Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHN WELLS 1952 BLK 4 LT 12B " l'~..'!(I x,!l(:fi-',:~(..t')"" OF: ;~,[9CI '~OiU'~ (:d': MUNICIPAUTY OF ANCHORAGE i f)[:.F:'/V'FP,~EN] DF~/,'~ ,]' ~ ENVIRO~:v~NTAL P~O-FECTi~,~PT, OF HEALTH & 5?5 [ ~u~t - :u:[ cr::i~, Ahxk~ O~d0'! ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ,~, ~, ,,,,, ~. ~,,,, ,x :,~:~, u,,c ~:,~'~m:o~ OCT g 0 1978 '~'¢[ephone 2G1.-,:! 720 did , N ~ A K): S~ ~ . 7'"['E::B '7:FP::iq~:.: '~;q '2- '~:~ ...... : ......... : ................... :F: ...................... :-'Fq':: :' :' ........ I_:7.~ One ~ Four SINGLE F:AM I I..Y !]] Two []] Five ML,ILTIF'LE F:AM!t.Y I-] 'f'hm~ r-'l Six INDIVIDUAL~ Aq-FACH ~q EI_L LOG, A well lag is requii'ed foF ail wells COMMUNIt'Y sii',c~ uune ~., :~. For wdls dl ii!ed prior to',1~,: PUBI. l(] UTl l IJ'Y d)pd~ (~ [t~'x:h ioq ii ;:vaiiahie.) :'U~LI(' t 'fl~ Ii'Y ~ ( ~ )'/ 11 z-U '"':t.?. . ,) ..... & VD~¢ ~ I ii, P.O. gOX 4-1276 .. , ,.: , >. ~: / I.D. NO. Public ~'ffat~r System Nar,~' ' , ~.~ Mo. Day Year SAMPLE TYPE: [] Routine El Check Sample (for routine sample with lab reft no. [] Special Purpose [] Treated Water El Untreated Water SAMPLE NO. LOCATION Time Collected Collected By LABOBAT©BY: NAME ADDRESS cIrY Date Received , ' ,': Time Received : ' ~ Analytical Method: Fermentation Tube '?~Men]brane Filter Lab Ref. No. Result* Analyst L__ J I L-J 06-1220 (b) Rev. 1978 BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER ANALYSIS RECORD READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COLLE.TING SAMPLE Form No. 18-310(3-78) 'ibis w:-~t¢f ,~al¥.';is d;mls with materials present ih very minute quantities. (';ar(}-. ~i~ ;-;J(~fiiiic~l~;C' >~ ~h~ bmci:eriological ~,l~aiysis is impaired and resampiing may ~,) Romuve ;:~i~y ;~,;i'>d.,.~f~ or .screelh'~ attached to the outlet. 'lhoroti!jhiy i:i~F, ff~ (ap or pump by allowing water [o Fun fi'eely with (qm, ne(! (~utloi' fo~' Lh~e(; or fOlir mintli, es. H¢.'LILi.';(: ilow :;~¢ ihat: m~tlt stream flows. l:{emovc b(~ii:ie i:mm mailing lube. Hold bottle in one hand while removing cap wiii~ the other. Aw)id touching the neck of the boltle and the inside of the uap. F-itl the h()itk~ to its shoulder while atiempi:ing to avoid splashing. medi(~t¢ly i~;l)Ito~~, c~p, being sure thai it is tight bui: not so tight s~)Jit tl~e O)mph-,,t~; tlle porti{.m of the la!) form which i,': ii~dicated 'T('i BE COMPI,ETEI) BY SUl'F'i. Ji_lh" Fill in all appiOl.)date bla,ks carefully, irluluding yout' public; w;~i~ ~;yslem ideniific;diou Rumb(:r (1[) No.). CunMct the Ah~ska l)epartn~en/of i-i-lvil{)~oilt~-.d (;;o~i:~ervation if yom do ltot know you/' ID i/lllflt)e/, ii: thi:; hi-¢. ~;i~(~(;k ;aullple enter rite lab(~Fator~/ itUillbeF of the s~:irnple which ~¢rigir~;fi!y indi~:;~ied the presence of total coliform. mailing tube with Iai)iorm !!t~i:ii mo~'~ ce, li:iii ,~d ~;()mlner~;irll laboraiorio~ ~r(; available REZONING FOR Cf ~[ENT FROM: l l S{H~$ECT: ~/D~pt. of Health and Env. Protection Parks and Recreation Traffic Engineering BuiAd. ing Divis J on Hnnicipal Engineer Proj c~ct Development Fire Prevention DATE: {December' 7, 1976 Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department Rezoving~ Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, ] 97.'7 1-The Municipalit*j of Anchorage Planning and Zoning Commission has received a petition for a rezoning · as follows: et. al. recieved December 1, 1976, for rezon~ng Lots I thru ]3a, Block 4, JoNn Wells Subdivis.{~on an area of appro~imately of E. ])imond Blvd. and tIartzcl] Street. ?1.. /- } Existing Zoning: R-2 (Two--]"amJly ResJcle~:kis].; permits up an eight plex defending on lot size Requested Zoning: l-1 (higl/t Industrial) .The staff of the Planning Department ~,ould like to/have your comments on the request by December 2] , ]f976 Petition Map Attached Planning DeparrmeJt 200' / Z-1453 -- A petition of Simpson Usher Jo?ms inc. foz Joseph Riendl et. al~ recieved December 1, 1976, for rezoning Lots 1 thru 73a, Block 4., John Wells Subdivisign an area of approximately 4.46 acre~ gene~_*ally located at the southwest corner oI tim intersection of E. Dimond Blvd. and Hartzell Street. Existing Zoning: R-2 (Two-Family Residential; permits up to an eight plex depending on lot size.) Requested Zoning: I'l (LJght Industrial) II. Approv~ Denied. (X) the owner or owners of a nlajOrity Of the land in the petitiOn al ea fOr z°ning map anlendment ( } owner of real property within the Municipality for amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Planning Commission ( ) Assen, bly ( ) department or agency el the Munlcipal~ty -- specify department - See attached letter Area (square feet or acres) of the petition area (Section 21-9{A){3) of the Zoning Ordinance soeci3ies that the area must ExiSting Zoning Classification: R- 2 Proposeo Zoning CIassification: Why is the existing zoning district class ficatlon Llnsa[isfactory? See a ~ [ac nee Other comments:_ SOO att 3ched IV. Why is the zonin.c text unsatisfactory as now written}' -- Materlal Submitted: ( ) maps ( ) Dhotooraphs ( feasibiht¥ reoorts ( ) ~ther (specify) Joseph RiendJ PRINT pETITIONER'S NAME DATE SIGNATURE(S] OF THE OWNER(S) OF A MAJORFI'Y OF THE LAND IN PETITION AREA* /~DDRES" PHONE NO. ZED AGE, "* DATE PHONE NO. ADDRES~ 1577 'C' Street, Suite 103 Anchorage, Alcsk~ ' 20002 7633 November 16, 1.976 