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. | |
|---|---|
| Marc June | 2/1/2021 1:23:23 PM |
| The Platting Board has never addressed the following issues: 1. Whether driveways opening up directly onto Canyon Road which is a collector road are permissible. 2. Whether the Planning Director has the authority to permit the applicant to submit a proposed plat of driveways opening directly onto a Collector Road, specifically Canyon Road. 3. Whether the Planning Director’s decision to permit a proposed plat setting forth driveways onto a Collector Road, specifically Canyon Road, is binding upon the Platting Board. 4. Whether the Platting Board has the discretion to change the Planning Director’s permitting of driveways opening directly onto Canyon Road, whether the Board should exercise such discretion to permit 25 driveways onto the Canyon Road collector road. These issues cannot be addressed without a current traffic study, particularly in light of greatly increased Chugach State Park traffic over the last 12 months. Absent addressing these legal issues,Platting Board approval of the proposed plat is legally flawed and should be denied. | |
| George Horton | 4/8/2020 4:07:38 PM |
| If a section-line easement(s) exist along the section line bisecting this subdivision, the DNR, DML&W, Survey Section requests that it/they be depicted and labeled on the final plat. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Merideane Kennison | 3/11/2020 11:51:19 PM |
| I am very concerned about the proposed development of this property. I urge all board members to visit the site and see the extreme conditions that exist there in the winter. As with the Lewis and Clark development, this property is shaded by the ridge to the south and receives little sunlight much of the winter. The ice and drifting of snow (90+ mph winds recently) make access to this area, and drainage of precipitation unpredictable and hazardous. The impact on the watershed, the dangerous road, and the vast differences from summer to winter conditions make development in this area unknowable to potential buyers. I worry about septic failures, traffic on already poor roads, and a Zoning Board concerned more with development than sensible, conservative stewardship of our lands. Please listen to the residents of this valley. We actually live here and know from decades of observation and living what is feasible and safe regarding future development. Merideane Kennison | |
| Carol Ashlock | 3/11/2020 10:30:22 PM |
| My home, at 13921 Bonnielaine Rd, is one of two properties most directly effected by proposed development of the Rohaley property by the Hulquist group in Glen Alps. It is our home which has been noted on maps which said group has presented as a part of their development plan, sitting below, in the SW corner. PLS NOTE we cannot receive any mail or notices at this address, and are required to receive mail in town at our above noted “mailing address,” possibly why we have never received notices from the developer or S-4 engineering group to date, even though we are the only other property noted on the developer's map, immediately adjacent to their proposed development. We are against all variances requested by the developer due to the following reasons: 1-Severe Current Drainage problems, eroding & poor quality soils: The land has always been extremely wet year round, and waters drain constantly across our 1.87ac property, creating limited area for safe build and continued use of home, septic and well. Additionally, as nature makes sense to drain downhill, and into Rabbit Creek via countless sites, it brings numerous flows across our land, carving large areas, which are problematic and create their own spurring problems. The 4th or 5th re-do of Canyon Road has been disastrous for us, increasing the water flow and glaciation on our road, entering our property. This winter the glaciated area has increased to 20+ feet long, and 12 feet wide, literally making it dangerous to enter or exit our property to our home. Numerous cars and trucks have already slid off down off the road towards the creek. It is extremely dangerous, and difficult to navigate, even with our own personal existent $50,000 road improvement and large culvert installed. 2-Variation to enable additional building, outbuilding, excessive driveways vs. communal cul-de-sacs or like community interior road to driveway access, will only serve to continue to damage our property and use of it, across and around the property. 3-Direct Multiple and individual housing access to Canyon Road will only create MORE RUNOFF AREA, vs. cul-de-sac style with limited exit to Canyon Road; this runoff will cause further drain from noted hard surfaces, damaging ours and neighbors’ property and farm, land below, and dumping into the current pristine Rabbit Creek with car oil pollutants and other loose material. EPA Inquiries will be posed. 4-Efforts to push access to our neighbor’s driveway for multiple housing will only further damage and create additional drainage to their property at 13688 Canyon Rd, and ours just below. Their current drive holds 2 culverts and annually is a severely carved road by drainage that has become a multi waterway. 5-Efforts by the developers to push and create a North side Rabbit Creek trail are misguided and damaging to the animals whose birthing grounds exist along there, with the 15-40ac+ lower swampland directly behind our property, which is why it has never been built on. Nor will we allow our property to be taken for such a trail of do-gooders, who truly care nothing about this pristine environment of animals, water & land, which we live in and manage on a daily basis. 6-Lower Land portion is swampland, poor soils, but birthing area for bear, moose, frequently seen lynx, fox, mink, wolverine, a reason to absolutely not create housing or trails near this area. 7-Noise and light pollution of 27/52 or triple the housing will carelessly cause great pollution and disturbance to a needed less populated and more rural area. Not ALL of Anchorage needs to be groomed to be suburbia, this is something, with the ability to have the daily presence of wildlife, that makes Anchorage, Alaska unique. 8-Poor soils & improper sampling also contribute to neighbors’ serious concerns about a proper, established septic system to be provided. S-4 continually touts the “Advantix System” as a solution, when it has long been established it does not work in this hillside area. Furthermore NO ESTABLISHED COMPANIES WILL COMMIT TO PROVIDING SUCH A FALLABLE SYSTEM, B/C THEY CANNOT AND THEREFORE WILL NOT SUPPORT NOR PROVIDE IT. In conclusion, the surrounding homes and neighbors have worked very hard, like ourselves, for many years and decades to live and develop a life, on well and septic systems, addressing said challenges with scientific and educated purpose. To allow such variances will not only spoil the habitat, but what is owed to the current residents after our long established work and monetary input into our surrounding properties. The R-8SL was set up with cause, not to be changed at the current whim nor favor of the next developer that happens to come along. This ruling was established with proper thought, and has proven for many decades to be a sound and correct one. We DO NOT SUPPORT approving variance. Thank you, Carol Ashlock | |
| Pete Robinson | 3/11/2020 8:56:40 PM |
| I believe that the subdivision, as planned, is actually a plan for the developers to maximize their profits at the exspense of a properly built subdivision. The poor drainage in the area will not properly support that many houses. The reduction of the easement from 100 feet to 60 feet tells me they want to maximize their profits by increasing the available land to subdivide. By proposing each lot has a driveway to Canyon Road also gives them more land to increase the number of lots. The number of driveways to Canyon Road would be a nightmare for snow clearing, drainage problems from frozen and plugged culverts, and basically unsightly cuts in terrain from building driveways from the road up a steep slope. A better idea would be to have one entrance on each side of the road and then a contouring road accessing the lots. This would allow a trail to be built (in the 100 foot) easement where the neighbors could walk (off of Canyon Rd) and would allow the children walking back from the school bus drop-off safe access home. The developer pooh pooh the idea of "a trail to nowhere" for the school kids, saying that parents pick them up in a car, even if they live 15 feet from the bus stop. How may kids will there be from 27 houses? And how many cars to pick them up? There is barely room for three cars at the bus turnaround at the intersection of Canyon and DeArmoun Rds. The bus has to do an iiegal backup, turnaround as it is. What will it be like with ten or more cars parked there. A good trail in the 100 foot easement, that doesn't traverse a bunch of driveways, that accesses the safe to walk on internal subdivision road would be neighborhood friendly and child safe. Any children walking on Canyon Rd risks the State Park traffic, which tends to be fast. The developer thinks that by maximizing his return is the way to do business. But he is not going to live here, He is taking the money and going to his next project. We won't see him again and we will have to live with what he brought us. The many driveways are going to be a burden for all of us because they will need constant thawing and replacing. The added revenues from the taxes on the new lots probably will not cover that expense. Why not build a subdivision that is livable. Oh my mistake, he is making the most money and living somewhere else. | |
| Ian Moore | 3/11/2020 8:47:24 PM |
| The developer in this case has requested that several existing public easements be vacated in favor of significantly smaller and less desirable right-of-ways. In reference to requests to vacate a public easement, Anchorage Municipal Code states the following in 21.15.130 "... in all cases the platting authority shall deem the area being vacated to be of value to the municipality unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof shall lie entirely with the petitioner.". An easement must be shown to have no value to the Municipality before it can be vacated. The Municipal code goes on to say, "If the municipality acquired the street or other public area vacated for legal consideration before the final act of vacation, the fair market value of the street or public area shall be deposited with the municipality." The easements that this developer has requested to be vacated were recently purchased using public funds for the benefit of citizens of the Municipality. The land encompassed by the easements unquestionably continues to be a valuable asset as it provides space for trails, space for snow removal, space for parking for park users, improved drainage to protect the roadway, and a corridor in which wildlife can get off the roadway. The easements also provide access to nearby properties that would otherwise be land-locked. There is a clear benefit to maximize the width of the public easements along this road and the proposed, narrower and diminished, right-of-way would result in a decrease in value to the Municipality. In the interest of the public and the Municipality, the platting board must deny the request to vacate any of the easements. | |
| Ted Moore | 3/11/2020 8:14:56 PM |
