirement to construct AMC 15.65 Category III Nitrate Reducing alternative wastewater systems. Also, for the reasons stated above it would be my recommendation to limit density of this area so as not to overload the receiving environment more then it may already be. Density should be limited to no more that one dwelling unit per 40,000 Square Feet.” Linda Kovac, On-Site Wastewater System Technical Review Board Member | |
| Letitia Fitz-Gerald | 6/24/2009 10:38:27 AM |
| Having read the previous posted cogent comments, I agree with the arguments they have presented against the re-emergence of this issue. Nothing has changed in the developer's presentation nor have they in the P&Z regs. There is so much more to this than NIMBY--it would affect so many families on levels already stated. | |
| mary graves | 6/24/2009 10:36:31 AM |
| This Planned Unit Development needs to be denied. According to MOA, the max. # of dwelling units with on site septic systems, on 7 acres is 7-8 single family dwelling units. Our neighborhoods health should not be jeopardized by this or any other foolish planned development. The opportunity to develop this land responsibly exists now. | |
| Chugiak Community Council Dave Baldwin, President | 6/24/2009 10:27:36 AM |
| On 06/23/09, the Chugiak Community Council (“Council”) discussed Planning & Zoning Case No. 2007-117-2. This case is a second request for a conditional use for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on Lot 20 in the Tundra Jewel Ranch Subdivision. It is generally located south of Needels Loop and west of Wildwood Drive. The case is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on 07/13/09. _____ P&Z Case No. 2007-117-2 essentially mirrors P&Z Case No. 2007-117 on which the Council previously took action. On 09/20/07, after much debate, the Council came out strongly against approving P&Z Case No. 2007-117 in a unanimous vote of 45 members. At the 11/19/07 P&Z Commission Meeting, P&Z Case No. 2007-117 was postponed indefinitely. _____ The Council now finds nothing in P&Z Case No. 2007-117-2 has changed from the original case. The Council has numerous outstanding concerns such as future traffic volume/patterns and the feasibility of the proposed on-site well and wastewater systems. The PUD would be an incompatible use and incompatible density with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed high density would pose a substantial threat to the health and capacity of the drinking water aquifer. The proposed parking spaces do not appear to be designed for the elderly/disabled. _____ Given these unresolved concerns, the Council strongly recommends that P&Z Case No. 2007-117-2 be denied. The Council will send a follow-up letter to MOA Planning that attaches our previous P&Z Case No. 2007-117 comments for consideration in this second request. Additional concerns are documented in those previous comments. | |
| mary graves | 6/24/2009 10:14:45 AM |
| This Planned Unit Development will create a substantial threat to the health and capacity of our drinking water.The project plans to provide 35,000 gallons of water EACH day to the residents. It would take my well 174 days to produce 35,000 gallons of water, if the water was available, which it is not,consistently. We use approx. 50-100 gallons per day for a total of 36,000 gallons max. per year.My family of 5 has successfully conserved our water for 8 yrs.It would be completely irresponsible to approve this project. | |
| Boyd Homelvig | 6/23/2009 6:53:18 PM |
| This is a disaster waiting to happen to this community. There is no demand for high density housing much less senior housing in this area. Our roads with no lights or sidewalks would not be enough for the added traffic. We have children walking to school, riding their bikes & people taking evening walks and with this development that will end. Please do not consider saying yes to this proposal. It was not considered a good idea in 2007 why is it back on the table? Deny this request. | |
| Arthur F Yarbrough | 6/23/2009 3:43:23 PM |
| http://www.muni.org/iceimages/onsite/JN00-LWAPS%20ArcView%20Map.pdf Here is the map of Nitrate Levels in wells in the Anchorage Area. If you check this map the nitrate levels in the wells just south of this proposed construction site appear to exceed health standards. Has anyone checked the nitrate levels in the builders approved??? well? I understand the condo structures [Bear Mountain] bordering the south west corner of this property is now haveing water problems. I do not think this local water table can take the sewer system proposed without contaminateing the entire water table. I really oppose the building of this many structures on this site. | |
| Phillip Courtney | 6/22/2009 9:04:08 PM |
| Our neighborhood is not designed to have multifamily housing on a single property. We do not have the appropriate roads to support such an increase in the traffic and our private wells and septic systems cannot support the added problems that this housing would cause. Please consider the potential consequences it would have on existing homeowners in the area when reviewing this application. | |
| Claire Connelly | 6/22/2009 9:01:35 PM |
| Why is this issue back on the table? The Chugiak Community Council and Municipality of Anchorage planning department staff already objected to the development and the people of this community vehemently oppose it. The roads can't take this kind of traffic and the wells already have high nitrate levels, I would ask that you deny this request. Thank you for your time. Claire Connelly 22920 Sherman St Chugiak | |
| Bari Gray | 6/22/2009 8:50:03 PM |
| As a resident of Skyview Ave I am against this development of C&T Construction on that property. Mr. Thompson needs to keep his condos in Eagle River where he has already built numerous side by sides. The roads will not sustain the added traffic. In the winter the road crews don't even plow completly around the loop until about three days after a storm. They turn up Dogwood and go up the mountain. Again NO to the condos. Maybe this time he will understand the meaning. | |
| Angie Johnson | 6/22/2009 7:11:55 PM |
| I have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years and have loved raising my four children here. I do not want to see this planned development approved by the Municipality. This is an area of single family homes on wells with septic systems. The roads are not built for heavy traffic. The land will not support a development of the proposed density. | |
| Tom Devine | 6/22/2009 4:42:23 PM |
| At the time of the original application, the Chugiak Community council and Municipality of Anchorage planning department staff both objected to the development. The community council passed a resolution expressing concerns about the impact the development would have on the traffic and area wells. Anchorage planners recommended the commission deny Thompson's request because the proposed high density housing was not consistent with the surrounding community, did not preserve the maximum retention of existing vegetation and did not comply with the comprehensive plan for the area. If Mr. Thompson was concerned for our community he would not have resubmitted his condo development while the Chugiak community council was on break for the summer. A petition has been signed by over 100 local homeowners against the development due to : the streets cannot accommodate traffic increase, there are no sidewalks in the area, there are no street lights in the area, the potential of adverse impact on wells and septic in the area, local creek will be impacted, no fire hydrants within 1000 FT of the proposed project, the development does not comply with the comprehensive plan for the area, and exceeds density for Chugiak/Eagle River by two to three times. The residents of this area are trying to protect a very large investment-their home, their family, and this quaint quiet neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Tom Devine Chugiak Community Council Board Member | |
| Ginger Botelho | 6/22/2009 1:30:02 PM |
| This request has been denied once, and as far as I know, nothing has changed. Kindly stand firm and say NO to this PUD request in our area. We are simply not zoned for multi family units. Water is at a premium (having to be brought in more often then not.) In addition, take a peak at other impacts to the enviroment that this will cause. This area is home to wildlife (which is what makes living in this area tolerable as compared to a city area.) Worse, the roads were not (and are still not) designed for additonal traffic. There are NO sidewalks for the children walking to school. Winters here can be trecherous...with an additonal MINIMUM of approximately 60 cars (at a rate of two per unit), this would be a disaster waiting for a place to happen. Children are forced to walk on the roads of this community...isn't their safety (as well as all humanity) an issue? Again, it has been DENIED in the past, and we respectfully ask that it be DENIED yet again. Thank you. | |
| Michael Botelho | 6/22/2009 1:21:34 PM |
| Please deny this request to build 30 units on this property. This would be an absolute disaster to our little community. In addition to the problems we already have with water issues, the roads are not designed to withstand the additional traffic that will certainly accompany this proposed condominimum. It has been denied previously and we ask that it be denied yet again. In addition, when this area was orignially zoned two withstand an additional condo unit. A condo in this area would be nothing short of a disaster and a morbid destruction of the environment as it is now. This area was zoned this way for a reason. Please do NOT allow someone to come in and destroy it for their own personal income potential. Thank you for your time, and serious attention to this matter. | |
| Bobbi Davis | 6/22/2009 1:14:53 PM |
| We are absolutely against building on this land. We are on well and septic, and adding the stress of additional people on a multi planned living area will only stress the water system more than it is. In addition, our streets are simply not designed to accomidate the additional traffic. These are back areas that are not designed to accomidate the needs of a city, but more of a country origen. Environmentally, the building of these units would be a disaster (even with an environmental impact study.) This is the home to many wildlife and destroying these woods would only create an imbalance in nature as well as the comunity. We repectfully ask that this request be denied again, just as it was last year. Thank you. Bobbi Davis | |
| Tom Devine | 6/21/2009 11:43:09 PM |
