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. | |
|---|---|
| Martin Miller | 8/9/2006 1:14:41 PM |
| Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns on the question of access to Chugach State Park. As a resident of Anchorage since 1982, I have found Chugach State Park to be one of our most valuable community assets. Maintaining public access to the park should be a top priority when considering zoning requirements for new developments along its boundary. Please be sure to include requirements for reasonable access and parking for Park visitors for all proposed new developments, including this one by South-Central Timber Development. Our Parks need to be accessible to all visitors. Thanks for your time. Martin Miller | |
| Cathy Miller | 8/7/2006 11:35:29 AM |
| I am strongly in favor of protecting public access to Chugach State Park. I have been hiking in the Chugach State Park since 1973, and I have watched public access to some of my favorite hiking spots slip away to private homeowners. Please protect the rights of all citizens of this great state to be able to hike in some of the most beautiful mountains in the world. If people want to build homes next to state land, please require them to provide for the rest of us access to the Chugach State Park. | |
| Thomas Miller | 8/7/2006 10:59:33 AM |
| Please ensure that any new subdivisons bordering the Chugach State Park allow for public access to the park. Park users are being denied access on a routine basis, even from trails that have been in existence and heavily used for more than the 30 years that I have lived here. It makes good sense for the property owners and for the public to guarantee that access. | |
| Dede Schwartz | 8/7/2006 8:14:28 AM |
| Access to the parks from the eastside, such as the Chugach trails via Stuckagain and to Mt. Baldy and Black Tail from Skyline is important to me as a long time Anchorage resident. Trail access easements can be required with little to no impact on new housing developments. A perfect example are the creek access trails along Chester Creek. These are narrow, inaccessible to vehicles and visually discrete. Public parks need public access. Thanks in advance for your consideration. | |
| cynthia schraer | 8/4/2006 10:17:21 AM |
| Please include access to Chugach State Park in plans to add houses in the stuckagain area. Access to the park is already limited. This park is one of the major assets of our city, vastly enhancing the quality of life here. Having varied opportunities for constructive recreation is especially important for our young population these days. Please keep this in mind when planning future development. Thank you, Cynthia Schraer | |
| talyne Corlyn-Belka | 8/4/2006 8:26:17 AM |
| Responsible and sustainable development wil depend on cooperation from all sides. Leaving a public access through a subdivision is not that hard to incorporate into a development plan. Requiring developers who build along park boundaries to adhere to a newly created zoning ordinance is not unreasonable. We are builders who believe in responsible and sustainable development and it is possible to make a profit in these scenarios. Thank you | |
| Pat Pourchot | 7/31/2006 6:19:20 PM |
| The following comments are on the Canyon Villas proposal at the end of Stuckagain Heights/Basher Road. Once again the protection of traditional and continued public access to Chugach State Park is threatened by the latest proposal for development in this area. Last year in the approval of the underlying plat a public easement was reserved for a portion of the so-called Dome Trail in the northwest corner of the property and another easement reserved along the southern boundary to ultimately reach the so-called "Near Point" trail (additional easements will be needed when "Tract C" to the south is ultimately developed). However, the current zoning and vacation proposal for "New Tract B-2" and "New Tract B-1" raises additional easement questions and needs. First, vacation and relocation of the existing "Near Point" public easement is being requested. This easement was walked and identified previously by Muni staff and others and represented the best physical location for a trail while minimizing the impact on potential housing development. Moving the easement further south and upslope may not result in a practical trail. It is understandable to try to avoid crossing the driveway of house no. 1, and perhaps the trail easement could come in behind the proposed house from the street assuming public access to the platted road nearby. However, there seems to be no need to relocate the existing easement beyond proposed house site no. 1 at the risk of making a trail impractical to build or use. The crossing of the well house access road by the existing easement does not seem to be a serious issue as presumably the access road would not be generally open nor would the access road be used regularly. Additionally, there currently is no public easement proposed through the New Tract B-1 or B-2 to reach the adjacent Chugach Park boundary to the east of the property, nor is there public road access proposed to the boundary. A logical easement would take off from the existing "Near Point" easement south of Lots 7 and 8 and continue eastward to the Park boundary uphill and well south of the developed lots in "New Tract B-1". The route has been walked and would be above identified wetlands on a "bench" in the undeveloped "New Tract B-2" area. This could provide future recreational access to a major drainage of Chugach Park, the North Fork of Campbell Creek, without impacting wetlands or streamside environments. As development takes place along the boundaries of Chugach State Park, more and more public access to the recreational gem in Anchorage's backyard is being lost. It is imperative that we ensure public access for both local neighborhood residents as well as all the citizens of Anchorage. | |