| I have serious concerns regarding the soils testing and groundwater monitoring work that was conducted in support of this project. I addressed many of these concerns in a letter to the project engineer, Steve Pannone, dated January 4, 2020, both to make sure he was aware of the midwinter inundation of the test holes and to suggest that he might want to rethink a number of his conclusions regarding soil suitability. I provided the Municipal Development Services Department a copy of the letter at the time. Although I never received any response from Mr. Pannone, his letter report dated February 6, 2020, which is included in the developer’s packet seems to be trying to refute some of the concerns I had raised. The timing of the filing of the plat application and the scheduling of the public hearing, prior to an opportunity to observe seasonal high water table conditions this spring, could be interpreted as an attempt to rush through preliminary plat approval before still more evidence of unsuitable soil conditions could be gathered. Frankly, in all my 25+ years of soils testing, I have never before observed widespread test hole inundation on the scale seen here this winter. Try as Mr. Pannone may, it is almost impossible to concoct a benign explanation that alleviates concern raised by the test hole inundation about the suitability of the soils for on-site wastewater disposal. We can only trust that your department will proactively enforce code provisions that require clear documentation that the soil conditions on all lots are suitable, prior to the preliminary plat being approved. It would be a travesty for the developer’s preliminary plat to get past the platting board, based simply on a promise to document soil suitability in the future. As you know, after preliminary plat approval there will be no further opportunity for public oversight, review and comment on the developer’s submittals to the Municipality. Mr. Pannone included in his report some soils logs prepared by James Roberts in the mid-1980’s. Since no location data is provided for these test logs, they are useless as support to Mr. Pannone’s assertion that the bedrock depth is at least 16’ – 18’. In actuality, many of the test hole logs in Mr. Pannone’s report show refusal at depths as shallow as 8.5’’ to 13’ - at a stratum containing angular cobbles. Such observations are often indicative of fractured bedrock. Mr. Pannone’s soils report is riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies and failures to comply with code requirements. The wastewater code requires the scale of the site plan to be no smaller than 1” = 100’. The test hole location site plan submitted by Mr. Pannone is drawn to such a small scale that it is almost impossible to read. The copy of the site plan included in the packet claims to be at a scale of 1” = 100’, however the actual scale is closer to 1” = 300’. The packet submitted by the developer does contain a larger site plan drawn to a scale of 1” = 100’, however S4 did not show the locations of the test holes and septic reserve areas on that plan, as they really should have. As you well know, the wastewater code requires that a subdivider provide soils tests demonstrating that each lot contains suitable soils to support an original and two replacement septic systems. Mr. Pannone claims to have conducted a single soils test on 26 of the 27 proposed lots. He gives no reason for omitting Lot 9. Given the 30-foot horizontal range of validity of soils test results specified in the wastewater code, it is hard to see how the required area could come even close to being proven up with only one test hole on each lot. Based solely on the test hole data reported in Mr. Pannone’s own submittal, it looks to me like 11 of the 26 test holes should be classified as unsuitable on the basis of unacceptably slow perc rates, unstabilized perc rates, inadequate vertical separation from groundwater and/or insufficient stratum thickness. I am attaching attach a spreadsheet which provides the details that led me to that conclusion. Given the well-documented drainage problems in this area, combined with my own visual observation of highly silty strata exposed by the partially backfilled test hole excavations, it strains my credulity to have Mr. Pannone assert that 16 of the 26 perc test results have the most optimal perc rate of less than 5 minutes per inch. It also strains my credulity that one technician could have conducted the required pre-soaks followed by 3 or more perc rate measurements - in tests running for over an hour each - at 24 different test holes - all in a single day. Yet this is what is stated on the soils logs that Mr. Pannone submitted. Neither start nor finish times are reported for the perc test intervals, but the water level readings for the perc tests are reported to the nearest one one-thousandth of an inch. Really? Aside from a small difference in the reported test hole depth, the soil classification and perc test data reported for Test Hole #1 and Test Hole # 2 are identical, which is virtually impossible. The reported percolation rate(s) in these two test holes (and several others) did not come close to stabilizing, indicating that the perc test holes were not properly pre-soaked, as required by code. The slope graphs provided for each test hole contain neither scale nor numerical quantifications of the slope, as required. In fact, the slope graphs are identical for every one of the 24 test hole logs. Does Mr. Pannone expect anyone to really believe this? I’m not particularly concerned about the slopes in this subdivision, but the sloppy submittal is yet another indication of the level of professionalism that went into it. With regard to the widely observed and reported total inundation of virtually every test hole this past December, the developer, Tom Dreyer of S4, blandly states (in his Summary of Community Council Meetings) “They have not failed. Recent rains have filled the test holes, which is expected.” I realize that Tom Dreyer is not a wastewater disposal engineer, but that is a pretty ridiculous claim, even for a non-engineer. Mr. Dreyer also responds to a question as to whether the soil tests have passed as follows: “They all passed, except for two that we will have to reposition.” He’s telling the public this, when even his own engineer is providing soils test data indicating that 11 of the 26 holes reported have unsuitable results. And the developer’s results do not include the December inundation of virtually every one of the test holes. Mr. Pannone opines that the moisture I observed this past December “seeping out of the surrounding topsoil” “is likely meltwater flowing from above the frozen topsoil and not percolating through the now frozen soil exposed during excavation”. In asserting this, he ignores the fact that I had also pointed out that “due to warm fall weather conditions, there was no frost in the ground”. This becomes something of a he-said-he-said, but I will point out that when I walked out there to check on the flooded test holes, I sank deeply into unfrozen mud at every footstep. My bottom line here is that both the soils report data and subsequent test hole inundation fail to meet the basic requirement that the developer demonstrate that every lot in the proposed subdivision has sufficient suitable soils for installation of an original and two replacement wastewater disposal systems. The only appropriate solution is for the plat to be withdrawn, and for the developer to start over with enough new test holes on every lot, properly excavated, logged, perc tested, and monitored for groundwater over as much time as is needed to make an accurate determination of the seasonal high water table. Given what is already known about water and drainage issues on this piece of property, I suggest that your department should insist on its active involvement in oversight and monitoring the groundwater levels. Thank you in advance for your anticipated careful review and action with regard to this subdivision submittal. Ted Moore, P.E. Flattop Technical Services | |
| Tim Connolly | 3/11/2020 8:09:05 PM |
| You have received many comments concerning issues of granting 27 driveways on to Canyon Road. Additionally, many comments concerning vacating the 100 foot public use easement. I would like to give you some history of the public use easement. It has taken better the 54 years (number years my wife has lived on Canyon Road)to get a public use easement from Upper DeArmond to Echo/Canyon. The public use easements and right a ways have been purchased with use of Alaska State Grants. The State Grants where to be used to allow the Glen Alps Service Area to purchase and pave right a way to the State Park. This includes the both Flattop Parking Lot and the Trail Head at the end of Canyon Road. The project has not been completed, we will need more funding from the State to complete the project. There remains more right a way or easements to be purchased when the funding becomes available. With funding we still have to determine a route that will satisfy all stakeholders (considerable work remains). Until such time the a final route is selected and it is determine how much right a way is need, Glen Alps Service Area should not vacate any right a way or public use easement that has been purchased. Another historical issue is road maintenance and snow removal. Historily the Glen Alps Service Area has replace berms, culvers, moved rocks and replace driveway pavement result of damage during winter snow removal to private property. The public use easement asked to be vacated is an area where the Glen Alps Service Area has spent funds to repair damage to private property. Another reason not to vacate public use easement. Another issue with vacating any public use easement is fire safety and emergency response. Families living on and off Canyon Road have only one access and exit in event of required emergency evacuation. The Anchorage Fire Department has always request the Glen Alps Service Area acquire 100 foot right a ways to ensure for emergency response vehicle access. | |
| Sarah Woolley | 3/11/2020 7:53:27 PM |
| Why is this development allowed to be pushed through when there has obviously been no regard to site location, number of houses allowed, very little community input, no existing biking/walking trails for the proposed homeowners, no areas of safe play for children and driveways onto to Canyon Road? Why did the use of easements that was paid for by the GARSA disappear? Not sure if anyone who works for the planning and zoning look at this city & think of how much better we would be with more thoughtful planning, more attractive building and safe places for our families. Canyon Road is getting more and more traffic, as it is a gateway to a park entrance. I worry about serious traffic accidents, as there has been numerous vehicles getting towed out of the ditches in the area being proposed due to high speed, careless driving, not being equipped with proper tires or having 4-wheel drive. Please explain why this "proposed neighborhood" is even getting traction? It's not properly thought out. It's another tract of land that squeezes in too many lots, not caring about the environment or the habitants of this area. Bigger lots can bring in just as much money for the developers. Anchorage has too many areas that were poorly developed & now we are planning more? Anchorage planning and zoning can do better. We need to look to the future & build better. More money in the developers pockets does not mean you have a better life. It means you leave more trash in your wake. | |
