View Case Comments
Submit a Comment
** These comments were submitted by citizens and are part of the public record for the cases **
Questions? If you have questions regarding a case, please contact Zoning at 907-343-7943
or Platting & Variances at 907-343-7942.
1. Select a Case:

2. View Comments:

Case Num: S11592-2
Details | Staff Report | submit a comment
Public Comments
11/12/07   
nancy boardman
9611 Chenega Drive
anchorage ak 99507
Please register my support with the Petitioners to restrict access to Chugach Park at the end of Tulugak Circle to neighbors residing in the immediate neighborhood. This residential street/circle is unsuitable as a public access, and there are already five existing public trailheads to Chugach Park along Stuckagain Road/Basher Road. I walk to or park my car at all of these trailheads several times every week and rarely see the parking lots completely full.

11/10/07   
Jeff Young
I moved to Alaska in 1983, and have been using the access point in Stuckagain heights, for a very long time. The people of Alaska need more access to public land not less.Please keep this access point open to the public, and to future generations of park users. Thank you very much

11/9/07   
karen adams
8301 resurrection dr.
anchorage ak 99504
i have just received this information. please accept my comments against restricting access. it seems to me that peole moving to these neighborhoods should know full well that we in the community access the trails from these trailheads. this is not the first time they have tried to limit others from using what is public land. i use to be able to access several trails in the past. however slowly access is being denied. i was once accosted by a resident for using the trails. if residents do not want "others" to access public lands from their neighorhood, then DON'T MOVE THERE"! i moved to my east anchorage neighborhood knowing that i could hike these trails. however because i do not live the the "afluant" areas now i can't. for instance to get to "the Dome or Nearpoint" trails we have to add several flat miles to our hike. this is not possible with 2 young children. i feel the residents have taken away some of our trail options. PLEASE do not encourage or support any other restrictions. thank you for your support. karen adams, east anchorage resident and local business owner.

11/8/07   
mark corsentino
anchorage ak 99501
As a fairly new resident to Anchorage, one of the reasons I moved here from the "Lower 48" was because of the proximity of Anchorage to public lands. I have been disappointed to see how few access points we have to these lands, and how crowded the parking lots are to those access points, especially on a nice summer day. I would urge the Planning Board to consider the thousands of residents of Anchorage that rely on those access points to enjoy the benefits of Chugach State Park to live our Big Wild Life! This Stuckagin TH is a needed access point to the too few that exist into Chugach, keep it open for the benefit of all the public.

11/8/07   
Tanya Leinicke
3970 Defiance St
Anchorage AK 00504
My husband and I are currently completing construction of a house in Stuck-Again Heights. We are moving to that neighborhood partly because we love Chugach State Park. We have dreams of backpacking from our front door and going on long trail runs from our home. There is no doubt that we want to access the park for our own use. However, it is absurd to think that anyone living up there would do so at the expense of the public. Chugach State park is public land and the access should remain public. It is a bad precedent to set and could only result in the privatization of more trail heads and land. We would gladly invite people to access the park through established trail heads either in or near our lands. As for the fear of "trail head partyers and noisy traffic"..this has never been a significant problem. Furthermore, it is less likely to be a problem with nearby communities to plice the situation. Please keep Chugach State Park access public....a gift to ALL Alaskans !!

11/7/07   
Mark Worcester
2247 Arctic Circle
Anchorage AK 99517
I would like to add my voice to the overwhelming majority of commenters to the effect that the access conditions to Mr Cremo’s proposes subdivision should be denied. The Chugach State Park is a huge public resource – intended to benefit all the people of Alaska and its visitors. It is outrageous to seriously consider allowing subdivisions to be formed that block public access to the public’s park. Sure, Mr Cremo would like to offer to purchasers of his lots the benefits of exclusive access to the public lands adjoining his lands. But he never owned those public lands, and access to the public lands is a legitimate condition to subdivision development, not his private right. I believe in private property rights. But, I also believe that we should not allow private rights to usurp public rights. In this case, the public's right to access public property should prevail. Any attempt to ban public access would be, in any event, highly contentious and unenforceable. It also would create more of the problems Mr. Cremo fears: if public access is concentrated into just a handful of locations, it will result in overfull parking lots and overuse. If we have many access points, the demand will be spread out and the impact naturally controlled. I use the Chugach extensively. The users are almost uniformly courteous and respectful. Many access points are only modestly used, and so far as I have seen, do not pose the problems Cremo fears. Examples include access to McHugh Peak from Brewster's Road and up Harp Mountain from the end of the road up South Fork, Eagle River. More access points to the public will reduce the problems, not increase them, while fulfilling the public's right of access to their land.