| At the time of the original application, the Chugiak Community Council and Municipality of Anchorage planning department staff both objected to the development. The community council passed a resolution expressing concerns about the impact the development would have on traffic and area wells. Anchorage planners recommended the commission deny Thompson's request because the proposed high -density housing was not consistent with the surrounding community, did not preserve the maximum retention of existing vegetation and did not comply with the comprehensive plan for the area. If Mr. Thompson really cared about the community he would not have submitted an application for development during the same time the Chugiak Communtiy Council takes it summer break. Therefore, we took it upon ourselves to petition against the proposed development with over 100 homeowners signatures against this development. We as homeowners who pay property tax would like to protect our largest investment - our homes, safety of our children, and our quiet quaint neighborhood. This condo development is not appropriate for this area due to; streets cannot accommodate traffic increase, there are no sidewalks or streetlights for the safety of our families, the adverse impact on wells and septic in the area, local creek will be impacted, there are no fire hydrants within 1,000 FT , the development does not comply with the comprehensive plan for the area, and exceeds density for Chugiak/Eagle River by 2 to 3 times. Tom Devine | |
| EDWARD Bennett | 6/20/2009 9:50:00 AM |
| I am very much against building condos in this area. There is only well water and septic available. This can create a health issue by raising the nirate levels in our water as well as other poisons. It is to many people living in to small of an area with out the benifit of city water and sewer. This should never be allowed. The levels are high enough now that infants and elderly with any health conditions should not drink the well water from this area. It may also cause us to run to low on water which already happens from time to time in this area. | |
| Karen Arndt | 6/20/2009 7:22:10 AM |
| This repeat application has a dramatic negative impact on this community. It needs to be denied again. As a homeowner on Skyview Avenue, we cannot afford the negative impact on our well, sewer, street traffic and overall quality of life. Why was this allowed to be brought forward when the Chugiak Community Council is not in session? Anchorage planners have previously recommended the commission deny this high density housing. A condo developement is NOT compatible with our neighborhood. Please do not allow this application to pass. | |
| Colleen Johnson | 6/19/2009 10:37:41 AM |
| What part of NO CONDOS did the developer not understand? I thought we very carefully explained why we feel it was not a good thing for our community and how our wells, sewer systems and roads could not handle this kind of a development plus the fact that most of us moved here to get away from the high density neighborhoods. | |
| Gretchen Courtney | 6/18/2009 12:09:31 PM |
| Please seriously consider the impact this would have on existing single family homes in the neighborhood!! As the parent of two small children, I fear for their safety due to the additional road traffic this would cause. We have chosen to reside in this neighborhood due to the "family atmosphere." We are also greatly concerned due to the impact this would have on our private well and septic. We respectfully request that this application be denied. | |
| Paul Goocey | 6/17/2009 6:37:27 PM |
| As a taxpayer I would like to know how can we afford to revisit this issue again. When the budget is being slashed and Municipal workers are being ask to take pay cuts. Why would the Municipality even consider reopening this case. I think our tax dollars could be spent on more pressing issues. Lets concentrate on the well being of the community. Safety, education, and promoting a healthy environment. Packing a green space with development for the interest of one persons interest is totally thoughtless. Please look at the whole picture here and how this will impact the surrounding area in the future. Please put this to rest once and for all. | |
| Thomas Merrill | 6/17/2009 2:28:47 PM |
| The zoning for this property is R7 designed to encourage low density residential development and is intended for those land areas where large lot development is desirable.......Only a single principal structure may be allowed on any lot or tract. Play grounds parks schools churches and so on.ONLY ONE SINGLE PRINCIPAL STURCTURE PER LOT OR TRACT. This is the exact wording from the zoning book. Not 15 structures housing 30 familys! The conditional use permit should be denied to protect the lifestyle and enviormental concerns of the people who have lived in this area for many years. Chugiak Community Council, the Municipality Planning Department, the fire Department and the entire neighborhood have spoke out about this as being a bad idea. With no changes to the origianl application why is this allowed to be resubmitted again. Thank goodnes someone was paying attention AGAIN! No conditional land use permit! No PUDS! No Thank you! | |
| Lynette Robinson | 6/17/2009 11:28:16 AM |
| As a real estate professional who property manages condo units at Bear Mountain, I am very concerned about the affects of this proposed unit on the current water situation. Many times I have received calls for "no water" in the unit that I manage. The Bear Mountain Condo system is on a private well that struggles just to maintain water now let alone when the water changes to accomodate a new condo subdivision. The environmental impact of this new subdivision could be catastrophic for current owners in the area which is unfair. | |
| Bartley Bruce | 6/13/2009 4:47:26 PM |
| The Chugiak Volunteer Fire & Rescue Co., Inc. takes no position on whether this development should proceed. However, if it does as previously proposed, we have some public safety concerns. Building this density of housing in an area with no fire hydrants poses very real hazards. The only development of similar density (Fire Eagle) has at least three fire hydrants available. The nearest hydrant to the nearest edge of the proposed development is more than 1,000 feet and slightly uphill. In terms of supplying water for firefighting operations, that means we would have to have one engine on the hydrant to relay pump. The static pressure from the hydrant would be unable to provide adequate water supplies to fight a structure fire. Because of the length of the supply line, we would have to have a second engine somewhere on the perimeter of the development to relay pump to a third engine committed to the fire. Besides the time and effort it would take to set up such a relay system, it would sap our fire fighting capacity, particularly since I would want one or more engines available for exposure protection. CVFD is accustomed to fighting fires in non-hydranted areas and has a fleet of tenders with nearly 9,000 gallons on wheels. However, the fires we fight in non-hydranted areas typically are single-family dwelling with considerable separation from neighboring houses. Without adequate water supplies, and with the kind of building density planned here, there is a real risk for conflagration, meaning the fire moves from one structure to another to another until theoretically all of them are involved. The best and most obvious solution would be for the developer to extend the municipal water line from the vicinity between the Old and New Glenn highways to the project to supply at least two, and better yet three, hydrants. As an alternative, the developer should provide an on-site, above-ground, gravity-fed water storage facility, easily accessible to the fire department, with capacity of at least 20,000 gallons. Doing nothing about the water supply poses virtually insurmountable risks to all structures in the development. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bruce Bartley Chief Chugiak Volunteer Fire & Rescue Co., Inc. | |
| Deborah Jones | 6/13/2009 4:38:22 PM |
| I am not sure why this is case is being considered again. It did not meet neighborhood specs the first time what is different now. In this economy this is not a good idea. What is the point of older housing in a rural setting? Please do not let this pass. | |
| Amy Hubbard | 6/13/2009 11:01:07 AM |
| There have been no changes to the water, sewer, or road infrastructure since the last time this project was denied. What would make anyone think it's a good idea now? | |
| laura hamilton | 6/8/2009 10:33:46 AM |
| I do not see any additional information as to how the water, sewer and roads or lack of them will be resolved. Area residents spoke out very clearly about their concerns the last time this issue came up that. This does not comform with the area. Nothing has changed. | |
| Mary Tatro | 6/6/2009 12:55:36 PM |
| How many times do we have to say the community and terrain can not support this kind of development. Water quality and tables are questionable not to mention the inability of emergency vehicle's to easily access the areas with the narrow roads etc. | |
| Mary Goocey | 6/5/2009 11:25:47 PM |
| The impact this development will have to our community will be devastating. An area that has no street lights, marginal slow recovery wells, private septic systems, side streets that have barely enough room for 2 cars to pass in the winter. Until the infastructure is in place for this type of development it could cause an unsafe and unhealthy environment for the people in this area. Our community worked as a team to voice our feelings about this once before. Nothing has changed. | |
| Arthur Yarbrough | 6/1/2009 3:58:07 PM |
| This PUD was denied once by planning and zoning. Unless title 21 has made changes that I am not aware of , it should be denied again. This is still an area of high nitrate concentrations in well water. I doubt the area can support the addition of this on site septic system. This exceeds the recommended density levels of the Chugiak-Eagle River Comprehensive Plan. It would at least double the density of the existing nearby developments. Traffic will be a problem with the present road structure. The Fire Department may not have adaquate access. | |
| Deborah Jones | 5/27/2009 9:05:43 AM |
| This zoning request does not fit with the neighborhood development. There are road, water & safety considerations pertaining to a PUD development in the area. There is no market at this time for this type of housing in this area. The developer would be better off to sub-divide the property into single family lots. | |
| Arthur L. Brown Sr. | 11/19/2007 8:14:39 PM |
| The well is now established without permits its position compromises several properties that might want to develop later as it has a 200foot circumference requirement that impacts My church( I am a member )that is directly south of the proposed development. if they are willing to sink a well without permits what else are they willing to do that is not kosher please do not allow the development as propsed and requir them to remove and redrill the well if it is approved | |
| Tom Schonberger | 11/12/2007 2:09:34 AM |
| I am against this proposed development in our small rural community. In addition to the water table and water quality issues presented by other, the single family enviroment will be destroyed. Furthermore the amount of trees that will be removed combined with the traffic issues that will be presented indicate this is a very bad idea. Even the findings in the planning staff analysis developed by the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't favor this development. Stop the madness and leave our rural community alone. | |
| Lorelei Crewdson | 11/9/2007 9:49:31 PM |