| GAIL MORRISON | 3/11/2020 6:56:20 PM |
| Gail Morrison, Owner at 8600 Spendlove Dr, approx. ¼ mile from the Canyon View Estates Subdivision application submitted by the Hultquist Company The Hultquist applicants have asked for several inappropriate grants from the Platting Board. The Board must deny both of their variance requests, and the petition to vacate certain areas of the parcel, because the developers have not met the burden of proof, or the standards mandated, by both Title 21 and the Alaska Supreme Court. [The power to grant variances] is an exceptional power which should be sparingly exercised and can be validly used only where a situation falls fully within the specified conditions. Thayer v. Board of Appeals, 157 A. 273 (Conn 1931) 21.03.240 clearly states the requirements for a variance. [Grant of a variance] is intended to provide relief where the requirements of this title render the land difficult or impossible to use because of some unique physical attribute of the property itself.” The Alaska Supreme Court has further clarified a variance request: “Specific criteria for a variance exist, against which the evidence can be measured. . . . In order to obtain a variance under the zoning ordinance, Fields [the applicant] was required to establish the [4 Code sections]. . . . The burden was on Fields to provide evidence showing that these conditions were met.” Fields v. Kodiak City Council, 628 P.2d 927 (Alaska 1981) Emphasis added. 21.03.240 also clearly states the disqualifying reasons for a variance. “It is not intended that variances be granted merely to remove inconveniences or financial burdens that the requirements of this title may impose on property owners in general. Variance # 1- request to ignore the 1:3 lot width-length ratio mandated at 21.08.030.K.2. ALL the conditions required in 21.03.240.G.3.a-d must be met. 1. The applicants have not shown any “unique physical attribute of the property itself” that would qualify the parcel for this variance. The land has gentle slopes. The developers have not cited anything about the topography that is unique to this particular parcel. 2. The Hultquists have also failed to show how the land would be “difficult or impossible to use” without the variance. This is untrue as Hulquist has shown on several occasions before the public that lots can be built. In my opinion, this request is being submitted so Hulquist can squeeze more parcels on this land. 3. There is NO discussion of any “undue hardship” in the cursory letter from the S4 Group. Their non-response to that important issue simply focuses instead on how the land donation will benefit the community. That is not the standard that the applicants have to meet. The Hultquists have not proven any “undue hardship” (mandated in Section d) that would be a valid cause to grant this variance. There is NO benefit to the community as a result of this request. 4. The Hultquists have also fundamentally mistated the reasons for their variance request. At the Glen Alps Community Council meeting (a video of which is available), they told us that they want this variance for purely economic reasons. This is NOT a proper reason to be granted a variance. They want to cram in another two or more lots in that northern part of the parcel. These extra lots would make all the lots in that area longer and narrower than the dimensions called for in Title 21. Economic considerations are specifically excluded from the reasons for granting a variance. 5. Granting this unfounded and false variance request will betray the trust that the public has in the Platting Board, and therefore Will be “detrimental to the public welfare“ (in violation of Section B), It will also “nullify the intent and purpose of the Subdivision regulations” (In violation of section C). The Board has a duty to the public to deny this variance. The developer has failed to show any necessity for it or to meet the required standard of proof. This Board is also required to follow standing Alaska Supreme Court opinions. City & Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d 626, 635–36 (Alaska 1979) “Courts . . . have consistently required the applicant for a variance to satisfy both the practical difficulty and the hardship elements of the variance test. . . . Peculiarities of the specific property sufficient to warrant a grant of a variance must arise from the physical conditions of the land itself which distinguish it from other land in the general area. The assertion that the ordinance merely deprives the landowner of a more profitable operation where the premises have substantially the same value for permitted uses as other property within the zoning classification argues, in effect, for the grant of a special privilege to the selected landowner.” (emphasis added). This legal concept was again stated and affirmed recently, in Corkery v. Municipality, 426 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2018) Variance # 2- request to ignore the mandate in 21.07.060 among others, “to provide easements, trails, pathways or walkways.” Again, ALL the conditions required in 21.03.240.G.3.a-d must be met. 1. The Hultquists have misleadingly labeled the paths as “trails to nowhere.” But they admitted at the GACC meeting that they could easily extend the trail on the west side down to the existing east-west trail near Rabbit Creek. The paths are “trails to nowhere” ONLY because the Hultquists have refused to lengthen them; to attach to existing trails. The developers also admitted at the GACC meeting that it would be inconvenient, and somewhat expensive, to have to put trails in place. However, considerations of economics and convenience are specifically excluded from the reasons for granting a variance. The common theme is “we don’t want to expend any of our monies that we don’t need to. We want as much profit as possible – at the detriment to the surrounding community. 2. The Hultquists have again failed to show how the land would be “difficult or impossible to use” due to any “unique physical attributes” without this variance. They have failed to meet the clear standards stated in sections a, b, c and d. 4. The concessions that the Hultquists are demanding in exchange for granting some land to the Municipality are excessive to the point of absurd. Please review the Hultquist narrative, on page 3. They propose surrendering ownership (and liability) of a useless part of the parcel that cannot ever be developed, in exchange for protections that are far more than is appropriate or deserved. The Board has a duty to the public to deny this variance, also, for the same reasonsthe developers have failed to show any necessity for it. Granting these variance requests would actually rise to the level of “spot zoning.” The common theme is “we don’t want to expend any of our monies that we don’t need to. We want as much profit as possible – at the detriment to the surrounding community. “Arbitrary, or ‘spot’, zoning to accommodate the desires of a particular landowner is not only contrary to good zoning practice, but violates the rights of neighboring landowners and is contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation which contemplates planned zoning based upon the welfare of an entire neighborhood.” Smith v. Washington City, 406 P.2d 545, 547 (Oregon 1965) The variance request- I am confident that other commenters have thoroughly analyzed and found null and void any assertions by the Hultquists for granting this variance. I will just add that this petition for a vacation is grossly deficient. The single page of self-serving, conclusionary sentences from the S4 Group provides NO evidence whatsoever to support the sweeping conclusions. The Hultquists have utterly failed to provide any meaningful response to # 2. They have done NOTHING to show “without a doubt that the right-of-way width is clearly in excess of all future needs of the right-of-way.” They have provided no maps, studies, charts, consultations, reports from engineering experts- and have given no concrete reasons for the proposed changes. The developers admitted at the GACC meeting that they really just want more land to add to the size of the lots they will sell. They also want the land at the south side of the parcel, to put in extra lots and further increase their profit margins. Wanting to make more money is understandable, but this motive is not a legitimate reason to grant this unsupported vacation request. The common theme is “we don’t want to expend any of our monies that we don’t need to. We want as much profit as possible – at the Detriment to the surrounding land and community. Please deny this variance request. // signed /// Gail Morrison 8600 Spendlove Dr. Anchorage, AK 99516 | |
| Thomas J Burke | 3/11/2020 6:05:05 PM |
| This segment of Road between Upper DeArmon Road and Echo Canyon Road was built 2 years ago. Since then there has been significant damage to the road and at least 3 separate locations. Documentation of this damage and proposed repair documents for two of these has been submitted by Shannon & Wilson with an estimated repair cost of $20,000. The third and largest damage where there was a slope failure on the cut bank on the north side of the road has not been fully evaluated and cannot begin planning repair until spring. Western construction who maintains the road is aware of this damage and has given a preliminary estimated repair cost as $75,000. There is extensive and well-documented photographic and video evidence of extensive ground water problems at the site of all 3 of these failures. This includes natural Springs forming within the pavement of the newly constructed road at 2 locations. There are extensive additional areas of superficial damage involving the vegetation of the cut banks which are not addressed here. The point here is that a brand-new road that cost $5 million to construct now has need for repairs totaling almost $100,000. The Glenn Alps service area has responsibility for maintaining and repairing this segment of road. The ground water and surface water issues in this land produces Road failures and Road maintenance cost which can far exceed the capability in the budget of the local service area. These costs are submitted here to illustrate that the concerns for the cost of maintaining this road in the setting of future developments that would impinge on the road right of way and road integrity by placing driveways are based on solid financial experience and not simply uninformed opinion. | |
| Dale Suzanne Doolen | 3/11/2020 1:31:02 PM |