Anchorage Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission Municipal Planning and Zoning Department Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Members of the Commission: With this letter and the attached application form, we are requesting a change in the zoning classification from R-2 to I-1 on. tbe following described property; Lots i through 13a, Block 4 of John Wells Subdi¢ision~ 1952 addition, located in the W ~ of the NW k of the SE ¼ of Section 8, TIZN,R3~. The above described property contains approximately 4.46 acres and is located on the west side of Hartzell Road, between Dimond Boulevard and Lake Otis Parkway. This is the portion of what is normally called the Dimond Boulevard Extension that runs in a north/south direction before it intersects with Lake Otis Parkway. ~ , ~ The property in question is relatively long and narrow, ranging in width from 213 feet to 86 feet and having a total length of 1271 feet. The property consists of 13 individual lots all of which front onto Hartzell Road. Zoning in the area is mixed. As indicated above the petition area is zoned R-2. To the north and northeast of the petition area property is zoned I-1. This area is developed with a combination of commercial and industrial uses along Dimond Boulevard. To the east the property is zoned I-2 and developed with heavy industrial businesses. Land uses in that area include concrete and steel fabrication plants, warehousing, open storage of construction materials and associated office structures. To the southwest of the petition area the property is zoned I-1 and is currently being used for outdoor equipment storage and warehousing. To the south is R-5 zoning which is developed with residential uses including standard construction homes and mobil homes. To the west of the petition area is R-2 Anct-~orage Municipal Planning and ZonSng Commission Page 2 November 16, 1976 zoning, again developed with mobil homes and standard residential un5 ts. The petition area. itself contains four single-family homes, one duplex, and three mobil homes. Most of these structures are relatively old. The purpose .of thi.s rezoning is to allow redevelopment of the property. Under the existing zoning the property could be redeveloped with low density apartment units. The petitioners do not feel that this is a reasonable way to utilize the property. The rezoning would allow for an economical use of the land as well as provide a logical zoning pattern for the area. Section 21-9(A)(5) of the Anchorage Municipal Zoning Ordinance sets forth criteria that should be considered by the Planning Commission in reviewSng an application for an ammendment to the zoning map. The following is a review of those criteria. a~ ~- ~eg~'ee of compliance with this request. ao fhe need and justification for an_y proj0osed change of 'this ordinance or the zoning map The most obvious justification for this'rezoning is the un- suitability of the property for residential development. The property is adjacent to land uses and zoning that is incompatible with residential uses. As indicated above, the property in question faces onto Harzell ~oad and directly across the street into an I-2 zone. A drive ~hrough this area will demonstrate that the I-2 zoning is intensively developed. This type of orientation into conflicting land uses makes the possibility of redevelopment of the petition area into low density apartments almost impossible. Added to %ha% is the fact that the Lake Otis/Harzell/Dimond route is used by heavy industrial trafflc generated by these ~k~N~ surrounding industrial areas. This includes gravel trucks, semi-tractor/trailor rigs and heavy equipment. Ali_ of these %j factors make the use of the petition area for residential purposes undesirable. The I-1 zoning requested would represent a much more logical zoning pattern. It would result in a more gradual reduction in intensity of land use from the I-2 down to the residential areas to the west. This principal was recognized along the southern boundry of the I-2 property where I-1 zoning was used as a transition zone between the I-2 and the existing R-S zoning. The rezoning requested would also place the zoning boundry down a back lot line where the residential Anchorage Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission Pagq 3 November 16, 1976 and industrial zone would be facing away from each other rather into each other across the street. This is recognized as a desirable zoning pattern and should be encouraged here. The effect of a use district hhange, if any, on the property ~ the surrounding properties This request to I-1 zoning would obviously have no adverse effect on the existing adjacent I-1 and I~2 properties. The R-S zoning to the south of the petition are would suffer no adverse impact. The orientation of that property is not towards the petition are and traffic from the industrial area could not be routed through that residential area. The R-2 property to the west, as indicated above, is oriented away from the petition area and thus would be buffered from~ access which would eliminate any traffic impact that the zoning might generate. It should also be noted that the depth of the 'entire petition area is limited. Consequently, developments within this proposed I-1 zone would tend to be small and thus minimizing any impact on.the