11/7/07   
John Wolfe Jr.
3039 Alder Circle
Anchorage AK 99508
I was not able to attend the public hearing tonight but wish to submit general comments. Public access has long been an issue in the Stuckagain Heights area, with subdivisions built up around access points that have been used for years informally. Our hiking guidebook has never included these access points, although they are reasonably well known, because of legal access issues. The original decision was proper--to require the owner to provide true public access to the entire public. The attempt to limit access to owners of land in the area, while understandable, is not in the best public interest. Chugach State Park in an outstanding public asset, the public road to Stuckagain Heights takes people near the park, there is a history of access even if not official, there is a competing guidebook that has increased awareness of the access by publicizing the area, and this all means there is pressure looking for an outlet at the top of Stuckagain Heights. Providing a decent public access point is critical to avoiding trespass. A variety of access points along the park boundary will spread out park access so that no one area becomes overwhelmed. In any case, the proposal to limit access to nearby landowners, their children, and up to four others is impractical--both the limit on numbers (a simple walk after a family Thanksgiving dinner could easily include more than four guests) and the thought of policing. Who is going to figure out who is an owner, who are the guests, who is a housesitter or renter, and who is a member of the public that happens to be a friend of an owner but arrived late and is headed up the trail 15 mins behind the owner? Etc. A standard public easement makes more sense. Thank you. John Wolfe Jr. Co-Author 55 Ways to the Wilderness in Southcentral Alaska

11/7/07   
Sonja Tobiessen
Anchorage AK 99508
Regarding case # S11592-2, State Park access Platting Board or whomever this concerns, As a long term resident of Alaska and more recently of Anchorage, and as an avid hiker living on the NE side of town who frequents Chugach State Park and this trail in particular, I ask that you please strongly consider the following: Although residents may be inconvenienced by state park visitors using their neighborhood as an access point, the best means to reduce impacts to all neighborhoods abutting the park is to establish many public access points. The more Chugach State Park access points there are, the fewer the effects on any one neighborhood. Also the Planning Department Staff report relies on Municipal Trails Plan (1997) and Chugach State Park Master Plan(mid-1980s). These outdated plans could not have anticipated the extensive development along the park boundary in recent years. The Trails Plan is due for updating in 2008. The Alaska State Park Strategic Plan includes a provision for creating a Chugach State Park Access Plan in 2008. Public access should not be extinguished before these plans are updated. Also, the staff report points to several nearby CSP access points as justification for allowing this one to be private. The CSP Access Inventory recommends access points every 1,000 feet along the park boundary. Please deny this private owner's request to limit public access to the Park. Thank you very much. Sonja Tobiessen

11/7/07   
Mary Hertert
3052 North Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
It would be truly considered myopic planning if developers are allowed to continue to purchase property crossing or adjacent to public access points in the Chugach. Especially if allowed to then close off the access to all but the "lucky" few who happen to buy the property. It is the city's responsibility to do all it can to protect public access points and to work with the developers to ensure that areas are left open and available for the public to use. No one is asking for parking lots, just for the right to park along the side of the road and head up into the mountains. It is the same as if any from the hillside decided that they wanted to park in front of my house to go for a walk in the woods nearby. There should be set policy that when developers decide to build that they not be allowed to block public access to the Chugach State Park.

11/7/07   
Robert Kasuboski
I am opposed to the neighborhood easement plan for Chugach State Park through Stuckagain Heights neighborhood. This would set a dangerous precident in the easement to public lands and is not necessary as there are access points to the park within a reasonable distance from the area. If easement is needed in this area an environmental Impact statement should be completed and then the access if determined necessary should be available to all park users.

11/7/07   
Bob Cox
4620 Silver Spring Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
I'm writing to express my support to keep the access in Stuckagain Heights to the Chugach State Park open to the general public. Restriction of trail heads only to homeowners within the adjacent area transforms a regional/state park into a local park. For a park of its size, Chugach State Park has incredibly few access points and only a few are well developed, e.g. McHugh and Glenn Alps. Until we can generate widespread support for more park access improvement funding, it is vitally important that this public pedestrian access point at Stuckagin Heights be preserved.

11/7/07   
Mike and Diane Frank
2224 Turnagain Parkway
Anchorage AK 99517
We are opposed to the proposed Modification. There already are too few public access points on the Hillside to Chugach State Park. The developed access points, with parking and other facilities, are routinely overcrowded and are very heavily used. Less developed but useable access points, like the one in issue, help relieve the pressure on the developed access points. Thus, even undeveloped and lightly used access points serve a public need and should be kept in public ownership. In any case, the public interest would not be served by eliminating any access point solely to advantage a few private land owners and without any renumeration to the public. This proposal is all too similar to an ill considered Planning Department proposal made last year to eliminate a public access point to Lyn Ary Park in order in order to accomodate a few adjoining landowners, including former Govenor Bill Sheffield. Once again, unfortunately, the Planning Department needs to be reminded that its primary obligation is to protect the public interest, and in doing so it must avoid becoming an advocate for the interests of private land owners. Thank you for considering our comments.

11/7/07   
Michael Henricks
3611 East 20th
Anchorage AK 99508
Privatization of entry to public parks is an aweful precident to set. This is the only access point to the park for folks living in East Anchorage. Litigation will be the result of this action if it is approved.

11/7/07   
Bernard Murphy
Public access to Chugach State park is necessary in our community using this valuable resource. Currently access to the Park is very limited, with only a few trail heads to serve many square miles of park land. Cutting off public access in this development would restrict much needed access to the park. MOA should safe guard the rights of the public over that of private developers in the arena of access to our parks.