| From: Dale Doolen <daledoolen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 8:55 PM To: David R. Whitfield and Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board Subject: Comments regarding S12545 Canyon View Estates Dear Mr. Whitfield and Platting Board Members, On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Ted Moore@gci.net, wrote and addressed very succinct email comments to you. I absolutely support Ted (and most of the residents) who have over 50 years of residency in Rabbit Creek Valley. He writes “truth to power” and I would hope that common sense will overcome the desire to change existing MOA standards for short term gains. Specifically, I would repeat the following: Public Use Easement vacation requests: Financial responsibility for capital improvements to, and maintenance of, Canyon Road lies with the Glen Alps Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, during the design phase of the subdivision, the city should have consulted with them regarding any proposed deviations from the status quo of the road. No such consultations took place, nor was the Road Board even informed that changes affecting this road were being discussed. The public use easement acquisition and recently completed upgrade to the portion of Canyon Road that traverses this proposed subdivision was done with funds specifically appropriated by the State Legislature to improve access to Chugach State Park. The original homesteader road traversing the Rohaley property had a long history of drainage issues necessitating expensive maintenance costs. The land that was purchased from the property owner for these easements has a minimum width of 100 feet in order to allow these drainage issues to be addressed, and to provide enough room to accommodate necessary cut and fill slopes, utilities and pedestrian pathways as called for in the OSHP. The width acquired for the westernmost portion of the project exceeds 100 feet because additional width was needed to accommodate significant cuts and fills for the road and driveway approaches. A significant creek flows year-round in the ditch that parallels Canyon Road on its north side. Careful management of this creek to minimize damage to the road is essential, and requires public ownership to protect the land on its north side. Title 21 specifies that the MOA should not vacate public ROW or easements unless there is no public value now or ever. This existing Public Use Easement has both current and future public values: To manage drainage on sloping terrain, to provide enough room for utilities, to promote public safety. Collector Road status and individual driveways: The Muni’s OSHP classifies Canyon Road as a Neighborhood Collector. The guidelines contained within the OSHP state “Discourage direct access to collectors in new subdivisions; use reverse lot design”. A secondary guideline allows limited direct driveway access to collectors in areas of low density residential development only if the collector will not become a major link in the future to more densely developed areas. As noted above, Canyon Road was recently upgraded using State funding specifically provided to improve access to Chugach State Park. Thus, the upgrade was funded because Canyon Road is a major link between Chugach State Park and more densely developed areas. On most days, vehicles using the road is park traffic outnumber local resident’s vehicles. S4’s proposed plat calls for direct driveway access off Canyon Road to every one of their 27 proposed lots. In response to questioning on this S4’s Tom Dreyer blandly assures the public that “the OSHP and the MOA Traffic Department allows direct driveway access in special situations like this”. He does not explain what those special situations consist of. Ted spoke with Stephanie Mormilo a few weeks ago, and she informed him that the Traffic Department had not taken a position regarding allowing direct driveway access for this subdivision. Serious drainage problems afflict the terrain through which Canyon Road passes as it crosses this proposed subdivision. For years prior to the construction of the improved road the Glen Alps Road Service Area had to pour money into temporary fixes of ditch erosion and clogging that on numerous occasions led to failures of the road surface. The new road, with its much deeper rock-filled ditch to contain the creek, represents a vast improvement, but there are already several places where poorly drained adjoining soils are sloughing down towards the roadside ditch. There is even one place where soil moisture is upwelling through the pavement. To allow direct driveway access from adjacent lots onto Canyon Road would be a recipe for disaster, as each of these un-engineered road junctions would provide an avenue for silt-laden runoff from every lot to flow directly into our expensive new roadside ditch. The short-term cost savings to the developer would be dwarfed by the additional repair and maintenance costs passed along to the Road Service Area. There is a solution to this: Require the developer to comply with the normal guidelines contained in the OSHP and construct interior roads to serve his lots. It need not involve an extensive network of interior roads – perhaps a couple of properly engineered cul-de-sacs or T’s that stub onto Canyon Road. The cost of these would be small by comparison with the savings already realized by the developer, by virtue of the newly upgraded collector road having been constructed with public funds. Variance from required lot dimensions: Title 21.08030K.2 specifies that the width of a lot shall be at least one-third the depth of the lot. The developer claims that “undue hardship would result from strict compliance with…. the subdivision regulations”. The “unnecessary hardship” causing the developer to propose disproportionate lots is self-inflicted by his lot design and has multiple remedies. The purpose of our subdivision standards is to require that developers provide infrastructure of lasting quality and public benefit. Approval of these requested variances would both diminish the quality of the subdivision and create cost burdens for future residents and taxpayers. An unfortunate side effect of allowing disproportionate lots as the developer is requesting is that it would result in a higher effective density of homes fronting directly onto Canyon Road. Compact lots are more useable by residents and promote greater separation between homes. The developer drew the configuration he did in order to get the maximum number of lots with the minimum of expense to himself. It is important to note: zoning sets the maximum density, not the guaranteed density. The developer has no legal guarantee of platting the maximum number of lots that would achieve maximum density. is The obvious remedy to require the developer to build interior subdivision road(s), which could be as simple as a couple of cul-de-sacs or T’s that stubs into Canyon Road. That resolves drainage and collector road standards as well as lot dimensions, and avoids the “nuisance value” potentially created by a sliver of unusable land at the back of his lots. Another solution is to reduce the number of lots and widen them. Another solution is to put the “remnant sliver” that would be lopped off longer lots along the road as a road greenbelt corridor, or on the southwest border of the homes as a non-motorized greenbelt corridor. The HDP requires a pedestrian corridor southwest of the homes, so that would be an excellent solution on the southern side. Thank you for accepting my email and posted comments, supporting Ted Moore’s comments and sensible solutions. Dale Suzanne Doolen 15051 Echo Canyon Road Anchorage, AK 99516 907-441-2713 | |
| Thomas J Burke | 3/10/2020 4:18:11 PM |
| It is not the job of the road board to take a position as to whether land should be developed or not. It is however the job of the road board as the community’s representative to protect the roads and in this case the drainage associated with the roads. It is also our job to represent the public interest in terms of access for non-vehicular traffic and the goals of the Hillside district plan. Is our job to oversee the spending of the state Grant for improving access to Chugach state Park. We are glad to work with any developer and advocate for development in the neighborhood that complies with all city regulations. We are glad to have discussions with the developer regarding Road issues and whether or not the proposed development would wish to be included in the road service area. Unfortunately, we also feel it is our responsibility to address inaccurate and outright false claims on the part of the developers when presenting the proposed subdivision to both the community at public forums and to the city in it's platting application. The developer is proposing that the existing road right away/easement be reduced to 60 foot along the length of Canyon Road. This right of way/easement contains both the road and a creek. This is unusual and potentially entirely unique in the world of transportation easements and right of way. The road as it was built had a width that at some points extended beyond 100 feet to allow for steep local terrain, for the bordering north side Canyon Road Creek and the deep cuts and fills needed. Fairkytes Circle The eastern border of the planned development is the right of way for Fairkytes circle. The proposed plat does not indicate any right of way for Fairkytes circle. This suggests that the right away has been vacated or that the developer believes that there is no right of way. The road board has not been involved in any official procedure to vacate that right away. During the planning of Canyon Road upgrades the city and the city consulting engineers consistently insisted that the portion of Canyon Rd., East of the Rohaley property could not be used because it failed to meet city road standards. They insisted on a plan that would create a new road that went around the existing housing neighborhood to the south along Fairkytes Circle easement. The consulting engineers went so far as to complete (completely build) the Canyon Road upgrade with the eastern terminus of the new improved section pointing south towards that easement rather than east along the adjoining section of Canyon Road. This created a blind unsafe corner. We have since had to remedy the situation by changing the course of the road at that corner using road service maintenance funds. Now that same right of way that was so important to the city and the consulting engineers is up for platting and subdivision. This would be of the appropriate time to make sure that right of way was accessible for any future development. We should not prevent those properties south of Canyon Road to become land locked because of our being inattentive at this time. That right of way also would be the appropriate access for any building sites on the southeastern portion of the proposed development property. It would also be the appropriate way to access proposed protected lands along rabbit Creek which, as stated before, is one of the objectives of the Hillside district plan. --The issue of the future of this right away should be completely addressed with all stakeholders before proceeding with any subdivision. --The city and its consulting engineers have demonstrated that this is a very very high priority in the past. Their input will be critical. Other stakeholders include Chugach state Park, the Greenway at rabbit Creek, section 36 and the Hillside district plan. --The property abutting the proposed development on the northeast corner would also become landlocked without possible road access it no accommodation is made by the Platting Board at this time Trail Along Canyon Road Since the beginning of the Canyon Road project the road board has always advocated for a hiking path for the entire length of Canyon Road. This was proposed for all of the usual reasons of accessibility and benefit to the community. It was also a priority because of the Public Safety issue of having pedestrian traffic on a collector Road where people are often driving at high rates of speed. This is made worse by the deep ditches, the steep road cuts and the snow berms