residential RrC8S · The amount of undeveloped land in the genera.], area having the same district classifidation as that requested or effected by an ordinance ammendment A look at the zoning will indicate that there is a relative large amount of industrial zoning in this portion of town. This area has been one of the fastest developing industrial areas in the Anchorage community. It should also be noted that almost all of the property with frontage on Hartzell Road has been developed. Moveover, the question applied to this request for rezoning should not be how much additional I-1 zoning is available, but what else can this property be utilized for. It is clear that the petition area is unusable for residential purposes. Of all the zoning districts within the Anchorage Zoning Ordinance, I-1 is the most logical one for this property. We feel that this point should receive heavy consideration when our request is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Anchorage Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission Page d November ].6, ].976 The relationshi~ of the p_ro_q~>osed ammendment to the Comprehensive Planning Program with ap~proprSate con- sideration as to whether the ~r_ql~_psed change wSll further the pu_~ji~oses of this ordinance and the General Plan This request for rezoning is in direct compliance with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. First of all, with respect to the existing residential zoning~ subsection "a" of the Residential Objective under the Land Use Goal states the following: "Adopt and implement policies and programs which aid 5n reducing land use conflicts and nonconfor mities within 'the community" potential for land use conflicts would be extremely high. This would create severe problems in renting the apartment u~Ll[..~ on £~he property and would undoubtedly affect the economic viab'ility of the apartments. SubSection "f" under the Residential Objectives states as follows: "Established residentially zoned neighborhoods should be protected from intrusion of ~ncompatible land uses and their effects (noise,~glar6, dust)." The adverse affect of residentially zoned neighborhoods described above are exactly what would happen to new resi- dential development within the petition area. The zoning pattern that we have proposed herein would orient the industrial uses away from residential areas, thus reducing this "intrusion of incompatible land uses" into residential areas. Under subjection "A" of the Industrial Goal the Comprehensive Plan states: "To concentrate industrial uses in areas especially suited for intensive development." The petition area has been shown to be appropriate for industrial development. This is evidenYed by the rapid development of the industrial areas to the north, east and southeast of the petition area. Anchorage Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission Pag~ 5 November 16, 1976 The Comprehensive Plan goes on to state : "The industrial areas should have the following: A range of utilities and business services for the industry Adequate and efficient access to major transportation systems without reliance on residential streets The existance of major natural or man-made barriers or buffers that separate industrial areas and their effect from other existing non-compatible land use Supporting business services which compliment All four of the criteria listed above are met by this property. .... r ..... ................ ~ a ~1 ran~ ur utiiSLi~ and has excellent' access characteristics. The orientation of the property away from the residential areas to the west provides the separation needed between the industrial and residential uses. Pinally, the property is almost surrounded by supporting business services which will complement industrial uses anticipated within the petition area. This requested rezoning is also consistent ~ith the guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for utilSzation of the plan map. As indicated in paragraph ~ on page 52 of the Comprehensive Plan, the map is a summary of written data and its land use classifications are generalized. It states further that "areas at or near the boundaries may be analyzed under either or both classification utilizing the goals and objectives in the text . . " This petition area is on a boundry between industrial and residential areas. Approval of this rezoning would comply with the goals and objectives listed by both the residential and industrial sections and would provide for a zoning boundry that is more consistent with comprehensive planning principles. We feel that we have put forth a reasonable request for rezoning that is well substantiated with fact and appropriate comprehensive planning principles. The existing zoning is clearly inappropriate due to the surrounding land use, zoning Anchorage Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 November 11.6, 1976 and traffic characteristics. The requested zoning Js logical in that it provides a graduated intensity of land use, a more reasonable use of arterial oriented lots, and it elimi~ nates future land use conflicts. We hope that you concur with our approach in this rezoning. If you have any questions, feel free to contact this office at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, -SIM~fi{ USIfER./~//~, INC. GLJ:c cc: Mr. Joseph Reindl