| As a resident on Needels Drive, I would like to again express my concerns. Water wells and recharge rates, septic systems, and high nitrate concentrations in ground water have not been addressed, as is mentioned in the report issued by the planning department. The proposed development does not comply with the Comprehensive plan in many areas which are of concern to those of us who live in the neighborhood. We would be impacted by a variance in the zoning, possibly on a long-term basis. The proposed development does not preserve & enhance the identity of the existing neighborhood. It does not ensure the density is compatible with existing neighborhoods. It does not ensure that existing vegetation will be maintained. Fire safety is another concern, due to narrow streets, more homes, & more vehicles on the road. Please do not grant this variance, & help us preserve the safety & well being of our neighborhood & its residents. | |
| Ralph Henderson | 11/9/2007 8:19:34 PM |
| My Wildwood Dr property lies directly across the street from the proposed PUD. On the engineer's plans was a proposed main driveway into this development just across from my driveway. I'm genuinely concerned about this unit's traffic impacting my driveway and property! Please retain the R-7 zoning laws for single family dwellings on a minimum of 40,000 SF. Since the recent St improvement on Wildwood Dr I've noticed an increase in speeding vehicles and trash dumped out of vehicles. I'm certain this problem would greatly increase with the addition of 30 units of traffic! | |
| Ralph Henderson | 11/9/2007 7:57:24 PM |
| Ralph Henderson 19625 Widwood Dr Chugiak Ak Please disallow this conditional use permit for this PUD! I'm opposed to increased traffic, increased sewage saturation of the ground and possibly our water supply. I feel this area should remain zoned R7 as was intended, the rest of us have to live by these rules. Thanks for your consideration. | |
| Linda Henderson | 11/9/2007 7:47:29 PM |
| Linda Henderson 19625 Wildwood Dr Chugiak, Ak I've been a resident here on Wildwood Dr for 30 years and am opposed to the conditional use permit for this PUD! Please uphold the R7 zoning standards for this area, this neighborhood does not need negative changes! Thank You | |
| Kristin Vaona | 11/9/2007 11:18:11 AM |
| If a zoning conditional use for a PUD is granted against the general publics' preference, then what will stop the the neighboring property from developing in the same vein? That would mean that we'd have approximately double the problems that this community is already concerned about. | |
| Kristin Vaona | 11/9/2007 9:58:50 AM |
| As a certified chemical scientist, who has previously worked in a public utilities water laboratory testing the quality of drinking water, in particular the determination of inorganic anions by ion chromatography which includes the level of nitrates and nitrites, I not only have personal emotions but a knowledge base that concerns me about the quality of our drinking water in the Needels Loop area. The EPA along with other protection agencies set a standard for our water quality for a reason: our health. Should we risk the tenable balance and known quality of our drinking water for an unknown because someone would alter the current zoning? Water is a necessity in our lives, not just for daily chores, but our bodies need 'good' water for our well-being. I choose my health over a fast-buck. | |
| Gerri Ladner | 11/9/2007 9:26:49 AM |
| I have lived in the Chugiak-Peters Creek for almost 25 years and have seen so much change in this peaceful community that it saddens me. I was the Building Plant Operator at Chugiak Elementary during the time that they were having such bad water troubles with the high nitrates. My friends live across the street and have not got the water now to be able to water their yard and do laundry in the same day. Nor are they able to drink their water from the tap. Does it make any sense to anyone to add more multi-unit housing to an already over used water system? Please uphold the current zoning R7, don’t allow a conditional zoning permit for these units. Gerri Ladner | |
| Steven Pedersen | 11/9/2007 9:00:51 AM |
| I have concern with the proposed developement in our neighborhood due to the nitrates in our area. I have been drinking bottled water now for twenty years because of the nitrate levels. I have spent over $8,400.00 to have safe water to drink. When I first checked into nitrates I was was told by several doctors that the biggest concern was for infants and senior citizens, however after longterm use health problems would occur in others. The contractor said that he is targeting the senior citizen population for these units. Since the nitrate level could be a bigger problem for senior citizens it does not make sense to target seniors for the proposed construction. | |
| Doug Johnson | 11/9/2007 8:55:29 AM |
| I am firmly opposed to the variances that are being proposed. The zoning for this area is in place for important reasons, including the issues of adequte water supply, street access and useage, and protection of the neighborhood and its property values. This part of Chugiak is notorious for well problems. Allowing a high density developement of the nature proposed will compound the problems exponentially. The resulting costs to neighbors may be very high. All of us moved into this neighborhood in reliance on the zoning to protect us and the value of our properties from exactly this kind of developement and loss of value. It is patently unfair to set aside the rules that we all agreed to live under, in order to enrich one person or company at the expense of everyone else. Nor is there a shotage of housing in this area. There are numerous houses for sale, and many of the have been on the market for a very long time. There is absolutely no need for the kind of housing that is being proposed. The streets in this neighborhood are narrow and not in any way adequate to accomodate the kind of traffic that will come with the proposed development. Our children walk to school along these streets, often in the dark. The proposed development would result in a large increase of vehicle traffic greatly multipying the risk to our children. The safety issues alone should cause huge concerns for anyone with a sense of moral responsibility. Little Peter's Creek runs quite close to where the proposed developement would take place. I would think that there may be a high likelihood of environmental damage to the creek and its salmon runs because of the huge increase in nitrate concentrations due to the density of the housing project. Zoning laws and regulations are supposed to be in place to prevent exactly the kind of irresponsible and unfair developement that is being proposed. I join with my neighbors in strongly requesting that this project not be allowed to go forward. Doug Johnson | |
| Anne Ogden | 11/8/2007 10:34:22 PM |
| I am against inserting high density housing into R-7 zoning. As a resident living on Wildwood Drive I have enjoyed the large lots and rural atmosphere of my neighborhood. The increase in traffic, impact on the water table and decrease in property values is inevitable. Please let us keep our zoning intact, thank you. | |
| claire connelly | 11/8/2007 7:26:47 PM |
| I do not understand how one man can have the power to change the zoning laws just to further his financial wealth. Is he lining other people's pockets? Claire Connelly Chugiak | |
| Paul Vaona | 11/8/2007 2:03:44 PM |
| I have many concerns for the purposed change allowing high density development not he least of which are the degrading of water quality, well pressure, traffic safety and property value this project would bring. | |
| Elizabeth Parker | 11/7/2007 8:12:17 PM |
| I am extremely concerned with the possibility of a zoning variance being issued on this property. The access to the property isn't designed or maintained for the added traffic. I have heard an argument that the housing is for "seniors" but there is nothing to indicate that these properties are being selectively sold, only that they are being listed for sale and anyone can buy them that can qualify for the loan. this creates a strong problem of some twenty plus families, with two cars apiece and kids, and pets, and the mail, and not to mention the visitors to the property. Your talking about sixty plus cars in and out every day MINIMUM!!! The water quality in the neighborhood is shaky at best. At the town meeting someone said it has the highest nitrate content of any neighborhood in the entire municipality of anchorage. Now take those families and friends drawing all of their water out of the same well. How can there be any assurance that the surrounding wells wont dry up? When Mr. Thompson was asked about this, his response was that a lot of people have bad wells. What kind of solution is that? My family and I are for the responsible development of the land as R7 property but no variance should be given. Please don't pull the rug of trust out from under our feet. All we are asking is that you live up to the rules and regulations you have made. | |
| Michael Parker | 11/7/2007 7:52:15 PM |
| I am for the responsible development of this land the way the municipality originally intended. The city was right to create regulation of density and in no way does this project deserve a waiver to over ride the rights of the neighbors, or the community. Is the city giving out rules, or am I to understand they are merely suggestions. | |
| matthew nelson | 11/7/2007 7:00:31 PM |
| I dont want all the traffic on the streets, It will mess with the water supply and hurt the wildlife that lives their. It will make the neighbor look bad and run down. | |
| Lorelei Crewdson | 11/5/2007 9:05:27 PM |
| I am concerned about the variances requested in the conditional use permit. As landowners, we have become aware of the special challenges this neighborhood has regarding water, sewer, & traffic. These three areas have been discussed in existing comments on this case. All of these factors would be affected by the increases proposed by this development. There are many reasons this area has been zoned R-7, and changing that status to allow for a planned unit development, especially one of this density, would be detrimental to the community. There is also another lot next to this proposed development, whose owner could easily choose to apply for a similar variance. We are concerned that the limited space for water & sewer systems will be further compromised. We are concerned about further traffic in this neighborhood, especially because of the narrow streets and limited options for traffic flow. We are not against development, but would prefer that further development follows the current nature of this community, which is mostly single family homes on 1/2 to 1 acre lots. We enjoy walking through our neighborhood and hope to do that for many more years to come. Thank you for your consideration. | |
| Letitia Fitz-Gerald | 11/5/2007 1:39:16 PM |