along the road. During construction the city engineers recommended to the road board that no hiking path be included as part of the construction plan indicating that it would increase the total cost by more than 30% and that it would result in a funding failure before completion of the road. For that reason, the road board excepted plans for the neighbors to build their own trail along the road which has since been mostly completed. That Trail follows the gas line cut for most of its length. The trail exists entirely within the public used easement. As does the gas line directly below it. The Hillside district plan also calls for pedestrian access for the entire length of DeArmon Rd. and Canyon Rd. connecting to Chugach state park. --The proposed development makes no accommodation for the Hillside district plan. At recent public meetings the developers have been hostile to the notion of any kind of trail paralleling Canyon Road. They have made it clear that no trails would be built on their private property. In doing so they have also made it clear that to achieve these goals for the community we will need to achieve them within the road right of way and that the road boar as representatives of the community cannot surrender any of that right of way if we are ever to achieve these goals. This cannot be pushed off to some future development decision because the proposed land to be subdivided would cover the entire north side of the rabbit Creek Valley. The community has learned that promises of future cooperation are not sufficient. It is the responsibility of the city in the form of the platting board to resolve these issues at this time and in a legally binding way simply because this is the only time when the Anchorage public has any real representation. The Extra Lot The land bought from the Rohaley family for the right away includes a triangle of land approximately an acre and a quarter in size on the eastern border. The developer’s plans include building a house/selling a lot on this property. Given that the state/city have already spent 100s of thousands of dollars purchasing this property from the original land holder it is unclear why the city would give that land away. Estimated real estate value of the property alone given its location on the Hillside with a view would be in the range of $200,000. The road board would like an explanation from the city as to the legal status of this land. While it is clear that the road has no immediate use for a piece of land of this size. It is also clear that a piece of land of the size has a value that should not be discarded. We have tried to manage a grant to improve access to Chugach State Park. There are still significant deficiencies in that access and seeing that grant money going to a private developer for a profitable land sale is not at all consistent with the state legislatures intention when the grant was made. This piece of property has no legal access to the road. At a minimum the road board would like to see that that land would not be turned over to private hands unless it had access to a local road and not the current collector road known as Canyon Road. Wetlands and Canyon Road The current developer is making assertions to the city that the property has only very small sections that could be considered wetlands and that these are on the south side of the property near the rabbit Creek. Those of us who have been involved in the construction of the road and who have lived in the neighborhood for years understand that much of the area is wetlands. Both on the north side and the south side of the road. Members of the community will present photographic and video evidence of dozens of failed septic test holes within the property as well as an extensive network of surface streams, natural springs and natural ponds fed by ground water. The road board has concerns about the wetlands status for 2 significant reasons. --The first reason is that the road is built on the same soils as this property and is as we are all well aware the road is running through a wet land. This is been evidenced by the recurrent water issues on the road that have led to the road failures that we have all been dealing with for years. The building of the current road has improved those issues but cannot fundamentally alter the surrounding soils meaning that the road will continue to have ground water and surface water issues permanently and that the road board will need to address these in an ongoing and very expensive basis. --The second reason that the road board is concerned with the wetlands surrounding Canyon Road is that the developer plans to place a large number of houses along the road. The proposed plat places the houses very close to the road. The plat proposes septic systems which are at a minimal distance from the road and very close to Canyon Road Creek (the ditches on the north side of Canyon Road). The developer also proposes 29 new driveways connecting to the road. This kind of development would be appropriate if 1) this was a local road 2) if this was not a wet land and 3) if there was no large vertical drop between the proposed housing sites and the road. The developer has also ignored overwhelming evidence of the nature of the property and the ground water issues and the surface water issues again attempting to deceive both the community and the city. It is our concern that the action of the developer will potentially radically alter the flow of ground water and surface water in this wetlands degrading the drainage that protects Canyon Road and markedly increased our costs to maintain Canyon Road. We also expect that multiple septic systems placed in a wetland will result in fecal contamination of Canyon Road Creek. Three roads crossing the same soils at similar slopes in the same valley are upper DeArmon Rd. Cox road and the old canyon road. All three of these roads are chronic and expensive failures. All have extensive water damage requiring constant repair at great expense. Upper Dearmon road is known as the worst road in the city for this reason. The more recently built Canyon Road has clear evidence of rapid degradation caused by ground water both in terms of multiple landslides both superficial and deep on the north side cut bank and multiple spontaneous springs emerging from the road surface. Those members of the road board who were involved with the construction couple of years ago will recall that when building the road the construction crew needed to repeatedly modify their excavation plans in order to make the ditch on the north side of the road much deeper in order to create a dry area for the construction of the road bed. This became an issue when the road surface was completed when the ditch on the north side of the road in some places was more than 12 feet deep. The city engineers and road contractor address this problem by filling the ditch on the north side of the road with large rock in order to reduce the safety risk caused by a steep ditch. After constructing a ditch that deep and filling it mostly was rock there is still running surface water through that ditch most months of the year. This same area has had ground water caused landslides within a year of completing construction extending more than 300 feet along the length of the road. This observation represents a significant hydro-logic feature. The ditch along the north side of Canyon Road is not something that collects water from the road but something that collects water from the entire hillside stretching north between Canyon Road in the Glenn Alps neighborhood. This is a creek. For clarity we will use the Title Canyon Road Creek. The road board understands that we are trying to manage roads that are running across swamp land. In order to do this we have to manage the creeks that drains the groundwater and the surface water in order to protect the road. The new Canyon Road is better than the old Canyon Road primarily because the construction built betted drainage along the uphill side of the road. Building a large number of septic systems in close proximity to a creek would not meet municipal standards. Trying to create a large number of driveways that cross a creek which is known to be carrying water as much as 12 feet below the road surface would certainly lead to a failure of that creek with ground water once again moving primarily under the road as it had for years before the recent construction. After many years of work and huge investment by the state in the city we have a functional road at this time and we should protect that investment with a buffer on the north side that includes the full easement/right away. We should make sure that septic systems are not in close proximity to a creek. We should minimize the number of crossings of that creek to connect to this collector Road. We understand that the developer needs to provide access to the lots he plans to sell. One or two well engineered Bridges crossing the creek to provide access to some kind of frontage Road or cul de sac would provide more than adequate access for his property. The construction of a local road within the subdivision would also provide opportunities to channel surface water and groundwater to appropriately manage drainage and avoiding damage to roads and structures. Collector Road status and exceptions The road board has been advised for many years by the consulting engineering firm appointed by the city. There have been many detailed discussions about Canyon Road because of the extensive construction. In all of those discussions we have been reassured that Canyon Road was a collector Road. We had many discussions about the sale of the Rohaley property and the potential for future development. In each of those discussions the consulting engineers assured us that the developer would be required by law to build local roads when subdividing this land. Now the current developer has made assertions at multiple public meetings that this is not a collector Road. They have then contradicted themselves in documents submitted to the city stating that it was a collector road but that it was planning to access the road for private driveways regardless. --The road board would like a clear understanding of how a the developer and the city planning office can treat a collector road as if it were a local road. -- The road board would also like to understand how exceptions can be made to the rule that the collector roads cannot have driveways without input from the road board or the local community council. We are astonished that city officials could authorize driveways on a collector road with no knowledge of local road conditions such as the size of the road cuts or the wetlands status of the property or the creek that runs between the property and the road. We also wish to know how a decision on this topic can be reversed given the complex issues of wetlands and drainage there were not considered when the developer requested driveway access to a collector road. If an individual landholder were to request access to this road (a driveway) the community would understand the right to access and the prohibitive cost of building a road. However, we are not talking about an individual property but a large new subdivision being proposed by the developer with significant resources with a proposed eventual sale price in the tens of millions of dollars. The value of this property primarily derives from recent public spending by the state