| Adrian Beebee | 7/8/2006 11:07:53 AM |
| 1. The negative impacts of a trail up the North Fork of Campbell Creek are highly exaggerated - to the point that I wonder if the people who made them have hiked in the area. This is not a fifteen foot wide paved trail people are considering. There are no streams nearly large enough to require a culvert, and a modest pathway will not adversely effect wildlife. The threat of a path diverting permanently diverting above ground and underground streams is non-existent. I find it odd that WMS objects to a trail across wetlands but not construction of a subdivision on the same wetlands, which began with construction of a road without wetland, grade or fill permits, earning the developer a Notice of Violation from the Army Corp of Engineers and a stop work order from the Municipality. Clearly, if a subdivision can be constructed in the north fork of Campbell Creek without irreparable harm, so can a trail. 2. The vacation of the existing public trail easement will have a negative impact on the public use. The trail was previously platted to follow a natural bench, moving it to the south will force it across a steep slope. The developer made no mention of this attempt to vacate the public easement at the Community Council meeting held for the purpose of evaluating the subdivision. | |
| Bruce Talbot | 7/5/2006 2:41:08 PM |
| The staff report found that the development, "will not have a permanent negative impact on the items listed below substantially greater than that anticipated from permitted development: a. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and safety." Yet in fact this 19.4 acre development does not provide for public access to over 6,000 acres of public land located on the upper North Fork of Campbell Creek, most of which is in Chugach State Park. Such an easement was directed by the Platting Board as a condition of approving the underlying Plat 2005-118 (for the Campbell Canyon Subdivision). Nonetheless, the staff report did not recommend that such an easement to the east edge of Tract B be platted. If a trail easement is not platted to the east boundary of Tract B, the possibility of building a trail to the upper North Fork will be foreclosed closed. The only access to the upper North Fork at this time requires hiking over the top of Near Point or over the top of the Dome. The Dome is on military reservation land and could be closed to the public at any time. Both routes require hiking up thousand of feet in elevation before descending to the upper North Fork valley – extremely circuitous and difficult routes for both backpackers and day hikers alike. As a result of the hearing process for the underlying plat (2005-118) and the many comments received both in writing and at the hearing, the Platting Board resolved that such access be provided when Tract B is developed. The Basher Community Council also recently resolved that such an easement be provided as part of this proposed platting action. Staff analysis found that such an easement should not be provided because of wetlands issues. While there are extensive wetlands on the bench of Campbell Creek where the planned unit development is proposed (see concept plan), there are few on the north-facing slopes of the canyon were creeks are confined to small intermittent streams where hikers could easily ford after placement of a few rocks or boards, but certainly not the culverts that the staff report said would be needed. In addition, contrary to the staff report, the trail would not be aligned in a manner that would allow streams to be diverted to flow down the trail. Trails traversing side slopes such as this do not have these problems if aligned properly. The staff also expressed concerns about wildlife travel corridors along upper Campbell Creek: the upper North Fork is not an anadromous stream so bear concentrations are not an issue. In addition, I have seen no indication of game trails along the creek bottom -- moose and bears in this area appear to be traveling the high benches above the creek where the brush is thinner and the topography is easier to traverse. Finally, Tract B-2 provides enough space that a trail could be aligned to be well south of the creek and should have minimal impacts. Planning and Zoning should resolved that the Municipal Trails Coordinator work with Watershed Management Services, Parks and Recreation and trail users to identify a trail alignment along the North Fork of Campbell Creek that would not pose significant impacts to water Campbell Creek water quality. If it’s possible for the Planning Department to recommend conditional approval for a development of 11 building sites and their associated septic systems, driveways and roads (all within the Campbell Creek watershed) it would seem possible that conditional approval of a pedestrian trail easement be provided – one that is aligned in a manner that has minimal impact on the creek’s water quality. | |
| Bruce Talbot | 7/5/2006 2:39:18 PM |