11/7/07   
Brent Edwards
1820 Alder Dr.
Anchorage AK 99508
In its June 6, 2007 decision the Platting Board clearly expressed that it saw the need for PUBLIC ACCESS by requiring public access in a Plat condition. The time for the applicant to request modification for the Platting Board's decision has long passed. Now the applicant seeks to morph the PUBLIC ACCESS that the Planning Commission required as a condition of the preliminary plat into a private easement. This attempt to change the PUBLIC ACCESS required by the Planning Commission into something entirely different should be rejected. You cannot have PUBLIC ACCESS for just a few people. That defies the definition of PUBLIC ACCESS. Had the Planning Commission thought that a private easement for the neighborhood folks was appropriate or needed, it would have said so in its Plat condition. It did not. That was not an accident. The Staff Report on the applicant's requested modification should be disregarded since it completely misses the true issue here, which is the PUBLIC ACCESS called for by the Planning Commission. Thank you for considering our comments and we hope that the Planning Commission rejects this attempted end run around its previously stated PUBLIC ACCESS requirement. Sincerely, Brent Edwards

11/7/07   
Brendan McKee
P.O. Box 221862
Anchorage AK 99522-1862
As others have previously stated, this petition must be denied on procedural grounds alone. The period for reconsideration of this platted easement has long since passed. Access to Chugach State Park should be a priority for any MOA subdivision development constructed at the boundary of the park. MOA needs to follow the lead of other communities around the nation that ensure park access from new urban developments. Restricting access to the park from any neighborhood is a poor idea. Problems such as parking vs. street maintenance and emergency vehicle access can be addressed with other solutions. Limiting access to residents only is extreme and sets a terrible precedent. Waiting until the day of the hearing to post the staff report could be considered subverting the public process!

11/7/07   
David Prentice
2251 Daybreak Court
Anchorage AK 99501
The public easement preserves the rights of future residents of Anchorage to at some time develop access to Chugach State Park through this route. That is all that is at stake. This case was settled back in June and should not have been brought back up. The developer missed his deadline. Tough luck. At present there is no actual need to develop this easement, but maybe some day there will be and we'll want it. Until then, the developer has his semi-private access and we have our rights to future access.

11/7/07   
Alaska Center for the Environment Eric Uhde
807 G Street, #100
Anchorage AK 99501
Municipality of Anchorage Platting Board Re: Case S11592-2 Stuckagain Hts. /Chugach State Park Access Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Modification to a Condition of Approval on a preliminary plat which was approved June 6, 2007 by the Platting Board. Alaska Center for the Environment is opposed to modifying the preliminary plat, a revision that would restrict public access to Chugach State Park. For over 36 years Alaska Center for the Environment and our 7,000 Alaskan members, have been a strong voice for public land conservation. The majority of our members call Anchorage home and use Chugach State Park for hiking, climbing, skiing, or simply messing around with their friends and families. Many are concerned about protecting public access to one of the world’s premier parks. First we believe that this issue has already been heard before this board during a June 2007 hearing, and that the Petitioners have exhausted their administrative options for review and modifications on this case. Municipal Code states that there are three ways a Platting Board decision can be reconsidered: (1) a member of the Board may request reconsideration within 24 hours of the original vote (21.11.502), or (2) anyone may request a review of the decision and then appeal the review, but the request must be submitted within 7 days after the decision is made (21.11.304 B), or (3) someone may allege new evidence or changed circumstance and request rehearing, but the request must be submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final (21.11.503). If neither of the first two methods is pursued in a timely manner, the decision becomes final 7 days after it was decided on record. The third method is only available if the request is submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final. None of these methods of reconsideration are available to the developer because of the Municipal Code. If the developer would like to take this issue up in front of another Municipal board or maybe through another public process, ACE would be happy to again make our comments and list our concerns. Second, public access to our state park is essential. Without access how would Alaskans go about using Chugach Park? As Anchorage grows these conflicts on access will only get worse. We believe that in the future, neighborhood residents and new property owners will welcome public access, for those in the neighborhood will be the primary users of the park access point. Thank you for considering these comments, Eric Uhde Public Lands Advocate Alaska Center for the Environment 807 G Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

11/7/07   
Eric Johnson
9600 Midden Way
Anchorage AK 99507
I grew up on Baxter Road in the 1950's and rode my bike up to Stuckagain and asked Mr. Cremo if I could cross his property to clear Nearpoint. He graciously allowed me to do this and I have been thankful for his generosity. I support his petition to change his plat, but if it is deemed that it is not appropriate, I am happy with existing access. There are two existing trails from parking lots that go to the same destination and therefore this access would be redundant.

11/7/07   
Eric Parsons
1212 G Street
Anchorage AK 99501
I'm writing to express my support to keep the access to the park PUBLIC. Do not start privatization of trailheads open only to homeowners within the area. Anchorage needs MORE access points into Chugach State Park not fewer. Access at Stuckagin Heights must be maintained as there are no other comparable access points on the North Side of Town. Thank you.