and the city and the local residents who have improve the road and installed the gas line in the last several years. The prior land holder went through rezoning of this property in the mid-1980s. Still no development has taken place for more than 35 years. Now that public spending has provided the infrastructure thereby dramatically increasing the value of the property development is now proposed. The developer proposes zero dollars of additional spending on infrastructure for roads or drainage. The developer requests exceptions to city rules in terms of driveways on a collector road relying on public investment and lax enforcement of city rules to reduce the cost and increase the profitability of this project. The same subdivision can be built with local access roads that protected the collector road and the adjoining creek and addressed the groundwater issues, the surface water issues, the non-motorized traffic and the hillside district plan and complied with the city rules regarding collector roads. This would in every way be a better subdivision for the neighborhood, for the Anchorage community and for the potential purchasers of land in the new subdivision. Driveways on the north side of Canyon road Proposed subdivision map includes more than a dozen driveways accessing the north side of Canyon Road over a stretch of less than half mile. While some of these proposed sites have a minimal elevation gained between the road and the property most have a significant separation with some as high as and 25 vertical feet. A normal driveway would be 12 feet wide. A cut into the hillside to accommodate a 12-foot driveway that had to cover a vertical distance of 15 feet (as proposed here) would be more than 40 feet wide. Much of the road cut in front of these properties is already sliding into the existing waterway and ditch. Given that this is being proposed in a wetland the cuts to create that driveway would need to be wider to allow for ditching. This would raise the width of the driveway to approximate 60 feet. Most of the drives proposed on the plat map would approach the road tangentially. A tangential driveway with a 15-foot vertical drop cut through wetlands with appropriate ditching on both sides would be approximately 80-foot-wide (rim to rim). This means that the vast majority of the lot frontage distance would be covered by cuts for driveways. All of those driveways cutting deep into the hillside would be crossing (cutting) the gas main. All of those driveways cutting deep into the hillside would be cutting into the flow of groundwater and creating flowing surface water coming onto Canyon Road. Canyon Road Creek has flowing surface water extending into rock fill as much as 12 feet below the surface of the road. Each of those driveways Crossing Canyon Rd., Creek would be bringing water and silt into the creek resulting in degradation of drainage and near term failure of the road. These very specific issues about this section of road were clearly not considered by the city when it was asked to allow driveways to access this collector road. This decision needs to be revisited and corrected. The road board will need to pursue correcting this mistake through whatever means necessary with the city, with the city Council or potentially through legal action. Potential resolutions --The waterway on the north side of Canyon Road is a creek. It is not simply the ditch associated with the road. --Canyon Road is a collector road and this is not something that can be changed for the benefit of a developer. --Collector roads cannot be accessed by driveways. Any exception to this city rule would require full consideration of the local issues and input of both the road board and the community council. --There is overwhelming public interest in maintaining pedestrian access along Canyon Road preferably on both sides of the road. The city/road board should not surrender any part of the right of way until this is established and permanently protected. --There is a significant body of evidence in local experience, construction experience, road maintenance experience as well as recent photographic and video evidence that there are significant wetlands in the proposed area of development. While this is not routinely a road board issue, improper development of a wetlands could adversely affect our road and drainage system. We request that the platting board return this proposed development to zoning commission and that an independent evaluation of the wetlands status be undertaken. The developer’s claims that this is not a wetland is so strongly contradicted by available evidence that the public interest requires and independent review. An independent engineering evaluation of the property and in particular the property on the north side of the road is needed before any consideration of construction, roads or driveways in order to protect both Canyon Road and any future home owners. --Right of way issues concerning Fairkytes circle need to be resolved before approving any subdivision. --The hillside district plan needs to be addressed comprehensively prior to the approval of any subdivision. This piece of land is large enough to block any future access to the entire Rabbit Creek Valley unless these issues are addressed at this time. --The land at issue includes segments of Rabbit Creek and connects to area 36 as well as potentially Echo park and Chugach State Park. There is strong public interest in providing access to these lands for recreational purposes. The city has obligations to include some accommodation for that access in the planning of the subdivision. | |
| Thomas J Burke | 3/10/2020 4:16:45 PM |
| I submit this a a member/ representative of the Glenn Alps Service area and as a local citizen. It is not the job of the road board to take a position as to whether land should be developed or not. It is however the job of the road board as the community’s representative to protect the roads and in this case the drainage associated with the roads. It is also our job to represent the public interest in terms of access for non-vehicular traffic and the goals of the Hillside district plan. Is our job to oversee the spending of the state Grant for improving access to Chugach state Park. We are glad to work with any developer and advocate for development in the neighborhood that complies with all city regulations. We are glad to have discussions with the developer regarding Road issues and whether or not the proposed development would wish to be included in the road service area. Unfortunately, we also feel it is our responsibility to address inaccurate and outright false claims on the part of the developers when presenting the proposed subdivision to both the community at public forums and to the city in it's platting application. The developer is proposing that the existing road right away/easement be reduced to 60 foot along the length of Canyon Road. This right of way/easement contains both the road and a creek. This is unusual and potentially entirely unique in the world of transportation easements and right of way. The road as it was built had a width that at some points extended beyond 100 feet to allow for steep local terrain, for the bordering north side Canyon Road Creek and the deep cuts and fills needed. Fairkytes Circle The eastern border of the planned development is the right of way for Fairkytes circle. The proposed plat does not indicate any right of way for Fairkytes circle. This suggests that the right away has been vacated or that the developer believes that there is no right of way. The road board has not been involved in any official procedure to vacate that right away. During the planning of Canyon Road upgrades the city and the city consulting engineers consistently insisted that the portion of Canyon Rd., East of the Rohaley property could not be used because it failed to meet city road standards. They insisted on a plan that would create a new road that went around the existing housing neighborhood to the south along Fairkytes Circle easement. The consulting engineers went so far as to complete (completely build) the Canyon Road upgrade with the eastern terminus of the new improved section pointing south towards that easement rather than east along the adjoining section of Canyon Road. This created a blind unsafe corner. We have since had to remedy the situation by changing the course of the road at that corner using road service maintenance funds. Now that same right of way that was so important to the city and the consulting engineers is up for platting and subdivision. This would be of the appropriate time to make sure that right of way was accessible for any future development. We should not prevent those properties south of Canyon Road to become land locked because of our being inattentive at this time. That right of way also would be the appropriate access for any building sites on the southeastern portion of the proposed development property. It would also be the appropriate way to access proposed protected lands along rabbit Creek which, as stated before, is one of the objectives of the Hillside district plan. --The issue of the future of this right away should be completely addressed with all stakeholders before proceeding with any subdivision. --The city and its consulting engineers have demonstrated that this is a very very high priority in the past. Their input will be critical. Other stakeholders include Chugach state Park, the Greenway at rabbit Creek, section 36 and the Hillside district plan. --The property abutting the proposed development on the northeast corner would also become landlocked without possible road access it no accommodation is made by the Platting Board at this time Trail Along Canyon Road Since the beginning of the Canyon Road project the road board has always advocated for a hiking path for the entire length of Canyon Road. This was proposed for all of the usual reasons of accessibility and benefit to the community. It was also a priority because of the Public Safety issue of having pedestrian traffic on a collector Road where people are often driving at high rates of speed. This is made worse by the deep ditches, the steep road cuts and the snow berms along the road. During construction the city engineers recommended to the road board that no hiking path be included as part of the construction plan indicating that it would increase the total cost by more than 30% and that it would result in a funding failure before completion of the road. For that reason, the road board excepted plans for the neighbors to build their own trail along the road which has since been mostly completed. That Trail follows the gas line cut for most of its length. The trail exists entirely within the public used easement. As does the gas line directly below it. The Hillside district plan also calls for pedestrian access for the entire length of DeArmon Rd. and Canyon Rd. connecting to Chugach state park. --The proposed development makes no accommodation for the Hillside district plan. At recent public meetings the developers have been hostile to the notion of any kind of trail paralleling Canyon Road. They have made it clear that no trails would be built on their private property. In doing so they have also made it clear that to achieve these goals for the community we will need to achieve them within the road right of way and that the road boar as representatives of the community cannot surrender any