CityView Portal

try again!

We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case

Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval.
Henry Wilson	9/7/2014 10:42:12 PM
I am writing to comment on Case No. 2014-0123, Girdwood South Townsite Area Master Plan Update (Plan Update). My comments relate to the provisions concerning the requirement for a secondary access road for fire access and to support future development under Title 21 (AMC 21.09.070F.6.b.i). The Plan Update basically defers decisions on the need for a second access road to the future, because of the significant physical, environmental and economic impediments to the construction of such a road. At the same time, however, the Plan Update discusses two alternative concepts for a second access road. One would utilize a platted right of way referred to as Juniper Drive, which is a remnant of platting done in 1965 for the subdivision known as the Squirrel Cage. The other is a road extending lengthwise through the site to Ruane Road. My wife Karin and I own Lots 70B and 70A of US Survey 3043, which are adjacent to the platted Juniper Drive ROW. We have both a house and rental property there. The construction of a road in that location would have a significant adverse impact on our property, and the property of our neighbors. It would require jamming a road in between four existing houses. It would be totally inconsistent with the goals of preserving Girdwood’s small-town character, encouraging development with a light touch, and preserving open space, trees and views. The Plan Update acknowledges that the Juniper Drive roadway would require bridging of California Creek, which includes Class A (high value) wetlands and significant fish spawning habitat. The unavoidable disturbance of wetlands would trigger the need for and extensive permitting process and mitigation measures. As a result, the Juniper Drive roadway is likely to be cost-prohibitive. See Pages 3.2, 6.4-6.7. The Ruane Road alignment crosses wetlands too, but would likely follow a route previously disturbed for a sewer line. See Page 6.5. The Ruane Road alignment is identified as the preferred alternative for the South Townsite secondary access in the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan (GAP). The 2001 Girdwood Commercial Areas and Transportation Plan (CAT) recognized the potential need for a secondary access, but did not propose utilizing the Juniper Road ROW. Instead, Map 11 of the CAT showed a proposed road through the site and across California Creek, to the Alyeska Highway in the undeveloped municipal land along the Alyeska Highway to the south, between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road. The 2008 Girdwood South Townsite Area Master Plan recommends a secondary access road extending southward to Ruane Road, in addition to another secondary access to the northwest (Glacier Creek Drive), which has been dropped from consideration. Despite the problems with the Juniper Drive option, the Plan Update recommends retaining the platted Juniper Drive ROW. See Page 6.5. This is illogical and inconsistent with the GAP and the CAT. It is also inconsistent with the final recommendations of the Plan Update itself, which states: “The platted right-of-way for a second access was part of the 1964 First Addition Plat (see Chapter 6) but is not favored today because of cost and wetlands impacts.” See Pages 8.11-8.12. The Plan Update recommends adding a direct link from the South end of the HLB lands to Ruane Road (near AWWU Facilities), which I support. See Page 6.7. It also shows the shows the Ruane Road alignment in Map 6.2, and at Page 6.6 it states: “Note that the collector alignment in both the CAT and GAP plans is closely aligned with that proposed in the 2014 Amendment.” This is somewhat ambiguous, but it appears that the intent is for the Ruane Road alignment to be the proposed secondary access. I suggest that language be added to clarify that the Ruane Road alignment is the preferred alternative. The proposed Juniper Drive alignment should be dropped and ROW should be vacated. Future planning for a second access road should focus on the Ruane Road alignment, which should be clearly identified as the preferred alternative. Alternatively, the undeveloped municipal land between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road should be evaluated for a secondary road, as shown on Map 11 of the CAT. There is no reason to try and squeeze a road into the Juniper Drive ROW when there is a half a mile or more of undeveloped municipal land to the south, between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road. T. Henry Wilson 4830 Sportsman Drive Anchorage, AK 99502

Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval.

Henry Wilson

9/7/2014 10:42:12 PM

I am writing to comment on Case No. 2014-0123, Girdwood South Townsite Area Master Plan Update (Plan Update). My comments relate to the provisions concerning the requirement for a secondary access road for fire access and to support future development under Title 21 (AMC 21.09.070F.6.b.i). The Plan Update basically defers decisions on the need for a second access road to the future, because of the significant physical, environmental and economic impediments to the construction of such a road. At the same time, however, the Plan Update discusses two alternative concepts for a second access road. One would utilize a platted right of way referred to as Juniper Drive, which is a remnant of platting done in 1965 for the subdivision known as the Squirrel Cage. The other is a road extending lengthwise through the site to Ruane Road. My wife Karin and I own Lots 70B and 70A of US Survey 3043, which are adjacent to the platted Juniper Drive ROW. We have both a house and rental property there. The construction of a road in that location would have a significant adverse impact on our property, and the property of our neighbors. It would require jamming a road in between four existing houses. It would be totally inconsistent with the goals of preserving Girdwood’s small-town character, encouraging development with a light touch, and preserving open space, trees and views. The Plan Update acknowledges that the Juniper Drive roadway would require bridging of California Creek, which includes Class A (high value) wetlands and significant fish spawning habitat. The unavoidable disturbance of wetlands would trigger the need for and extensive permitting process and mitigation measures. As a result, the Juniper Drive roadway is likely to be cost-prohibitive. See Pages 3.2, 6.4-6.7. The Ruane Road alignment crosses wetlands too, but would likely follow a route previously disturbed for a sewer line. See Page 6.5. The Ruane Road alignment is identified as the preferred alternative for the South Townsite secondary access in the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan (GAP). The 2001 Girdwood Commercial Areas and Transportation Plan (CAT) recognized the potential need for a secondary access, but did not propose utilizing the Juniper Road ROW. Instead, Map 11 of the CAT showed a proposed road through the site and across California Creek, to the Alyeska Highway in the undeveloped municipal land along the Alyeska Highway to the south, between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road. The 2008 Girdwood South Townsite Area Master Plan recommends a secondary access road extending southward to Ruane Road, in addition to another secondary access to the northwest (Glacier Creek Drive), which has been dropped from consideration. Despite the problems with the Juniper Drive option, the Plan Update recommends retaining the platted Juniper Drive ROW. See Page 6.5. This is illogical and inconsistent with the GAP and the CAT. It is also inconsistent with the final recommendations of the Plan Update itself, which states: “The platted right-of-way for a second access was part of the 1964 First Addition Plat (see Chapter 6) but is not favored today because of cost and wetlands impacts.” See Pages 8.11-8.12. The Plan Update recommends adding a direct link from the South end of the HLB lands to Ruane Road (near AWWU Facilities), which I support. See Page 6.7. It also shows the shows the Ruane Road alignment in Map 6.2, and at Page 6.6 it states: “Note that the collector alignment in both the CAT and GAP plans is closely aligned with that proposed in the 2014 Amendment.” This is somewhat ambiguous, but it appears that the intent is for the Ruane Road alignment to be the proposed secondary access. I suggest that language be added to clarify that the Ruane Road alignment is the preferred alternative. The proposed Juniper Drive alignment should be dropped and ROW should be vacated. Future planning for a second access road should focus on the Ruane Road alignment, which should be clearly identified as the preferred alternative. Alternatively, the undeveloped municipal land between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road should be evaluated for a secondary road, as shown on Map 11 of the CAT. There is no reason to try and squeeze a road into the Juniper Drive ROW when there is a half a mile or more of undeveloped municipal land to the south, between Juniper Drive and Ruane Road. T. Henry Wilson 4830 Sportsman Drive Anchorage, AK 99502

CityView Portal

Municipality of Anchorage Official Web Site