11/7/07   
J.D Batove
18661 Gibens Circle
Eagle River AK 99577
I am opposed to the limiting of access to the Chugach State Park. Having just recently moved to Alaska, I was very surprised to learn how very limited access is to our public lands. Limiting what access currently exists is not only unfair to the public as a whole it will indeed lead to future over use of what other areas exist. If anything, the residents of this area should be trying to work with the municipality to try and create a better point of access for everyone. By creating a better relationship with the community everyone can help to curb the problems that many residents claim will be a result of this access. Besides, cats out of the bag now! Probably going to be increased traffic to this area for a little while. People wanna see what all the fuss is about.

11/7/07   
Stephen Cleary
2654 Lovejoy Drive
Anchorage AK 99508
I am writing to express my objection to the granting of exclusive access to this Stuckagain Heights trailhead. It would create private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership and, of course, the rest of Anchorage is excluded. My wife and I live near the area and frequently visit the area. If access to a park is not granted to all members of the public, it ceases to be public. What good is the Chugach if we are not able to access it? I urge you to develop fair access to the park for all citizens so that we can all enjoy what belongs to us all, rather than cordoning it off for a select few. Thank you, Stephen Cleary

11/7/07   
Becky King
1212 G Street
Anchorage AK 99501
We need more public access points, not fewer. With an increase in access points to our state parks, hopefully the use will be spread more evenly among the trailheads. If parking and congestion are concerns, then devise a plan for parking or a walkway from a parking area to the trailhead. Lets look for solutions to increase public access. Also, I'd love to know why this is being reconsidered in the first place. It was openly debated in a fair public hearing at the Platting Board meeting on June 7, 2007. This request for modification is actually a request for re-evaluation of the Board’s June 7, 2007 decision. This request was made in September 2007—long after the June 8, June 14, and July 3 deadlines specified by the Municipal Code. Mr. Cremo missed all deadlines, so this shouldn't even be an issue open for discussion.

11/7/07   
Bill MacFarlane
4243 Chelsea Way
Anchorage AK 99504
Public access to Chugach State Park is very important for a variety of reasons, and it is essential that Mr. Cremo’s “modification” is denied. Chugach State Park is one of the greatest assets to Anchorage residents from all parts of the city. It is absurd to grant exclusive access rights for those that are fortunate enough to live within an arbitrary distance of this trailhead. I have been using the Stuckagain Heights area to access Chugach State Park for almost 6 years, living in the Baxter area only a few miles away. Access to the State Park is already limited, and as Anchorage continues to expand, access to this incredible resource is increasingly jeopardized. Approval of this appeal could set a dangerous precedent for future access to the State Park in all areas where development is occurring. We should all be working together to maintain or increase access to the State Park in the future. Thank you for considering my comments.

11/7/07   
John Maltas
533 East 24th Ave , Apt #4
Anchorage AK 99503
I am a former assistant municipal attorney. If granted, this application will likely result in costly public interest litigation for the MOA. First, the Board's decision would be vulnerable to a challenge on procedural grounds. Second, the decision is viewed as a precedent and thus more likely to be challenged. Third, it seems that the city would be on the wrong side of the issue. If the MOA has to defend approval, the MOA will likely have to pay for it's own legal expenses and it's opponents. The court awards full attorney's fees to a successful public interest litigant. I think the MOA will lose on procedural grounds. The Board should deny this application and expect to be held accountable if approval results in expesive litigation for our taxpayers.

11/7/07   
Mary Vavrik
11930 Northern Raven Drive
Anchorage AK 99516
Chugach State Park is a public park, and access should be available for all members of the public that wish to use it. There should be no exclusions to parking on a public street. The Platting Board has already issued its decision that a public pedestrian easement should be dedicated for this area. Thank you.

11/7/07   
William Finley
7601 Soldotna Dr
Anchorage AK 99507
I am opposed to this proposal because it sets a bad precedent for access to our public lands. I live in mid-Hillside and do not wish to see access points that I currently use closed and open to only a select few. By allowing multiple access points into Chugach State Park we alleviate the stress and other concerns that come from over-crowding. Please maintain traditional access points to our parks and keep our parks open to the PUBLIC.

11/7/07   
Ram Srinivasan
8935, Spruce brook St
Anchorage AK 99507
It is unethical and selfish in my view to privatize what has been a public access to beautiful mountains. Many who live here are outdoorsy and love to hike and ski the beautiful mountains. Such treatures as these are for everyone's enjoyment - to look at, hike, relax, and explore in all different ways. The vote here is about the respect for the general public versus the handful of rich. Closing the access to the public is unthinkable for me, and it should be for you also. Thank You. Srinivasan

11/7/07   
Pat Irwin
14440 Canyon Rd
Anchorage AK 99516
Not so fast folks! Is this a legal easement or private land? Big difference. We up on Canyon Rd face a similar issue as the Park wants to make an official entrance at the top of Canyon Rd. The problem is that Canyon Rd is on private property and crosses private property. For many years I've been paying taxes on the property that Canyon Rd crosses. After ADN ran a story on the new entrance, traffic on Canyon RD now rivals Glen Alps, yet Canyon Rd cannot handle that amount of traffic. An overwhelming majority of Canyon Rd residents do not want to deny access to anyone. We simply want to move the access point below our properties onto State and Muni property. This not only takes care of the private property issue, it allows for a year-round 2 wheel drive access. This plan ads about 1 mile of wilderness trail along Rabbit Creek to reach the old starting point. So before we panic, let's check the legal issues involved and go from there. Is there a way to access the Park without going through neighborhoods?