of that right of way if we are ever to achieve these goals. This cannot be pushed off to some future development decision because the proposed land to be subdivided would cover the entire north side of the rabbit Creek Valley. The community has learned that promises of future cooperation are not sufficient. It is the responsibility of the city in the form of the platting board to resolve these issues at this time and in a legally binding way simply because this is the only time when the Anchorage public has any real representation. The Extra Lot The land bought from the Rohaley family for the right away includes a triangle of land approximately an acre and a quarter in size on the eastern border. The developer’s plans include building a house/selling a lot on this property. Given that the state/city have already spent 100s of thousands of dollars purchasing this property from the original land holder it is unclear why the city would give that land away. Estimated real estate value of the property alone given its location on the Hillside with a view would be in the range of $200,000. The road board would like an explanation from the city as to the legal status of this land. While it is clear that the road has no immediate use for a piece of land of this size. It is also clear that a piece of land of the size has a value that should not be discarded. We have tried to manage a grant to improve access to Chugach State Park. There are still significant deficiencies in that access and seeing that grant money going to a private developer for a profitable land sale is not at all consistent with the state legislatures intention when the grant was made. This piece of property has no legal access to the road. At a minimum the road board would like to see that that land would not be turned over to private hands unless it had access to a local road and not the current collector road known as Canyon Road. Wetlands and Canyon Road The current developer is making assertions to the city that the property has only very small sections that could be considered wetlands and that these are on the south side of the property near the rabbit Creek. Those of us who have been involved in the construction of the road and who have lived in the neighborhood for years understand that much of the area is wetlands. Both on the north side and the south side of the road. Members of the community will present photographic and video evidence of dozens of failed septic test holes within the property as well as an extensive network of surface streams, natural springs and natural ponds fed by ground water. The road board has concerns about the wetlands status for 2 significant reasons. --The first reason is that the road is built on the same soils as this property and is as we are all well aware the road is running through a wet land. This is been evidenced by the recurrent water issues on the road that have led to the road failures that we have all been dealing with for years. The building of the current road has improved those issues but cannot fundamentally alter the surrounding soils meaning that the road will continue to have ground water and surface water issues permanently and that the road board will need to address these in an ongoing and very expensive basis. --The second reason that the road board is concerned with the wetlands surrounding Canyon Road is that the developer plans to place a large number of houses along the road. The proposed plat places the houses very close to the road. The plat proposes septic systems which are at a minimal distance from the road and very close to Canyon Road Creek (the ditches on the north side of Canyon Road). The developer also proposes 29 new driveways connecting to the road. This kind of development would be appropriate if 1) this was a local road 2) if this was not a wet land and 3) if there was no large vertical drop between the proposed housing sites and the road. The developer has also ignored overwhelming evidence of the nature of the property and the ground water issues and the surface water issues again attempting to deceive both the community and the city. It is our concern that the action of the developer will potentially radically alter the flow of ground water and surface water in this wetlands degrading the drainage that protects Canyon Road and markedly increased our costs to maintain Canyon Road. We also expect that multiple septic systems placed in a wetland will result in fecal contamination of Canyon Road Creek. Three roads crossing the same soils at similar slopes in the same valley are upper DeArmon Rd. Cox road and the old canyon road. All three of these roads are chronic and expensive failures. All have extensive water damage requiring constant repair at great expense. Upper Dearmon road is known as the worst road in the city for this reason. The more recently built Canyon Road has clear evidence of rapid degradation caused by ground water both in terms of multiple landslides both superficial and deep on the north side cut bank and multiple spontaneous springs emerging from the road surface. Those members of the road board who were involved with the construction couple of years ago will recall that when building the road the construction crew needed to repeatedly modify their excavation plans in order to make the ditch on the north side of the road much deeper in order to create a dry area for the construction of the road bed. This became an issue when the road surface was completed when the ditch on the north side of the road in some places was more than 12 feet deep. The city engineers and road contractor address this problem by filling the ditch on the north side of the road with large rock in order to reduce the safety risk caused by a steep ditch. After constructing a ditch that deep and filling it mostly was rock there is still running surface water through that ditch most months of the year. This same area has had ground water caused landslides within a year of completing construction extending more than 300 feet along the length of the road. This observation represents a significant hydro-logic feature. The ditch along the north side of Canyon Road is not something that collects water from the road but something that collects water from the entire hillside stretching north between Canyon Road in the Glenn Alps neighborhood. This is a creek. For clarity we will use the Title Canyon Road Creek. The road board understands that we are trying to manage roads that are running across swamp land. In order to do this we have to manage the creeks that drains the groundwater and the surface water in order to protect the road. The new Canyon Road is better than the old Canyon Road primarily because the construction built betted drainage along the uphill side of the road. Building a large number of septic systems in close proximity to a creek would not meet municipal standards. Trying to create a large number of driveways that cross a creek which is known to be carrying water as much as 12 feet below the road surface would certainly lead to a failure of that creek with ground water once again moving primarily under the road as it had for years before the recent construction. After many years of work and huge investment by the state in the city we have a functional road at this time and we should protect that investment with a buffer on the north side that includes the full easement/right away. We should make sure that septic systems are not in close proximity to a creek. We should minimize the number of crossings of that creek to connect to this collector Road. We understand that the developer needs to provide access to the lots he plans to sell. One or two well engineered Bridges crossing the creek to provide access to some kind of frontage Road or cul de sac would provide more than adequate access for his property. The construction of a local road within the subdivision would also provide opportunities to channel surface water and groundwater to appropriately manage drainage and avoiding damage to roads and structures. Collector Road status and exceptions The road board has been advised for many years by the consulting engineering firm appointed by the city. There have been many detailed discussions about Canyon Road because of the extensive construction. In all of those discussions we have been reassured that Canyon Road was a collector Road. We had many discussions about the sale of the Rohaley property and the potential for future development. In each of those discussions the consulting engineers assured us that the developer would be required by law to build local roads when subdividing this land. Now the current developer has made assertions at multiple public meetings that this is not a collector Road. They have then contradicted themselves in documents submitted to the city stating that it was a collector road but that it was planning to access the road for private driveways regardless. --The road board would like a clear understanding of how a the developer and the city planning office can treat a collector road as if it were a local road. -- The road board would also like to understand how exceptions can be made to the rule that the collector roads cannot have driveways without input from the road board or the local community council. We are astonished that city officials could authorize driveways on a collector road with no knowledge of local road conditions such as the size of the road cuts or the wetlands status of the property or the creek that runs between the property and the road. We also wish to know how a decision on this topic can be reversed given the complex issues of wetlands and drainage there were not considered when the developer requested driveway access to a collector road. If an individual landholder were to request access to this road (a driveway) the community would understand the right to access and the prohibitive cost of building a road. However, we are not talking about an individual property but a large new subdivision being proposed by the developer with significant resources with a proposed eventual sale price in the tens of millions of dollars. The value of this property primarily derives from recent public spending by the state and the city and the local residents who have improve the road and installed the gas line in the last several years. The prior land holder went through rezoning of this property in the mid-1980s. Still no development has taken place for more than 35 years. Now that public spending has provided the infrastructure thereby dramatically increasing the value of the property development is now proposed. The developer proposes zero dollars of additional spending on infrastructure for roads or drainage. The developer requests exceptions to city rules in terms of driveways on a collector road relying on public investment and lax enforcement of city rules to reduce the cost and increase the profitability of this project. The same subdivision can be built with local access roads that protected the collector road and the adjoining creek and addressed the groundwater issues, the surface water issues, the non-motorized traffic and the hillside district plan and complied with the city rules regarding collector roads. This would in every way be a better subdivision for the neighborhood, for the Anchorage community and for the potential purchasers of land in the new subdivision. Driveways on the north side of Canyon road Proposed subdivision map