| Near Point Knoll Trail (which the Plat describes as Stephen’s Trail): The applicant requested that the existing Nearpoint Knoll 20’ Trail Easement (described on the underlying plat 2005-118 as “Stephen’s Trail”) be relocated to the south away from the proposed building sites. Consistent with the Platting Board’s resolution for this subdivision, this trail easement was carefully platted as part of the Campbell Canyon Subdivision process. The trails coordinator worked with trail users to reserve an easement around the subdivision. The trail was flagged, marked, GPS’d and reserved on the plat. This spring, the applicant, without a permit from the municipality, bulldozed a road through the eastern portion of the trail and negated its future use as a trail around the proposed planned unit development. In addition, as part of the application for the Campbell Villa Estates, the applicant requested that the easement be moved further to the south up the hillside away from the planned unit development. Unfortunately, the trail was carefully platted along the toe of the slope at the edge of the old homestead clearing. An attempt was initially made to locate the trail easement further up the slope (to the south) but it was found to be too rough and steep, and would require a considerable amount of additional work by trail volunteers to build. Please note the change in slope immediately south of the existing 20’ trail easement on the Canyon Villas Concept Plan schematic. The trail was subsequently marked as far south as possible along the old homestead’s cleared area without putting it on the steep slope but away from potential future development. A compromise would be a partial realignment to move the easement out of the bulldozed road and away from building site #1’s driveway. The relocation would follow Aletha’s Way centerline southeast to the 1,3290’ elevation then northeasterly approximately 200’ to connect with the existing trail easement at the 1,320’ elevation (just east of building site #1). This would move the trail out of the area that has been significant disturbed by the recent road building that obliterated the existing trail easement. From that point east, the easement should remain in its currently platted location across the new proposed Tract B-1 and existing Tract C. The trail would still cross the wellhouse road, but this is better than moving it further upslope into an area that would be difficult to develop as a trail. | |
| Bruce Talbot | 7/5/2006 2:37:25 PM |
| P&Z should also direct that the road through the planned unit development not be gated and that pedestrian access (including bicycles and strollers) be allowed. Many people walk and bike on the roads in this rural neighborhood and, up until this pending case, those roads have not been platted to exclude pedestrian access. Authorizing roads through neighborhoods without providing for public pedestrian access is contrary to making Anchorage a livable community. A pedestrian easement should be platted on the road. In addition, and a provision of the plat should be to prohibit gating the road. | |
| Diana and David Evans | 5/14/2006 7:14:59 PM |
| 1. Provide for future vehicular access to Chugach State Park If Tract B was being developed as a subdivision (not a PUD) and the property beyond the east boundary was undeveloped private property with no other access options, there would be no question that a stub street would be required to extend to that boundary, that it would terminate in a temporary turnaround, and that it would be dedicated to the public. Access to Chugach State Park (CSP) in general, and to this area of CSP in particular, should be treated the same as access to a "stranded" piece of private property. Currently, the only way to get "up valley" to Long Lake is to hike up the Dome Trail through Fort Richardson property (not always possible due to military training and not suitable for the "less able" hiker) or over Near Point (which is also not suitable for the "less able" hiker). Furthermore, the Platting Board Summary of Action related to Campbell Canyon Subdivision, dated August 4, 2004, requires that "Future development of Tract B shall provide access to Chugach State Park." Although CSP may not currently have the plans, funds, or interest in building and maintaining a trailhead at this location, let's look to the future--be it 10 years or 100 years distant: allowing the road to be private would completely eliminate the possibility of future CSP access. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, if the road is allowed to be private, this project could be considered to set a precedent for development of the remaining undeveloped property adjacent to CSP in southeast Anchorage. That would be a very unfortunate situation indeed for the people of Alaska. To resolve this, I suggest that PUD be approved but the plat show a public easement that extends the full width and length of the proposed road alignment within Tract B-1, continues through Tract B-2 to the east boundary of the property, terminates in a temporary turnaround, and is dedicated to the "owners" of Chugach State Park: the public. 2. Provide for future pedestrian access to Chugach State Park If the easement I have proposed for future vehicular access to CSP is impossible to create, then I would suggest that the plat show a trail easement within Tract B-2, along the south side of the creek, and south of the 100' stream setback if possible. 3. Provide for public pedestrian use of the road and prohibit a "gate" at the entrance to the development Even if the proposed easement(s) for future access to CSP are impossible to create, I suggest that the plat show a pedestrian easement that extends the full width and length of the proposed road alignment within Tract B-1, and that the plat contain a note prohibiting construction of a gate at the property entrance, so that local residents and others outside the property may enjoy a legal evening walk or bike ride on the road, socialize with their neighbors, and so forth--much like the residents of the proposed development will be free to do on the public streets outside their property. | |
| David Evans | 5/8/2006 11:23:00 AM |
| To view the preliminary plat and related documents, go to http://www.chugachpark.org/basher/UpperBasher.html | |