11/7/07   
Mark McArthur
10128 Ravencrest Circle
Eagle River AK 99577
I would like to voice my opposition to this proposal based on the fact that it privatizes access to public land. Owning a private lot in a particular subdivision does not give an individual the right to restrict access to public lands. Thank you for considering my thoughts. Please do the right thing and protect the public's access to state park land.

11/7/07   
Shane Langland
Gary Cooper Circle
Anchorage ak 99507
I am in support of Mr. Cremo's plan. I think it is important to remember that there is currently NO public access to the park given at that location. There are multiple access points, WITH parking already in the Stuckagain Heights area. As a lower hillside resident I am gravely concerned about the fire danger in the hills surrounding Anchorage. As there is no possible parking areas at the proposed access point, those wishing to use this access would have to park on the road. This is EXTREMELY dangerous. There isn't enough room for cars to enter or egress safely with fire trucks working in the area with cars parked along the road. By AFD's own admission, one single blockage on the Campbell Airstrip road while they are attempting to get on the hillside to fight a wildfire, could render them unable to stop the fire. Additionally, the Chugach State Park Board has supported what it calls "neighboorhood access easements" which is clearly what this is. Why they are opposed to this one is a mystery to me. There are plenty of access points, with adequate parking, to the Chugach park. I see no reason to add another one that may have disasterous consequences.

11/7/07   
Maeve Taylor
1930 East View Drive
Anchorage AK 99504
I live beneath the mountains on the edge of Anchorage, off of Muldoon. I like to think of them as "my" mountains, even though I know I share them with thousands of other recreators. There is no easy access to the mountains from where I live. To get to them without a lot of bushwacking I have to drive to Stuckagain Heights. I used the trail access at Stuckagain Heights a lot this summer, for hiking and berry picking. It's such a wonderful thing to be able to get up into those beautiful mountains and enjoy all that our "neighborhood" has to offer. The trail is in wonderful shape and makes for an extremely pleasant hike. The trail users treat the neighborhood with a lot of respect and the parking area seems to be in good shape. Closing this access to hikers who need to drive to the location from elsewhere in Anchorage seems unfair and unethical. When we buy homes in Anchorage we don't buy access to the mountains. All we are buying is our own little piece of the view. Our Anchorage mountains are for all to share and they should remain that way. People in North East Anchorage need to be able to access the mountains just like people in Southeast Anchorage. Besides, offering multiple trailheads to enter the mountains spreads out the crowd a bit, and keeps us from overusing the GlenAlps area. The Stuckagain Heights trailhead is not a place that attracts partiers who would cause a lot of trouble for neighbors. Instead it attracts people who love nature, respect the earth, and want to be good neighbors. Let's not let Anchorage turn into a place where only private landowners reap the benefits.

11/7/07   
Richard Todd
4150 Elkhorn Dr
Eagle River AK 99577
The proposed Petition for Modification of the Conditional Approval granted by the Platting Board is outrageous! The petitioner in this case seeks to "privatize" access to public lands. The original Platting Board requirement should stand to allow pedestrian access to the park. As Mr. Cremo did not file his Petition for Modification within the stated timeframe allowed by Municipal Code, this case should not even be heard.

11/7/07   
Bob Sutherland
I am opposed to this proposal because it makes access a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership adjacent to the trail excluding the hundreds of thousands of us that live outside his little zone. His proposed "private policing" conditions would have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions . This is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. Its an exclusive access, wrong, wrong, wrong. He missed the submission deadlines. So what does that mean? he doesn't have to follow the rules? why should anybody follow the rules? why have rules? its ludricous to accept this proposal on that alone. He had avenues to address this and blew it.

11/7/07   
Virginia White
As an avid user of the Chugach State Park trail system, I am against the proposed measure to limit access to residents only in the Stuckagain Heights area. This will set a precedent for blocking access along the park for developments that may come later. This is a state park, not a private park and all trail users should have equal access.

11/7/07   
Jennifer DuFord
Anchorage AK 99515
Please do not begin a precedent of privatizing access to public lands. Historical trail rights need to be preserved. Public policy should be enacted to protect established trails, or this issue will continue to reoccur. Continued access to Rabbit Lake & Mt. Baldy trailheads has been recently debated as well. The State did not have the foresight to maintain public access to Matanuska Glacier, and now we have to pay to recreate there. I have used the Stuckagain Hghts trailhead for 10 years, bringing my children and guests on its paths. Please do not deny me the ability to continue these outings. I recently walked across England--which has almost no natural land remaining--and yet, public access exists everywhere (even across yards & farms). If England, with its limited land area, can maintain public access, surely we can in the largest state of the union.