| After having read the comments and having talked with homeowners directly impacted by the planned unit development, I can only ask that this not occur. Historically Chugiak has had iffy wells, nitrate problems, and septic issues. To build a densely packed development will only exacerbate existing problems. Add to that the traffic and fire service concerns already cited in the comments received, I feel that to disregard all these concerns is irresponsible. Zoning was meant to ensure that we would have legal recourse for land usage in our communities. The conditional use permit smacks of "well, zoning is for your protection!---unless somebody can bring in more revenue then we'll make exceptions". | |
| Thomas and Genevieve Blavka | 11/5/2007 10:41:43 AM |
| My wife Genevieve C. Blavka And me are owners of lots #18, 19, 26,& 27 of Delucia Subdivision. We have lived on lot & 27 for over forty years. Since establishing residence here we have noticed a steady decline in the quality and quantity the water. Quality decline is most probably a result of increased on site sewers.The quantity decline could be partly a natnral phenomenon but incresed demand is serious threat. Increased traffic could present a problem on the south part of Needles Loop.Although it has been upgraded in the last few yaars it would be adversly impacted by the singificant increase in traffic caused by a large development. The proposed plans in this case would be a radicel departure from the present lot size per household unit. The new development as proposed will significantly change the life style that we were assured of at the time of purchacing these lots. We do not supprt or apporve of the development as it is proposed. | |
| James Crewdson | 11/4/2007 9:49:03 PM |
| Looking over the planning staff review, it appears they are not aware of another developer who's waiting to see how case 2007-117 turns out. His development would be directly adjacent to case 2007-117 and is proposed to be a high density development also. I think case 2007-117 should be required to include the other potential project in it's traffic analysis. As an example; the TIA's I did for the "Big Box" stores always had to include other potential development that was possibly going to occur within a reasonable time and distance of the project. I'm also wondering about fire safety issues. The subdivisions I designed always had to have fire hydrants within a specified distance and with minimum flow/pressure. Is this going to be required for this project if it's allowed to be constructed? What's going to happen with stormwater? As a home owner who is on the low side of the proposed development, it would be good to know how that's going to be taken care of. The decreased permeability of the ground within the project area is most likely going to require a detention/retention pond. | |
| KIMBERLY SHAW | 11/4/2007 8:05:26 PM |
| I love my quit neighorhood. I don't want all the traffic on the our streets.Our water table wiil change, I'm sure not for the good. | |
| Kelsey Vrem | 11/3/2007 9:26:50 PM |
| My name is Kelsey Vrem. I was a baby when my parents bought their house at 22970 Needels Dr. I grew up with my grandparents living next door (Edna and Cloid Roos). Needels Dr. is a quiet and safe neighborhood that my Grandma Edna and parents still reside in. I hope that the neighborhood can continue to be a nice place for them to live. As a young person who is looking to buy my own first home I hope that I can find a similar residence and neighborhood. Unfortunately neighborhoods like Needels Loop are slowly becoming a rare treasure. The new norm in housing developement in the Anchorage Municipality seems to be high density condos and duplexes. I am dissapointed at the amount of concrete and lack of trees left in the municipality. Developement is innevitable, but it can be smart and sustainable I have watched Eagle River transformed into a treeless ugly strip of Condos and fast food restaurants. This is not the direction our community should want to head in. We should take pride in our beautiful surroundings, not try to squeek out a profit at any expense. Needels Loop is beautiful and peaceful, but it's got it's share of drawbacks for homeowners. Adding these additional units would increase those drawbacks. The low water levels in wells and nitrate levels in the drinking water are a few that have been mentioned. Additionally the neighborhood has no streetlights or sidewalks, and people tend to drive pretty fast. I fear that these 30 new residential dwellings will make our unlit streets unsafe to walk on during the long dark days of winter. My grandma Edna Roos still drives and is in great shape, but I think she'd even agree that living on a somewhat rural dark street like Needels Loop as a senior citizen is not exactly easy. It is a long walk to the Senior Center from the proposed new "senior housing" developement. I dont believe this property is going to lure seniors into the area. I think that this is a friendly sounding way for the developer to get the municipality to allow this project to go against the current zoning. Lastly, I firmly believe that this developement is just to profit the developer. The character of this quiet neighborhood will be drastically changed at the detriment of many for the benefit of the developer. Please do not allow this proposed developement. Kelsey Vrem | |
| Kelsey Vrem | 11/3/2007 9:25:27 PM |
| My name is Kelsey Vrem. I was a baby when my parents bought their house at 22970 Needels Dr. I grew up with my grandparents living next door (Edna and Cloid Roos). Needels Dr. is a quiet and safe neighborhood that my Grandma Edna and parents still reside in. I hope that the neighborhood can continue to be a nice place for them to live. As a young person who is looking to buy my own first home I hope that I can find a similar residence and neighborhood. Unfortunately neighborhoods like Needels Loop are slowly becoming a rare treasure. The new norm in housing developement in the Anchorage Municipality seems to be high density condos and duplexes. I am dissapointed at the amount of concrete and lack of trees left in the municipality. Developement is innevitable, but it can be smart and sustainable I have watched Eagle River transformed into a treeless ugly strip of Condos and fast food restaurants. This is not the direction our community should want to head in. We should take pride in our beautiful surroundings, not try to squeek out a profit at any expense. Needels Loop is beautiful and peaceful, but it's got it's share of drawbacks for homeowners. Adding these additional units would increase those drawbacks. The low water levels in wells and nitrate levels in the drinking water are a few that have been mentioned. Additionally the neighborhood has no streetlights or sidewalks, and people tend to drive pretty fast. I fear that these 30 new residential dwellings will make our unlit streets unsafe to walk on during the long dark days of winter. My grandma Edna Roos still drives and is in great shape, but I think she'd even agree that living on a somewhat rural dark street like Needels Loop as a senior citizen is not exactly easy. It is a long walk to the Senior Center from the proposed new "senior housing" developement. I dont believe this property is going to lure seniors into the area. I think that this is a friendly sounding way for the developer to get the municipality to allow this project to go against the current zoning. Lastly, I firmly believe that this developement is just to profit the developer. The character of this quiet neighborhood will be drastically changed at the detriment of many for the benefit of the developer. Please do not allow this proposed developement. Kelsey Vrem | |
| Louie Shaw | 11/1/2007 6:36:57 PM |
| I wuold like to express some concerns reguarding conditional use permit 2007-117. I have lived in Eagle River,Chugiak area since 1979. I have witness us changing from a small town to an over developed suburb.My home and the surronding homes are single family homes,which is why we purchased our home in this neighorhood. Our well water supply is low, 15 gallons an hour! We know this permit if issused will change the water table and I am sure we will be on the losing end. Traffic will increase, Needels Lp will have a hard time handleing the increase. More so the Old Glenn,Needels Lp,No Birchwood Intersection I feel is currently unsafe. Traveling from N Birchwood to Needels Lp Is a left turn and a fast right turn.With N Brichwood intersecting at an angel to The Old Glenn Hwy it is already unsafe with increased traffic there will be problems. There are other concerns which I am sure have been expressed by my neighbors. We all want to keep our nieghborhood,a single family home neighborhood. I and my family are OPPOSED to this conditional use permit. Please keep our neighorhood single family homes. Thank You, Louie & Kimberly Shaw | |
| Mary Tatro | 11/1/2007 12:47:11 PM |
| I can't believe that the city would even consider allowing a high density project go into an area with poor water conditions, poor to marginal roads, and little or no public services. I believe that most of the comments have pretty well laid out the problems such a development would have and would cause. Please do no approve this plan. | |
| Karen Pedersen | 10/31/2007 8:53:08 AM |
| I believe that if a conditional use permit is granted for Lot 20 Tundra Jewel Ranch Subdivision, safety for pedestrians, children and drivers will be compromised. It is great that Mr. Thomson wants to build senior housing so close to the Chugiak Senior Center but I am concerned on how they will get there safely. There are no sidewalks so pedestrians need to walk on Needels Loop to the Old Glenn Highway. Currently students have to walk to that intersection to catch their school bus. Unfortunately, some students walk down the middle of the road (usually after it snows) and during the dark winter mornings can be hard to spot. Needels Loop is only wide enough for two cars and no pedestrians. Crossing the Old Glenn Highway as a pedestrian and driver is risky due to the blind curve, winter road conditions and speeding motorists. I have had several close calls at that intersection. There are no street lights and the ditches are steep. People tend to speed down Needels Loop and with the potential of increased traffic will be more dangerous for our children and grandchildren. The yield sign on Wildwood at Needels Loop is ineffective since motorists tend not to yield or cannot see to yield at the curve on Needels Loop. Pedestrians, children and drivers will be at greater risk for accidents and injuries with the addition of 30 more families. Please uphold the R-7 zoning and do not grant the requested conditional use permit. | |
| Deborah Jones | 10/30/2007 9:42:18 PM |
| After reading over the many comments about the request for a conditional use permit for this property it appears that the neighbors are against this project. I thought zoning laws were drafted so people would know the type of neighborhood they were moving into but maybe not. I was so happy to buy my home (which is across the street from the proposed units) because it was R-7 and a nice neighborhood. Knowing who your neighbor is & being able to take a walk at night without heavy traffic or just enjoy the dark winter sky without street lights is wonderful. Now all that will be taken away if this conditional use permit is granted. Please do not destroy the neighborhood. | |
| Daniel Solodon/ Lynne Schlumpf | 10/25/2007 11:09:38 AM |