includes more than a dozen driveways accessing the north side of Canyon Road over a stretch of less than half mile. While some of these proposed sites have a minimal elevation gained between the road and the property most have a significant separation with some as high as and 25 vertical feet. A normal driveway would be 12 feet wide. A cut into the hillside to accommodate a 12-foot driveway that had to cover a vertical distance of 15 feet (as proposed here) would be more than 40 feet wide. Much of the road cut in front of these properties is already sliding into the existing waterway and ditch. Given that this is being proposed in a wetland the cuts to create that driveway would need to be wider to allow for ditching. This would raise the width of the driveway to approximate 60 feet. Most of the drives proposed on the plat map would approach the road tangentially. A tangential driveway with a 15-foot vertical drop cut through wetlands with appropriate ditching on both sides would be approximately 80-foot-wide (rim to rim). This means that the vast majority of the lot frontage distance would be covered by cuts for driveways. All of those driveways cutting deep into the hillside would be crossing (cutting) the gas main. All of those driveways cutting deep into the hillside would be cutting into the flow of groundwater and creating flowing surface water coming onto Canyon Road. Canyon Road Creek has flowing surface water extending into rock fill as much as 12 feet below the surface of the road. Each of those driveways Crossing Canyon Rd., Creek would be bringing water and silt into the creek resulting in degradation of drainage and near term failure of the road. These very specific issues about this section of road were clearly not considered by the city when it was asked to allow driveways to access this collector road. This decision needs to be revisited and corrected. The road board will need to pursue correcting this mistake through whatever means necessary with the city, with the city Council or potentially through legal action. Potential resolutions --The waterway on the north side of Canyon Road is a creek. It is not simply the ditch associated with the road. --Canyon Road is a collector road and this is not something that can be changed for the benefit of a developer. --Collector roads cannot be accessed by driveways. Any exception to this city rule would require full consideration of the local issues and input of both the road board and the community council. --There is overwhelming public interest in maintaining pedestrian access along Canyon Road preferably on both sides of the road. The city/road board should not surrender any part of the right of way until this is established and permanently protected. --There is a significant body of evidence in local experience, construction experience, road maintenance experience as well as recent photographic and video evidence that there are significant wetlands in the proposed area of development. While this is not routinely a road board issue, improper development of a wetlands could adversely affect our road and drainage system. We request that the platting board return this proposed development to zoning commission and that an independent evaluation of the wetlands status be undertaken. The developer’s claims that this is not a wetland is so strongly contradicted by available evidence that the public interest requires and independent review. An independent engineering evaluation of the property and in particular the property on the north side of the road is needed before any consideration of construction, roads or driveways in order to protect both Canyon Road and any future home owners. --Right of way issues concerning Fairkytes circle need to be resolved before approving any subdivision. --The hillside district plan needs to be addressed comprehensively prior to the approval of any subdivision. This piece of land is large enough to block any future access to the entire Rabbit Creek Valley unless these issues are addressed at this time. --The land at issue includes segments of Rabbit Creek and connects to area 36 as well as potentially Echo park and Chugach State Park. There is strong public interest in providing access to these lands for recreational purposes. The city has obligations to include some accommodation for that access in the planning of the subdivision. | |
| Marc June | 3/6/2020 1:28:26 PM |
| I live at 8801 Upper Dearmoun Road and have lived here for almost 40 years. Whether to the Rohalley Subdivision or the Chugach State Park access, all motor vehicle traffic goes by my home. My wife and I regularly walk Canyon Road to the Chugach State Park access. As shown by the increase in minimum lot size to 1 ¼ acre, limitation of lots to 58, and the 14 Special Restrictions in the 1984 rezoning ordinance, development of this parcel has always been a challenge. While the Municipal Code has since been amended, the Public at the time was protected by Assembly review of subsequent platting. The summaries of the Community meetings provided by The Developer’s representative, S4, do not accurately portray either the objections or the degree of opposition to the Platting Application. It is fair to say that, had the currently proposed plat been presented in 1984, rezoning would not have been permitted. As proposed, the plat seeks permission for 27 minimum-width lots with 3 variances and the vacation of 3 public use easements. On the North side of Canyon Road, there will be septic systems in close proximity to a running stream. Despite the Owners’ Representative, Tom Dreyer of S-4 Engineering, stating that he would email me a summary as to how the 14 special limitations had been addressed, this has not happened. Given the broad scope of the Development, the Platting Board should find that it is a de facto rezone and direct the Developer to follow the rezoning process. The recent improvement of Canyon Road at public expense has resulted in more traffic to Chugach State Park and Canyon Road is the emergency access to the Park. While the speed limit is theoretically 25, vehicles regularly speed faster than the 40 mph posted speed on Upper Dearmoun Road despite limited visibility. 27 homes with driveways directly onto Canyon Road will increases this hazard. I agree with the reasoning of the Glen Alps Road Service Area Board re Canyon Road being a collector road requiring a 100 foot public right of way, not the 60 feet requested by the Developer. For that reason, the existing public easement should not be vacated. As with other collector roads, there should not be driveway access immediately onto the collector road. Instead, the Developer should be required to provide access through an internal roadway. | |
| Amy Robinson | 3/4/2020 11:12:12 AM |
| I am concerned about a number of things related to this development. I would like for the Muni to be very cautious about granting any waivers of requirements and to closely review the septic testing performed last fall. My specific and largest concerns follow. (1) Watershed contamination concerns. The area has been undeveloped in the past because it is a watershed. Local knowledge indicates that there was formerly a stream that is now the road. The land is swampy in spring and fall for significant periods of time. There are also natural springs underground that spurt water upon digging. For example, on a lot up the road from Canyon a landowner attempted to start building and so many springs erupted that they appear to have given up. The application process here seems to be rushed and is not yet ripe for Platting Board review without the septic testing being proven. Some of the dig holes from last fall, which were made after the driest and hottest summer ever experienced in the area, have failed. This is not a made up problem by neighbors trying to stop development. This is real, and could lead to many problems for our future neighbors if not addressed in advance. It could also lead to contamination of local watersheds if not taken seriously and multiple new septic systems fail. (2) Need to maintain the 100' public easement/right of way. The developers are asking to vacate the 100' public easement/right of way along Canyon Road. This should not be permitted for a number of reasons. (a) There is a high volume of traffic along Canyon Road for trail access. The road is already quite narrow and in times of deep snow cars go off the road regularly. There needs to be the public use easement in order to make sure drainage and run off is handled properly as well as snow maintenance. (b) Pedestrian safety. Neighbors, including children, walk the road a lot. Local residents and park users alike drive along Canyon Road at 40+ mph. Human beings need to be able to safely walk along Canyon Road as they have in the past. The developers should add a trail all along the road to make sure pedestrians are safe as they walk. Any narrowing of this ability would be harmful to public safety. My three children walk this road. Please keep it safe. (c) Fire safety. There is a need to make sure that Canyon Road is available for evacuation in the case of fire in the area. To accommodate this, the road should be widened and not narrowed. There needs to be ability for fire trucks to get up the road and to park. This safety enhancement would be hindered by removing the 100 foot public easement that the Glen Alps Road Board paid for. My preference would be for a few of these proposed lots to be left empty/undeveloped for emergency vehicle turnoffs. (3) Canyon Road needs to stay a collector road. Please enforce this requirement for safety reasons and prohibit direct driveway access on Canyon Road. If you take a look at upper Canyon Road right now, you will see that the road is barely passable and that it is scariest to drive where the driveways meet the road. Even with great snow maintenance, the road tends to narrow as snow accumulates. There are only a few driveways that directly meet Canyon Road. It is important to keep it that way. With respect to the current collector road status, please consider the high volume of trail users who drive up and down Canyon Road. The respectful thing to do, and what the new homeowners will appreciate, is for the developer to build roads off of Canyon Road for their driveways to be safer. There will be new families who cannot allow their children to play outside unless there are roads off of Canyon Road for the new driveways. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Amy Robinson | |
| Samantha Kuijper | 3/3/2020 9:23:23 PM |
| Hi I think that what is going on with all the different driveways that i don't want put in is instead of having 27 different driveways make the road an intersection so that there can be driveways off the road and then there can be houses facing away from the main road and some facing towards the main road. Because if we have too many driveways going out off the road that is just absurd also, I don' think there should be so many driveways that my parents and my very sweet neighbors have to maintain until the houses have people in them and my parents also have to pay some money for the gasoline to go up in our neighborhood. Those are the reasons i do not want anything to do with 27 driveways added onto our neighborhood because I like the privacy we all have and that is what i want if people are going to move into our neighborhood. - Samantha Kuijper a 10 year old who lives in the neighborhood | |