11/7/07   
sage cohen
I am opposed to restricting access to the park to "local" residents and their accompanied guests. We are all Local in this municipality. This park belongs to everyone in the state. Restriciting access creates a dangerous precedent. There are supposedly other access points within a mile. Is that as the crow flies or the car drives? I use the Near Point access at Prospect Heights. That is a much longer drive from my house. I know there is some kind of access near the Tudor-Muldoon curve. But I don't know the location (is it too on private land?) and the walk into the mountains from there is much longer. Starting from Stuckagain you being climbing almost immediately, which is desirable. Another point: if there are more access points, it reduces the pressure on any one of them. The original access until the landowner by the old burned out restaurant used to acommodate about 12 cars, maximum. the parking was away from the residences. The ADN reported that one objection to a trailhead is loud parties. I am not aware of any loud parties occurring at any of the trailheads in town (Glen Alps, Huffman, Prospect etc.) what are the facts on this? Bottom Line: more fat people in town need more access to healthy recreation. Residents privileged enough to own land near a park should not have their privileges extended to include exclusive access. Rich peopl live on the coastal trail and get along fine with the daily use. The park use will be minimal in comparison. Hikers/runners/and skiers make excellent neighbors.

11/7/07   
Tony Perelli
Anchorage ak 99501
To whom it may concern, Public access to the Chugach State Park should be maintained. I believe that greater access to our public land will lead to greater park use. This will lead to the greater goodness, health & well being of the people & shared space of our community.

11/7/07   
Terri Morganson
8430 Fox Lair Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
It is very dissapointing to hear the platting board has agreed to hear this request. Public access to Chugach State Park should not be eliminated, and if anything - should be added as more development occurs along the park boundaries. This is a long established access, used by many residents of Anchorage. Please do not consider any plan to privatize park access. Thanks for reading all these comments and listening to the public comments at your meeting tonight. This change should not be granted.

11/7/07   
Thai Verzone
I have been using the the access to Stuckagain heights regularly for nearly 15 years, before most of the residential area had been developed around the trail head. I was dismayed at the building of new residential sited, but felt that it was the right of the land owner to build. But now for what I consider the new residents in the area to take ownership of access to public use lands seems ludicrous. It is public land!! From my understanding, this has already been debated and decided. At this point, I believe the state park should step up to the plate and make a public access point managed by the state park, which should have been done 10 years ago when many of the other public access points were up-graded for the growing Anchorage population. Thai Verzone As a resident of Anchorage for nearly 15 years, I have used the stuckagain trail access regularly since I first started living in the area. Initially I was dis

11/7/07   
Mary Kaye Hession
4500 Riverton Ave.
Anchorage AK 99516
I oppose the developer's proposed change, which is not only procedurally out of bounds, but against public policy. "Public" access to a state park must remain public, not restricted to those who purchase nearby real estate.

11/7/07   
Tina Boucher
10740 Shivalik Circle
Anchorage AK 99501
I feel strongly that the development at the end of Tulugak Circle should include a pulic access to the Park for the following reasons: 1) Multiple trailheads from Stuckagain reduce the pressure on any single trailhead. 2) The access up the north side of Near Point (from the proposed Aletha's Mt. Way trailhead) has some very steep sections that will not support much foot traffic without trail maintenance and possibly redirection, while the trail from Tulugak Circle is on a hardened, dry ridge. From an impact perspective, this is the best trail location to access Near Point. The trail from Prospect Heights crosses wide sections of wetlands that hikers either wade through or walk around, creating an ever-expanding wallow. 3) I own a lot in Stuckagain Heights (Campbell Canyon), and I am committed to maintaining public access to this area. A small parking area(4-6 car)would likely be enough to support the amount of use the trail might get in the future, especially if we continue to ensure multiple access points.

11/7/07   
Rick Fouts
P.O. Box 773332
Eagle River Ak 99577
Granting the affluent their own private conditions to public lands should not even be a topic of discussion. Keep public access public, not exclusive.

11/7/07   
Steven Gruhn
2960 Sun Spot Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
This case should not even be heard by the Platting Board. This issue was already been openly debated and decided on June 7. The time for re-evaluation, appeal, request for re-hearing has past. Do not spend the Board's time on issues that have already been resolved. Should the Board decide to ignore established policies for re-evaluations, appeals, and re-hearing requests, the Board should reject the requested modification because it flies in the face of public access to Chugach State Park. The proposed access restrictions turn the supposed access to the PUBLIC'S Chugach State Park into a private route and, as a result, turn the nearby area of Chugach State Park into a private park. The park is public and the access to it should remain public. The concept of restricting access to only neighborhood residents and their guests is elitism at its worst and is contrary to the public's interest. Additionally, access to Chugach State Park should be granted so that park rangers, potential rescuers, and volunteers have the easiest and most prudent means to reach the area of Chugach State Park in the vicinity of the proposed development. To prevent that would prevent Chugach State Park from maintaining its resources in the area of the proposed access. As the neighborhood residents access Chugach State Park, trails will be developed. Once developed, trails will need to be maintained. Without maintenance, trails will widen and deteriorate to the point of damaging the resources of Chugach State Park, much like recently occurred in Indian Valley. Mr. Cremo likes his quiet area, but his proposed development abuts a very public park and he would like to do everything possible to keep the public out of its park in the vicinity of his proposed development. Do not let Mr. Cremo turn a portion of Chugach State Park into a de-facto private recreation area that the residents have neither purchased nor been taxed for.