| Attn: Municipality of Anchorage Department of Planning P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK. 99519-6650 RE: Planning Dept Case Number: 2007-117, C&T Construction Inc, 7.050 acres, Zoning Conditional use for a planned unit development Current Zone: R-7 Intermediate rural residential district Daniel Solodon/Lynne Schlumpf 19373 Starflower Circle Lot 11, Block 2 Skyline View Subdivision It is our strong belief, after performing our own survey of neighbors in our area and because of our own problems with the water table that the water table in this region will not supply an adequate water supply for multi-unit housing. We have had companies like Anchorage Well and Pump do well tests and try to drill new wells in the area with contractors and have found the area to be troublesome. Existing wells have slow recovery and new wells often collapse during drilling or have to be drilled at least 500 feet to find any water. What water we have in the area could be completely decimated by such a large group of units in a concentrated area. We ourselves have to have 2 wells on our property just to supply enough water for just 2 people. We believe strongly that a complete survey of the water table should be done before considering such a large construction project, as the project could leave us all with little or no water for our homes and force everyone in the area to be hooked up to the Anchorage water supply (which many have already elected they cannot do because of financial strain). If this land being considered were instead converted into, for example, 5 or 7 homes, the water table could probably handle it. However, the project being considered would most likely cause our wells problems in the long run. We ask that the water be the major consideration when reviewing this application for conditional zoning. Thank you, Sincerely, Daniel Solodon, Lynne Schlumpf | |
| Chuck Stiehr | 10/25/2007 9:39:14 AM |
| As a member of the Chugiak Volunteer Fire Department, I am concerned about the lack of fire safety for the proposed PUD. There is an inadequate water supply in the area to provide for fire hydrants, and the planned roads provide no room for the necessary apparatus to access and fight fire. In addition to this serious safety hazard, I hate to imagine how the development would compare to the rest of the neighborhood. The density of the proposed PUD would be the equivalent of squeezing five additional houses onto lots with existing homes in the neighborhood, most of which are about 1 acre. This was clearly not the intent when the area was zoned R7. Please consider the hazards and do not grant this conditional land use. | |
| Gary Stadig | 10/20/2007 9:37:17 AM |
| I am against having the land rezoned from single family lots to multiple family lots. Reguardless of who the developer/builder is, the lots in this subdivision should be built as single family homes and not multiple family homes. When I invested in this neighborhood in 1984, it was with the understanding that this was a single family/sinlge home per lot area. It should remain that way. | |
| BIRCHWOOD COMMUNITY COUNCIL Bobbi Wells, Chair | 10/18/2007 7:34:46 PM |
| At the September 26 meeting of the Birchwood Community Council, a MOTION was duly made and approved to support the property owners in the vicinity of the Tundra Jewel Ranch Subdivision in their declared OPPOSITION to the development sought in Case #2007-117, and expressed through their own Chugiak Community Council. This is surrounded by single-family large lot R-7 properties many lots removed from the Glenn Hwy served by on-site water wells and septic systems, some of a fragile nature. In our recently updated area Comprehensive Plan, this particular location is intended to continue as single-family large lot development for the next 20 years as was also stated in the 1993 Plan. Allowing such a development will result in a failed level of service on the local streets serving the neighborhood. Should the rationale of the location tout the benefits of easy pedestrian access to a senior center or elementary school, we would like the MOA to note that the Glenn Hwy is quite busy and doesn't have pedestrian crossings or a traffic signal on this State roadway..assuming you had a sidewalk or walkway to get to the Glenn. This is a rural area and the residents settled here with the reasonable expectation that spot zoning and higher densities would not happened. For these and the stated reasons in the Chugiak Council communication, please do not approve this action. | |
| DAWN YARBROUGH | 10/18/2007 1:36:56 PM |
| I request you do not grant a conditional use permit for the purpose of a PUD in this rural area. My husband built a home here in 1970 and we have resided there ever since. This addition will create an unberable traffic situation on Needles loop. The water is already at a critical level in the area. 30 additional families in this area will likely cause the water level to drop and an addition of the septic systems will create a rise in the nitrate levels. There are no sidewalks or street lighting in this area creating additional hazards for the children who have to walk to the bus in the dark during the winter months. The roads are narrow and slick during incliment weather. Please do not allow this varience. Keep the neighborhood a R-7 neighboroughhood. Like the Intent Par. in 21.40.090 suggest. Low density residential development. It is a real shame the Church did not live up to the agreement they made with the lady who donated the lot to them. | |
| Chugiak Communtiy Council, Linda Kovac, Secretary-Treasurer | 10/18/2007 12:24:10 PM |
| At the 09/20/07 Chugiak Community Council meeting, P&Z Case No. 2007-117 was thoroughly discussed. A motion was made to recommend that this request for a conditional use for a Planned Unit Development be denied due to issues with traffic, negative impact to water table and water quality, incompatible use with adjacent properties and uses, and a proposed density that is not in accordance with the Chugiak-Eagle River Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed with 45 in favor and zero opposed. A follow-up letter will be sent to MOA Planning. | |
| Gail Stadig | 10/17/2007 8:42:47 PM |
| I don't know who in the municipal government gets to read these comments or if we, the residents in this community, are likely to be heard. It's worth a try though. I note that anyone supporting this development in the comments I've read don't live here nor provide an address where they do live; likely not from this neighborhood. If they were neighbors, they would understand. My husband and I have lived on Wildwood Drive for 23 years this month. We know first-hand the water problems that have faced everyone in this area. When we had a family of 6 children and a Mom and Dad living next door to us, our children and we would run out of water if we tried to do anything as daring as taking a shower then doing a load of laundry in the same morning. We never washed our cars at home due to the water shortage and low pressure. Watering the grass? Not in this neighborhood. When company came to visit, we had them do their laundry at the local Shopper's Cache laundrymat and they even showered there. We invested in our home in the past 2 or so years, adding on to our house, and had to install a water tank so water would be pumped intermittently rather than all at once when we really need it. This is working at this time. I fear that with 30 or so families adding to the existing water problem, our municipality will be sacrificing us and all that we've worked for by allowing the area to be one that even with foreseeable problems, was allowed to grow when it was very foolhardy and could have been stopped. Who will want to buy our homes? This could be a wonderful community for years to come. No doubt, this will all end when the problems begin. Yes, I said when, not if the problems begin. I see some acquaintances hauling water on the back of their pick-ups in another area nearby. That could be us, having had to settle for this disaster because the zoning was changed to allow a businessman to make a profit. The streets are another set of problems. During the school year, kids being kids, while on their way to the school bus, walk on the edge of the road with their backs to the traffic. I drive around them on the very narrow street and hope no one is turning in to Needels just as I get to the stop sign at the Old Glenn Highway. There is also a section of Needels that is so narrow, that I pull over to the very edge of a deep ditch to allow the on-coming car to go by first. It's what we live with. We've managed to deal with the problems that come with this area. Adding more stress, totally unnecessary and not even common-sensical, is a disaster waiting to happen. Please, really listen and hear us. We do not want the zoning to be changed for very good reasons. It's not about keeping out Senior Citizens or anyone else. It's about ruining our everyday ability to live in our home without worry about running out of water or additional contaminants in our area. It's about all of us being hard-working people who invest in our homes and then see it all collapse due to a project that doesn't fit our neighborhood. | |
| James and Sally Tilton | 10/16/2007 5:08:14 PM |
| We oppose the proposed plan to develop the subject property. The existing community is primarily single family dwellings. In the not so distant past we built a home on Daniel Crt. It is our understanding that the subject property was held by a church and the property was to remain for public or church use. Development of a multi-family type complex would put stressors on the existing community; Such as high demand for water in an area that is known to have marginal water/well out- put. In addition, the increased septic system could effect water quality. The added traffic to the area would also change the character of this quiet neighborhood. | |
| Andrea Stiehr | 10/15/2007 5:57:22 PM |
| Please do not allow the rezoning to go through. This community does not need zero lot lines and condos! | |
| marie nelson | 10/15/2007 3:59:45 PM |
| I lived on needles loop for seven wonderful years; i love how safe and peaceful needles loop is. i would be so disappointed to see those condos go in, i still go visist needles loop quite often my mother still lives there and i bring my two year old son over there to go play. we are able to go down the road with his bike and have very little worry of trafic and admire the wonderful trees that we have left. please do not take for granted the wonderful scenic view god had blessed upon us. marie nelson | |
| Magayr Knox | 10/15/2007 2:13:15 PM |
