~ ~~n~i~~m~o~ P.O.Box 1~J6960 Ancl10r<lgG.1\18Sk~99:,1 f)-{i9()[)

Transcription

1 JAN-21-05FRI 03:45 PM ANCSTAFFOFFICES FAXNO, 180"( f', Uc 1.11 ~ TedSlevens ~ ~~n~i~~m~o~ P.O.Box 1~J6960 Ancl10r<lgG.1\18Sk~99:,1 f)-{i9()[) January 21, 2005 Re: Proposed Changes for Title 21, Module 3 Mr. Tom Nelson, Director Division of Community Planning & Development Office of Economic & Community Development Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box Anchorage, Alaska Dear Mr. Nelson: I; ~, i ~\, t JAN '\ <'c l ~; p '. " Enclosed are specific comments by the Airport regarding Module 3 of the revised Title 21. We would like to take this opportunity to briefly go over our major concerns with all modules written to date. Module 1, chapters 1t 2, and 3 define the boards and commissions, giving the Urban Design Commission far more powers than they currently enjoy. In particular, they would have the ability to deny a building permit. This has potential for severe impacts to tenants who must obtain Municipal building permits. Module 2, chapters 4, 5 and 6 set up zoning districts. The Airport Development District (AD) set up in Module 2 is flawed. The definition of "airport" is not consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and the uses and restrictions within the AD need to be corrected to allow all the functions necessary at an airport and inside a terminal. Further, Module 2 should include the provision for setting up an Airport Overlay District that would protect both the airport and the surrounding neighborhoods. Module 3, chapters 7-13, creates specific requirements for development including subdivision standards. In many cases the terms used are vague and open to individual interpretation. For instance, terms like "high quality", "compatible", and "good design" all require interpretation. Further, these chapters give individuals and Communily Councils powers over code enforcement actions. Code compliance is best handled by trained professionals knowledgeable about the code and legal ramifications on enforcement. Providing for thfj movement of people and goods and the delivery of state services.

2 JAN-21-05FRI 03:47 PM ANCSTAFFOFFICES FAXNO P. UJ I l.l I '~ ~M r. Tom Nelson January21 I 2005 Page 2 We look forward to reviewing the revised document when it is out for public reviewin May of this year. Pleasecall me ( ) or Diana Rigg, Planning Manager ( ) if you have any questions. Enclosure: OKR/as As Stated ~re~ 1;6. Eric Miyashiro, P.E, Acting Director, Engineering, Environmental & Planning cc: John Parrott, Deputy Director Morton V. Plumb Jr, Airport Director Rich Wilson, Development Manager

3 JAN FRI 03:47 PM ANC STAFF OFFICES FAX NO P. 04.[_1 I Title 21, Module 2, Chapter 5 Additional Airport Comment Note 33 in Chapter 5 (page 47) requests reviewers determine if parts of the old code should be included in this completely new code chapter. The old code citation is (2) and offers exemptions to the title for the installation and use of antenna(s) smaller than one meter in any dimension for use by a dwelhng unit occupant. We request this paragraph be re-introduced to Chapter 5 and that the following be inserted after "noncommercial receive only antennas":...including Airport noise monitoring equipment. Title 21 Module 3, Chapters 7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13 Chapter 7,Development and Design Standards Page 1 J Section A.1, Line 10: Who defines ('Appropriate balance". Ditto, 2, Line 16: Who defines "as deemed appropriate", Ditto, 3, Lines 20 and 21: Who defines ('high quality appearance" design" and "good Ditto, 7, Lines 28 and 29: Who defines 'high quality" and "compatible". Ditto/ 8.1, line 38: Who decides "is equal to or better than". Page 2, Section , Line 17: Who is the decision making body? Ditto, 5a, band c: What is the definition of "better". Page 3, Section : Recommend removing section as it duplicates other State and Federal regulations. Page 4, Line 5: Buffers and setbacks increase restrictions amount of land available for development. and reduce the Page 11, Section , Line 16: Recommend deleting this restriction. There are cases where ('sloping the retaining wall to match terrain" will be impractical, imprudent and cost prohibitive. Page 26, Lines 40-41: The requirement for all development to set aside a portion of land as private common open space is inconsistent with the mission of the ANC to provide safe and efficient operations at an airport. Recommend excluding ANC or deleting provision. 1 01/20/05

4 JAN-21-05FRI 03:49 PM ANCSTAFFOFFICES FAXNO, p, u~ 1.11 Page 27, Line 4: Recommend deleting the provision for private common open space in industrial areas, This provision is in conflict with the mission for development in industrial areas. Page 28, Line 8: Delete these Design Criteria. They conflict with one another and are inconsistent with the ANC mission, Page 35) Line 38: ADOT&PF provides review and approval of TIA's and access permits on all ADOT&PF facilities in Anchorage.. Page41, Line 4: Recommenddeletingthis setbackas it promotesurban sprawl. Page 41, Section : Amend this section. Perimeter landscaping and bufferingrequiredby this sectionis in conflictwiththe ANC mission to provide safe and efficient operations. Page 54, Line 13: Is this section meant to preclude occupation of a structure/building over the winter months if landscaping will be completed in the Spring? This section should be revised to allow occupancy when the building is complete, not when the landscaping is in the ground. Page 80, Line 7: Amend the sentence to read: "".Driveway Design Standards currently adopted by the Traffic Department except on State roads where State Standards shall apply." Pages 84 and 85, All Lines: These recommendations will increase the size of parking lots, thereby increasing the lots themselves or result in smaller, Jess economic, development. Those costs will be passed on to clients, tenants and to the public at large. Page 86, Line 25: Recommend deleting this preferred location language as it conflicts with driveway permit requirements for sight distance (what the MOA calls "Sight Triangle"). Page 88, All Lines: These requirements, while well intended~do not contribute to safety or to a feeling of well being. In particular, the 'Ihours of operation" do not make any sense, Eliminate paragraph i (Line 33). Page 102, Line 15: These restrictions will eliminate many very attractive building options in Anchorage. They need to be re-thought and revised, For example, the new ASRC building on "C" Street could not be built with these new standards. Recommend making these building aspects as options and giving the developer an opportunity to make selections from the options. 2 01/20/05

5 JAN-21-Ub r~l U~:bU PM ANG ~lal'l' Ul'l'lGt.~ I'AX NU. I~U{ibbilUb to Ub n8n Page 104, Line 17: This section.writtenby staff, must balancepedestrianneeds with other needs. It is unreasonable and needs to be eliminated or substantially revised. Page 105, Line24. This section ignores the fact that facades, protective roof designs, canopies, awnings and other sheltering structures can and will leave shadows, block the summer and winter sunshine and cause differential melting during breakup. Page 107, Line 1: This section needs to be revised to make all requirements options that allow the developer to choose which options to select. Page 112, Line 10: This prohibits the use of cedar and redwood. intent? Is that the Page 113, Line 17: Multiple entrances conflict with a commercial property need to control access for safety and other reasons (such as shop lifting). Page 121f Lines 15-19: This section prohibits the use of new technology as it comes into being. Revise the section to be less prohibitive. Page 125, Section Operational Standards: Some of these are not measurable, and are unenforceable and dependent on personal perception. Recommend deleting these. Page 1, Section , Lines 10-12: Recommend deleting the sentence. Page 9, Section 21.12,060 Line 19: How and in what context can a non~ governmental agency with no fiscal powers like a Community Council have jurisdiction over code enforcement actions. 3 01/20/05