11/7/07   
Sunny Mall
Multiple points of PUBLIC access to the Chugach State Park are necessary for enjoying the park and attempting to diminish overuse of existing trailheads. I am in favor of keeping this easement to Chugach State Park public and not altering the easement to benefit select, private citizens who have opted to purchase property adjacent to or near park lands.

11/7/07   
Laura Kotelman
2704 Forest Park Dr
Anchorage AK 99517
Greetings, I am writting to express my concern over allowing private access to a public park. Chugach is a public park--let's keep the access to the park open to the public. Laura

11/7/07   
Marie Steele
2901 Rocky Bay Circle
Anchorage AK 99515
I am strongly opposed to the developers plan. There should be no private access rights to any public parks. As a landowner or homeowner, is a characteristic of living next to a park that you will have impacts form the park. You are compensated by higher property values. It is unfair to other park access points to have the loading focused at only a few points of access. The more access points, the loading is spread out & fewer impacts to the surrounding areas.

11/7/07   
Mindy Baum
8515 Cormorant Cove Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
I am very dismayed to learn that the status of this easement is once again in question as I thought that this issue was already settled in a way that best represented the public interest. I am a strong believer in maintaining public access to parklands. I think that it is disturbing when private individuals develop land adjacent to public areas and then act to block public access to these areas. I myself live in a new Hillside subdivision that I bought because of its access to parkland. There is an unofficial trail behind my house, used by members of the public. I feel privileged to live in such a beautiful area with such great access to the park and it has never occurred to me to attempt to block others from enjoying this area. I knew what to expect when I developed my property, as should know any private individual who develops land adjacent to public lands. If private individuals don't want general public access to their property then they should not buy an area adjacent to public lands. Also, the more points of public access there are in any given area, the less stress is placed on any one access point. Also, I think that adopting the regulations proposed by the developer opens up many potential problems. How will these regulations be enforced? What does a precedent of adopting such a narrow definition of neighborhood mean? Can it be extended to often frequented neighborhood parks such as the one in Turnagain that accesses the coastal trail? Is usage of Hillside Park, Kincaid Park, the Coastal trail, neighborhood schools' play equipment and fields, etc... only open to the residents of that particular neighborhood? I encourage you to consider the best public interest by promoting public access to parklands and refusing to develop questionable regulations. Mindy Baum

11/7/07   
Rob Earl
6612 Cutty Sark Drive
Anchorage AK 99502
I think it's very important to have public access to the Chugach Park, esp. to the East and South of Stuckagain Hts. neighborhood. Thank-you.

11/7/07   
John Freeman
Please honor the public process that has already included a provision for access here and preserve all the public access points to Chugach State Park.

11/7/07   
Chris Wilson
I would like to maintain a public access to our stateparks at the Stuckagain Heights Residentioal Area. It is imparitive that we maintain public access to our parks and limit private devolpment from closing down our access. If public access is granted future problems like tresspassing and public complaints can be avoided, these problems would normally result in increased usage of public services such as police and legal invovlement. Proactive measures can avoid future costs and expenditures for the municipality.

11/7/07   
Jenny Zimmerman
3000 Alder Circle
Anchorage AK 99508
Roger Cremo is trying to establish an "exclusivity" to his little development which basically blares "PRIVATE". Chugach State Park is a public park, but if he has chosen to create an easement for access to the park it should be public. Otherwise those people who chose to move into the cul-de-sac can either go to one of the other 4 established access points or cut through their own property to access the park. If this trail head has been an established access point prior to his purchase then it should be grandfathered in as a public access. Jenny Zimmerman

11/7/07   
Andre Camara
712 W 18th Ave
Anchorage AK 99503
Chugach State Park provides me, my family and many Anchorage residents with healthy year round recreational opportunities and as Anchorage continues to grow the demand to access the park will continue to grow. It would benefit all Anchorage residents and future generations on many levels if we took steps today to protect access to Chugach State Park. It is extremely important to defeat attempts to privatize access to Chugach State Park. Granting this developers request for a non-public easement would set bad land use management policy that could be used to justify private access in the future as the limited supply of property abutting Chugach State Park gets developed. State park lands should be managed for and accessible to the public at large, not just a select group of individuals fortunate to acquire one of the few properties adjacent to parkland. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important issue to me and my family.

11/7/07   
Justin Massey
1306 W 6th Ave #9
Anchorage AK 99501
I oppose the requested amendment. In the view of the Park, the Municipality misconstrues the Access Inventory designation of this easement as "Neighborhood Access" by seeking to limit it to residents of the neighborhood. Though sensitive to the developer's and neighbor's wishes, in light of this misconstruction, the restrictive precedent this amendment would set, and the enjoyment the Park provides the public, I oppose the requested amendment. Thank you for considering this comment.

11/7/07   
Cornelia Jessen
I oppose limiting public access to the Chugach State Park in East Anchorage. As is, residents in East Anchorage frequently have to drive to South Anchorage to access the trails in the Chugach State Park. I do not support privatizing access to public resources that should be available to all residents!