| I grew up on Needels Loop. For over 20 years, I cherished the small community feel and the safety that an intimate neighborhood with little traffic provides. In a fast growing community such as the Chugiak/Eagle River area, I understand the desire to meet the needs of an expanding population and the tax benefits for the municipality of allowing a PUD to be built in this area. However, there are many valid arguments that support the original zoning of R7, which was established with good reason. I have seen the traffic on this road grow a lot over the years, and I fear that adding 30 more families worth of traffic in such a small area would create serious hazards for the many children who play in and travel these streets to school. Another safety concern is that there are no fire hydrants in this area, and adding high density housing where fire response access might be limited would be irresponsible. Current homeowners on Needels Loop count on the original zoning for their peace of mind, their property values, and for protecting the limited water supply which is known to be high in nitrates. Attempting to provide water and sewer for high density housing would not only be risky for those that would move into the neighborhood, but would jeopardize an already fragile balance in the established lots. Allowing this PUD to be built would affect the entire neighborhood negatively concerning safety, traffic, water and sewer. Seven or eight single family homes that comply with R7 residential zoning, consistent with the existing neighborhood, would be reasonable and welcome. PLEASE consider the negative impact of high density housing in this case and do not allow conditional PUD use for this land. | |
| Vicki Schultz | 10/12/2007 9:16:48 AM |
| It is always extremely difficult to accept a change in any neighborhood. When a large vacant lot that has been so for as long as the surrounding residents can remember suddenly will be developed, its only human nature to want to preserve the surroundings you come to associate with your neighborhood. We all know that land is a nonrenewable resource and eventually those vacant properties could be developed. Fortunately, Eagle River/Chugiak has some builder/developer’s who live & work in the area & have contributed responsibly to the housing needs of the community. C&T’s projects display that sense of responsibly, add quality housing & appeal to the community & are developed in such a manor they will most likely remain well maintained as the associations are responsible for upkeep, therefore ensuring continuity within the project. Mr. Thomson’s proposed Sky Manor site plan displays a nice flow through the project, large yard areas for each unit & what appear to be most likely ample areas for snow storage. In comparison with other projects on well & septic systems developed by other builders, Sky Manor’s proposed density appears to be less dense with 4.25 units/acre versus River’s Edge density of 6.03 units/acre. Understandably the residents in the area are concerned with installation of additional septic systems; however, the proposed system for this project is explained as more of its own treatment system & will most likely be closely scrutinized by the municipality & DEC. It is true, there are a number of condos currently on the market; however, there are also numerous single family homes. This project’s appeal to people looking to downgrading their housing, senior citizens and/or single parents whose children wouldn’t have far to walk to school creates an opportunity for this group of buyer’s to have the combination of quality housing & great community. | |
| James Crewdson | 10/11/2007 10:12:31 PM |
| I'm concerned about the potential water and sewer issues as a result of this development. Who is going to be responsible for dealing with these types of problems? As a licensed Civil Engineer, I am legally and ethically bound to thoroughly explore the potential issues as a result of my projects. Is that happening with this project? Will there be an engineer stamping the plans for this project? If there are problems with water quality, what kind of time frame are we looking at to have it resolved? A common scenario could go like this: problem is discovered, a study is done to determine who is at fault, an engineer is hired to develop a solution, whoever is paying for it pushes for value engineering, once a plan is agreed upon the project is put out to bid, the successful bidder is given a notice to proceed and construction begins. This could easily take a year or more even with all parties in agreement, which is not likely to be the case. During this time, people would have to find a way to live with the problem. This area has a marginal water supply as it is. In my opinion, it would be neglegent for an engineer to try putting this much of an increased load into our neighborhood. | |
| Deborah Jones | 10/10/2007 8:02:08 PM |
| I would like to know how the Fire Chief feels about the development that is being considered for this 7.5 acres. We have no water hydrants and I am sure it will be a problem for the fire trucks to enter and maneuver around if there is a fire in this development Please consider the needs, wants and desires of the neighborhood to develop open land as the zoning states. Thanks | |
| Woodie Thorall | 10/10/2007 6:07:36 PM |
| My family has lived in the Chugiak area for over 20 years. It has been a small close-knit community of predominately single family homes. We recently moved to am area just up the hill from this proposed development. When we bought we had problems with the water volume and the nitrates in the water. We had it repaired but were warned that the water table in the area is being depleted faster than anyone thought was possible. We get only 2 gal. per minute. This high density project will not be well served by building here. They will only have serious problems to contend with and cause the rest of us in the area to have them also. The roads are lacking in maintenance and can be very slippery in the winter. It doesn't seem that seniors' would be ideal residents here where the roads are not as good as they are closer to the city center. Please do not allow these units to be built here. | |
| Wesley Faulkner | 10/10/2007 4:52:12 PM |
| A conditional permit for a planned unit development shouldn't be allowed in this area with R-7 zoning in Chugiak. The history of water and sewer problems should be the determining factor. How can this area be expected to handle such an impact? Please listen to the voice of the residents and put a stop to this conditional use permit. | |
| micah goocey | 10/9/2007 6:33:28 PM |
| A planned unit development just does not fit into our community. Please do not grant a conditional use permit. | |
| Heather Harwod-Stamper | 10/7/2007 7:05:33 PM |
| Growing up in Chugiak, I enjoyed the many natural spaces and small town atmosphere found here. When I heard about the request for a conditional use permit in this neighborhood, I became concerned about the future of our community. The area around the property in question has been a stable and comfortable home for many long term residents of Chugiak. Turning this property into a high density housing development will surely put a strain on the traffic, water and safety of this neighborhood. I implore you to consider the livelihood of the current residents of Chugiak. Do not grant this permit. | |
| peter harwood-stamper | 10/7/2007 6:37:30 PM |
| As a frequent visitor to Chugiak, I am very worried about the impact of allowing this conditional use permit on the future of this small community. The community is not equipped to accommodate high-density populations. The roads, water, and fire-protection are all insufficient for the current application and certainly could not accommodate future developments that would be allowed upon this precedent. The PUD should request the applicant to make the following studies before making a recommendation on this application: 1. traffic 2. water/environment 3. public safety | |
| Linda Vrem | 10/4/2007 8:32:33 PM |
| I have lived on Needels Drive since 1981. Because of low water tables and high nitrate levels in this area several years I went door to door to get city water installed. It was ultimately voted down, one of the larger voter was the MOA and the Catholic Church (which owned the 7.5 acres). I find it ironic that they sold this property and now the purchasers want a community well. My well is over 300ft deep with barely enough water to supply 2 of us. Some financial institutions will not loan money with the level of nitrates we have. So I definately say no to rezoning. The water here is marginal at best. We don't need to look like the units across from Fred Meyer, we don't need the traffic either. | |
| Edna Roos | 10/4/2007 8:24:57 PM |
| I have lived in my present home on Needels Lp since 1971. During that time I have seen more and more people driving like they were on a freeway. I would like to have the quiet atmosphere we used to have. A development would only increase the traffic and possibly deplete what little water we do have. Do not rezone. | |
| Harley Sidebottom | 10/2/2007 9:05:35 PM |
| I feel that 30 families on 7.5 acres is too congested for this areas aquifer and zoning. The water in this area is already in poor quantity and quality. There is no grantee that 30 families x 3 people = 90 people’s water consumption and septic use will not affect the areas already stressed aquifer. PLEASE DO NOT APROVE THIS ZONE CHANGE OR CONDITIONAL PERMIT | |
| Brett Hubbard | 10/2/2007 12:37:12 PM |
| I am opposed to A conditional use for a PUD (plannned unit development). Tundra Jewel Ranch Subdivision, Lot 20. Generally located south of Needels Loop and west of Wildwood Drive. This conditional permit is inconsistent with the neighboring lots and housing developments. the R-7 Zoning requirments clearly state 40,000 sq ft per lot. Owners in this area bought their land and homes with faith that the city would enforce the standards that are set for the cummunity by the R-7 zoning. These homeowners and citizens from the area also expect protection under the requirements set by the R-7 zoming. It is clear that C&T is more responsible than some other developers, however if they were truly interested in the wellbeing of the community they would develop the land consistent with the adjoining lots. We also know that nitrate levels in this area are high. That is a huge concern when contemplating a 30 family developement. The water in this area has also been proven over many years to be a problem. Many homes near the development have low performing wells with large holding tanks to accomadate their needs. The builder has said that his well is well below most of the neighbors. Elementary geology tells us that his well will pull recources from above to fill his. Knowing makes me wonder what will happen to this area that is already plagued with water problems. Also it is fair to mention the traffic caused by an additional 30 families on roads that are currently poorly maintained for the current traffic. This land was left to the Church in a family's will. The will asked that it be used for youth activities. The Church was to use this land for the benefit of the community. Not sell it to a development that is for the detriment of the community. How betrayed is this family now that their dying wish is being used for profit. The least that could be done to protect this dying wish, would be to responsibly develop the land into single family dwellings with at least 40,000 sq ft per lot. It is up to the city to protect this community and a little old ladies dying altruistic wish, by upholding existing R-7 zoning requirements and by not granting a conditional use permit for this land or the other parcel of land that is awaiting the results of this case until they request a conditional requst permit. If we continue to give each developer a conditional use permit to avoid following zoning requirements, What use are the zoning requirements in the first place. What confidence can a homebuyer have knowing that a simple permit granted will devaluate their land and home. Thank you for considering my comments. | |
| Amy Hubbard | 10/1/2007 6:15:03 PM |
| I am opposed to a conditional use permit for this property. It is inconsistant with existing developement and community planning. There are already high nitrates in this area & I would hate to see the water quality compromised. There is also the problem of existing low producing wells that could be impacted. The existing roads were not built to handle this volume of traffic. I have lived in this area over 20 years and would like to see it remain R7 as originally planned. | |
| Colleen Johnson | 10/1/2007 2:25:14 PM |
| Most people that live in Chugiak bought here because we desire the peace and privacy we have on our single family lots. With R7 zoning we felt resaonably comfortable buying our home. Please do not change the zoning from R7. Condos are not need or wanted in this area. | |
| Bobbi Botelho | 10/1/2007 8:20:27 AM |
| The zoning was set in this area for a reason. That is one of the reasons many have chosen to puchase a home in this area. I abhore the thought that a developer can come in, purchase the land and then petition to change the zoning laws in this community. This is a beautiful area. It is not meant for row houses or condo's. It is stipulated that each single family home MUST sit on at least 40,000 square feet. I ask that you do not change our way of life here in Chugiak and do NOT change the zoning laws that are in place for this area. Thank you for your time and consideration. | |
| Michelle and Don Chandler | 9/30/2007 7:59:07 PM |
| Please do not agree to conditional use permit for 7 acres in Tundra Jewel. I'm not an engineer but I don't think the water table in this area can handle that kind of impact. Two years ago I bought a house a couple hundred yards away from this site. I have a 305' well with 2.5 gallons per minute. I had to install water tanks under my house so there would be enough water per day to run a household. I think some serious research needs to be done on the water and septic impacts before we can consider approving this type of construction. What impact does it have on the community? If we all run out of drinkable water what will that do to the property values. One thing that drew me to this area was when you look for sex offenders online you see very few in Chugiak. I believe it is because most of my neighbors are midclass american families, trying to live the dream. Own a house in a neighborhood that kids can safely play because you know all the people who live on your street. | |
| Arthur F Yarbrough | 9/30/2007 4:22:04 PM |
| I am opposed to the request for a Conditional Use Permit on this lot. I own lot 19A which I purchased in 1970. I constucted a dwelling there and have lived there ever since. I would like to mantain the characteristics of the neighborhood. I understand that R7 is a low densitiy residuntial area. I think this should be maintained in this neighborhood. In addition the preposed construction seems to create a lot of new problems. Traffic. Snow removal. I don't see where this guy can put snow removed off the driveways and street in the winter. Access by emergency equiptment. It appears that a fire truck would have a hard time navigating a way to an incident in this development. He braggs his will is 220 feet deep. This really concerns me as my well is at 212 feet, so I'm sure we are in the same aquifer. I see a real problem with his sewer system. With that many occupients his drain fields will be overworked, they appear to be marginally close to peoples water wells across the road. I would bet there is terrible increase in the nitrate levels in the area. He pitches his intrest for senior citizens. There are no side walks here, no street lights, and no facilities close. As a 77 year old I would hesidate to walk from my home to the Senior Citizens Center in the winter time or during spring break up with ice on the roads. | |
| Deborah Jones | 9/30/2007 12:33:29 PM |
| I am against granting Mr. Thompson a conditional use permit for his 7.5 acres. If the existing zoning (R-7) was used there could be approximately 8 houses built on this property. Much better usage for the land & the neighborhood not to mention that much stricter rules apply to single family buildings than to multifamily buildings. That is a win for the water table, roads and the neighbors. I have lived here for over a year & a heavy usage day for traffic is maybe 8 cars. If these units are marketed to retired people they better be able to drive so they can go shopping or just get their mail. Even if they have someone to do those things for them there will be minimum 15 cars added to a street that has historically had 8 cars daily on a heavy traffic day. Please consider the needs of the neighborhood and reject this request. | |
| Boyd Homelvig | 9/30/2007 12:18:43 PM |
| Zoning is put in place for several reason but has flexibility to change if the surrounding area changes. The request for a conditional use permit to build a PUD in a quiet rural neighborhood is not one of the reasons to be flexible about zoning. Please stay with the zoning put in place for this area and don't bow to pressure for a bigger tax base. There is not a need for this type of housing in this area. Please say no to the request for a conditional use permit. | |
| laura hamilton | 9/28/2007 4:01:22 PM |
| Please, we need complete research on the impact 30 families will have to the water table in this area. Please request from the builder a 7 day well production test showing how long the well will pump and how many gallons per minute. If for one hour, two hours, 4 hours or a day???? Just because it produces so much when drilled does not mean it will continue for any length of time. I have live in this neighborhood over 25 years. Myself and neighbors are concerned about the water table being depleted to the point that no one gets enough water to sustain normal daily activities like laundry, bathing and drinking water. And we are very concerned about the quality of that water. We are concerned how 30 familys disposing of waste water, regardless of the fancy designed system, will impact this fragile area. We are concerned of the effects on the area should that system fail as has occured in other areas and how it will impact daily life. I am also concerned about the Creek across the street from this lot. The low producing and high nitrates in the wells in this area are documented facts on record with the muni..not just made up excuses to prevent C & T const. or any one else from developing. Nor are we, my self and my neighbors montivated by anything other then self preservation. As of today there are 85 condos for sale in the MLS in Eagle River and Chugiak for sale to choose from. This number does not include the one being sold by thier owners. Please do not issue conditional use permit. Building should be uniform with the area, a PUD is not uniform with this area. We will take our chances single family residences with minimum 40,000sq. ft. lot as dictated by current codes for new subdividing in the Anchorage Municipality. This was the code and the zoning when the builder bought this lot just a few months ago. | |
| Clark Saunders | 9/28/2007 11:34:00 AM |
| After reading comments on this proposed project, I felt it prudent to draw attention to a few things. I sympathize with anyone not wanting development happening in their neck of the woods. If this project were going in across the street from my house, I would wish I had the resources to buy up all the land around me for a buffer zone to prevent it. But, the reality is that development happens. What Alaskan hasn't thought that the State should "shut the doors of Alaska after we moved here"? Chugiak is a beautiful place to live. It would also be a beautiful place to retire. With the senior center nearby, it seems like a practical location for independent living senior citizens to have a home. I wish my father could live in a development like this. (By the way, he doesn't drive much and certainly stays off the roads during commuter/student/peak travel times so I scarcely feel that traffic would be any major concern as a result of this project). Also, has anyone in the neighborhood ever taken a look at this particular builder/developer's work? C&T is not just another developer. This company has been building/developing in the area for over 25 years. Drive by his local condominium projects like Rock Cliff Manor, Stonehaven Manor, or Loch Ness Manor (which is, by the way, just down the road, a short walk from the builders own home of many years and IS in his own neighborhood). These developments are tastefully placed and esthetically pleasing, not just thrown in like we see all over Anchorage. C&T has always exhibited craftsmanship and pride of workmanship in its projects. No stranger to the area, I am confident C&T will provide a water supply and waste considerations that will not be an adverse effect on the neighborhood. There already is a well twice as deep as most, placing the supply beyond current well owners' consideration AND the production is three times the Municipal Code minimum requirements for this size of project. I believe this project will create a "niche housing opportunity" for people who deserve to live in as nice of a place as we do and should be considered as a practical and responsible addition to the neighborhood. Afterall, progress is inevitable and thank God this bit of development is in the hands of a local, responsible, long time business man from Eagle River. | |
| Theadrata Williams | 9/28/2007 8:08:26 AM |
| I HAVE LIVE IN CHUGIAK FOR OVER 20YR AND I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANG SOME GOOD AND SOME BAD ,BUT IF THIS HOUSEING PROJECT GO THREW THERE WILL BE MORE PROBLEM,SOME PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE PROBLEM WITH THEIR WATER AND SEPT ,AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT I CAN SEE MORE PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. I LOVE MY QUIET LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY THAT WAY. | |
| Tom Devine | 9/26/2007 11:54:33 PM |
| Please don't ruin this quiet environment that our community invested in.I bought into R7 zonning knowing that our elected officals would protect my family and the value of all our homes. | |
| Ralph Henderson | 9/25/2007 8:33:30 PM |
| I am opposed to the conditional use permit for this PUD! I have lived on Wildwood Dr for 30 years, and have enjoyed the peace and quiet for all that time. I own lot 21 in Tundra Jewel Ranch Sub, directly across Wildwood Dr from the proposed development, and fear a severe impact on my lifestyle, my water supply, my peace and quiet, and increased traffic! Thank You Ralph Henderson 09/25/07 | |
| Anne Ogden | 9/24/2007 10:15:42 PM |
| I purchased my house 20+ years ago because of its location and R7 zoning. I have noticed in the past 10 years my water pressure has dropped significantly as houses have been built around me. The impact of a high density housing project less than a quarter mile from my house has the possibility of depleating the water table even further. High density housing does not belong in this neighborhood. | |
| James Crewdson | 9/24/2007 8:01:47 PM |
| Is a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) required for the proposed project? As a registered Civil Engineer, I'm accustomed to agencies requiring a TIA for a potential traffic generator of this size and that it would be expected to take into account other known potential projects in the vicinity. At this time, there appears to be a similar development on an adjacent parcel that is "on hold" while the fate of Lot 21 is determined. I wouldn't be surprised if the traffic generated from these two projects is sufficient to require a traffic light at Needels Loop and the Old Glenn Highway, which could be difficult given the current geometry at the intersection and the fact that it's owned by the State. | |
| Tina Kahler | 9/24/2007 12:42:15 PM |
| My husband and my family lived in Eagle River for 5 years then moved out to quiet Chugiak. I live on Wildwood drive and the thought of these duplexes and condo's going in just down the street makes me sick. Like most here I have children that already have to walk to the school bus in the dark on roads that don't have sidewalks with the snow being piled on the side all winter making them have to walk in the street. Shoot we are lucky to even get our roads plowed or sanded in a reasonable time.I don't believe our wells and septics can handle the this. Most homes have at least two cars these days and adding that many vechiles, it just too many. Please leave us to live in a quiet neighborhood. | |
| Tom Merrill | 9/24/2007 11:59:50 AM |
| Please do not agree to conditional use permit for 7 acres in Tundra Jewel. This area is not designed for such a project. There are plenty of condos for sale and have been for a long time. This is a quiet area and we like it that way unlike Anchorage and what has happened to Eagle River. We do not want that type of development in Chugiak. No to Urban development! | |
| Laura Hamilton | 9/24/2007 11:03:20 AM |
| I request you do not grant a conditional use permit for the purpose of a PUD in this rural area. One home per 40,000 sq. ft. is required by the muni for new subdividing. It would make sence that either one home could be built at that site or the builder could subdivide down to 40,000 sq. ft. lots as is allowed and then the builder could build single family homes on those lots. It seems odd that developers can build as many units as they can pile on to that same area and hook them all to one septic and one well and call it good. I would think multi familys would would have higher requirements as more people will reside there flushing more toilets and using more water. The high tech inovative septic system at Rivers Edge condos in Eagle River, just for one example,has been nothing but trouble since development and still smells like sewer when I was in the area 2 weeks ago. I question how one 20 gallon per minute well can be expected to sustain 30+ families in an area where the water table is known to be depleting. Not only are we facing low producing wells but high nitates too. We are zoned for low density and that is how our area should stay. Condos do not comform with this neighborhood. No Conditional use permits Please! | |
| Brooke Stiltner | 9/21/2007 4:25:29 PM |
| This new Condo site will result in a great deal of additional traffic in an area already lacking in wide streets, street lights or any sort of walking trails or walkways. The local children walk to school or school bus pick up points in the dark for most of the school year. For the most of the winter they are forced to walk in the roads due to the extreem snowbanks. The addition of 60+ vehicels to this quiet rurel area would greatly endanger the safety of the local yough. | |
| Claire Connelly | 9/21/2007 11:29:02 AM |
| Claire Connelly Sherman Street I think it's an absolute disgrace that the zoning laws can be changed just for someone to make more money by building more houses than the area is supposed to hold! I moved here to live in a quiet neighborhood and now that can all change because of greed. Shameful! | |
| Claire Connelly | 9/21/2007 11:28:10 AM |
| I think it's an absolute disgrace that the zoning laws can be changed just for someone to make more money by building more houses than the area is supposed to hold! I moved here to live in a quiet neighborhood and now that can all change because of greed. Shameful! | |
| Ruby Krause | 9/21/2007 11:23:32 AM |
| I, Ruby Krause, have lived on Sherman Street in a cabin since 1958. I do not want my road filled with cars. It has been quiet here since I moved here and I would like to keep it that way. I am 92 years old and have grandfather rights to the road. Ruby Krause | |
| Brooke Stiltner | 9/20/2007 3:55:02 PM |
| It has only been recently that I learned of the application for this conditional use permit and the possibility of a zoning change for this area. I reside on Charlie Rd above the area in question and moved to this location because of the quiet location and lack of city lights. I researched the area for the possibility of expantion and additional building. The area has always been and is ment to be for single family homes in a rural type setting. Many homes in my area have very low producing wells with several being on a single community well because that is all that is available. Building a large cluster housing development in this area will no doubt result in a great impact on the already strained water table. As a 20+ year AK Real Estate Licensee, I have first hand knowledge of the Nitrate problems in his area. The soils in this area are already very much over saturated from the extream number of septic systems. This problem has resulted in contaminated wells which make resale that much harder in an already down market. With all the "Site condos" already on the market that are not selling, I do not see the need for additional homes to be built which only sit empty on the market. If the builder would keep to the original venue of the area and build quality single family homes on large rural lots he would find much less disagreement from the area home owners. | |
| Dale Frary | 9/20/2007 2:54:26 PM |
| Dale Frary P.O.Box 671450 Chugiak, Alaska 99567 As a twenty year resident of this area I am against changing R-7 zoning for this area. A project of this maganitude would drop the water table and leave existing residents with the expense of having to redrill water wells and the need of adding extera water storage equipment in order to make use of low recoverywater wells. | |
| Tom Devine | 9/20/2007 2:54:15 PM |
| Area impacted from Skyview DR. north to Needles Loop and surrounding area. Tom Devine 3 children lives across the street from the proposed PUD Zoned R-7 Low density residential large lots Lot 20 Tundra Jewel. Builder has applied to conditional land use permit for 15 duplexes/30+ condos, high-density housing. I have been told the builder has a well that is expected to produce 20 gallons per minute. Hardly seems like enough for 30+ homes. The area is known for high nitrates in wells. Some levels already above maximum levels set by the municipality. Some already experience very low production, some neighbors have no water at all. More wells in this area will cause further depletion of an already depressed water table. Waste water disposal,systems/septics for 30+ residences how will that further impact our water supply? The creek is across the street, will this ultimately contaminate our creek like has been done in Anchorage and across the nation. What about the wild life that is dependent on that creek? Our children walk to school/bus stop in the dark most of the year. We have no streetlights, sidewalks or bike paths. The edge of the roads are piled high with snow the majority of the winter. People already drive way too fast, the in creased traffic from this development is only going to make the roads even less safe to pass. What about additional repairs and road repairs? This is a bad location for senior housing. It didn't work in Powder Ridge, where a builder built under the guise of being for seniors. After getting approval, at some point the being for seniors criteria was dropped. Even where seniors would have all the amenities, public water, sewer, sidewalks, streetlights, easy commute to hospitals, medical facilities, police, fire department, shopping, pharmacies, and hydrants. The seniors did not seem interested... why would they be interested in living in an area with so much less to offer? According to the MLS in the past year there have been 83 condos listed in Eagle River and Chugiak, only 25 have sold in the past year. Currently 58 showing active with average market time of 335 days..... There doesn't seem to be a shortage of housing and if someone wants to live in a pud there are plenty of properties available to choose from. Lot 1 adjoining 7.5 acres was purchased at same time so it could be assumed that the actual impact to our neighborhood would be 2 times what I have mentioned above Currently and for many years the Municipality has required 40,000 sq. ft. per lot for new subdividing. With all the environmental, health and safety issues that are to be considered in our area for such a project we request that both lot 20 and lot 1, should that come up in the future, not be granted this conditional land use permit but be required to follow the minimum requirements for single family development, new subdividing with min. of 40,000 sq. per lot, per single family residence. | |
| Paul Goocey | 9/18/2007 9:43:22 PM |
| Please don't change the zoning from R 7. Stick with your regulations. Thats why they have been put in place. | |
| Mary Goocey | 9/18/2007 9:39:10 PM |
| Living in Chugiak for 30t years in several locations with sewer and water deficiencies. I have no problem with the right type of development in the right place. I also believe that the muni zoning standards are put in place to protect the health, safety and well being of the community. This issue should send up a red flag to all of us who are concerned about our water quality. Water our most precious resource. The effects of changing low density residential or R-7 to a planned urban development is asking for more problems in an area with a history of high nitrates and septic problems. I am concerned about over taxing the water table with new development that could potentially have more than 1 resident per 40,000 sq. ft. Bascially this area was zoned R-7 for a reason. We don't have fire hydrants on our street, no mail delivery, volunteer fire department and no street lights. Amentites here can't support grow of such proportions. | |
| Deborah Jones | 9/11/2007 6:03:19 PM |
| Last year we bought our quiet home in a lovely neighborhood and now we discover that the possibility of 15 duplexes or more could be built across the street. What a horrible idea to ruin a community with buildings that are not at present allowed. Over building is a terrible habit with developers but they never seem to want the condos, duplexes or apartments in their neighborhood. | |