11/7/07   
richard navitsky
3970 defiance st
anchorage ak 99504
There should be no new privatizing of access to the Chagach State Park. I am currently building a house in Stuckagain and I enjoy being closer to the Park. But I do not my access limited to a park which is only a stone's throw from my property. This access should be similar to beachfront property, that the owners can't block access to the public's resource.

11/7/07   
Doug Van Etten
3052 North Circle
Anchorage AK 99507
In April 2007 I began an outdoor adventure group in Anchorage. It is the Adventurers MeetUp group. Every Tuesday, since early May, and many other days and evenings since then group members have hiked, biked and backpacked. With the change of sesons some have begun skiing and snowshoeing. There are many outdoor recreation clubs in Anchorage. I have been very surprised to see that almost 550 people have become members of the Adventurers. That indicates to me there is a huge interest in local outdoor recreation. Every week since early May at least one, sometimes as many as three, Adventurers activities have been in Chugach State Park (CSP). I talk about all this to make very general comments in support of more, rather than less, public access to the world-class resource Anchorage has at our back door, the third largest state park in the nation. The Adventurers have accessed CSP from Bird Creek to Eklutna; sometimes using the large well known access points. Often we have accessed the CSP at smaller, less known access points, dispersing the access for all, enhancing and varying the CSP experience for users and helping more people to use and appreciate the outdoor recreation resource we see as our city’s backdrop every day we live here. I urge the Platting Board to decide, this time and every time the issue comes before you, for more rather than less public access. Speaking with my other hat on, that of my occupation as a Realtor; I sell houses to people who want to access the city parks and trails and the state park. Park access is an expectation of many who live in or move to our city. Wearing this hat, I urge again, more rather than less, general public access. It is good for our community; it is good for my business.

11/7/07   
Dean Campodonico
3419 Fordham
Anchorage AK 99508
I strongly oppose the attempst to privitize access into the Chugiach. Having utilized the trail systems in the Stuckagain area for more then 25 years it's disturbing to think developers can feel justified in requesting this action. One of the beauties of living in Anchorage is the access into the wild areas nearby and that is a priveledge we all share as part of a quality of live for the whole community, those living in Stuckagain Heights and those who live elsewhere. Do not let selfishness prevail when it comes the public access.

11/7/07   
Karlene Leeper
1652 Sunrise Dr.
Anchorage AK 99508
I am opposed to the developer’s request to privatize a traditional trailhead and public easement in the Stuckagain Heights subdivision. Chugach State Park is a public resource and access should not be restricted to people who live in a particular neighborhood. Those of us who live in east Anchorage appreciate access to the park that does not require transportation to the south Anchorage and Eagle River trailheads. I live in Airport Heights and would never think of privatizing access to the Chester Creek Trail and greenbelt for only me and my immediate neighbors. Keep this public access easement to Chugach State Park public.

11/7/07   
Barbara Rowland
7916 Chaimi Loop
Anchorage AK 99502
As a resident of Anchorage for 28 years (although not a resident of the Stuckagain Heights community), I use have used this trailhead for many years and consider it one of the prime direct access points into the Chugach Mountains for the NE Anchorage population. PLEASE keep it publicly accessible!!! If road/parking/trailhead maintanence is an issue, let's work together on that! But please don't squeeze the rest of us out of our beloved natural recreation to provide privacy for a select few customers of a developer.

11/7/07   
Luke Kiskaddon
Anchorage 99507
Please don't let a developer limit access to the Chugach. Multiple and convinient access points to the Chugach range provide a variety of hiking, climbing, berry picking, and skiing options. This is a very important aspect of living in Anchorage to many of us. The developer does not need to bar public access to the mountains in order to sell his/her plots.

11/7/07   
Paul Twardock
Anchorage AK
To Whom It concerns, Please deny the applicant's request to somehow limit access over an apparently legal easement to Chugach State Park. The public interest should prevail in this case, primarily preserving historic access to public lands. Sincerely, Paul Twardock

11/7/07   
Christopher Souser
6711 Weimer Dr #4
Anchorage AK 99502
Please preserve all access points to Chugach State Park via Municipal Land and do not make this one in question 'private'. The public process on this one is also quite flawed. The developers period for modification expired and this proposed change should not even be considered, additionally the public notice for comment is also quite short and would have let this developers requested changes (that should not even be considered) slip under the radar of the public and the public losing an access point to the park. The north end of town with geographic and military boundaries also have limited access to the park; all access to it should be preserved. Christopher

11/7/07   
Dick Snyder
2806 Alder Dr
Chugach State Park access is extremely important for the public. The park was created to save the mountains and provide access to the mountains for the people of Anchorage and all of Alaska. The Chugach Park boundary must provide as much public access per linear mile as the Chester Creek Greenbelt does. My wife and I (ages 65 and 68) have lived in the Airport Heights area since 1967, and have been avid hikers in the park since its formation. We often hiked up to the Dome from the Stuckagain Heights trailhead. Then a developer closed the access off and built a house on it. He claimed that there was another access to the Dome from the Tank Trails, which was true. We once took that trail to the Dome and said “never again.” That trail increased the length of hike up the Dome so much that it was out of our physical reach. I strongly support unrestricted public access to the park along its boundary. I believe that Flattop is the most popular hike in Alaska is because of the easy access.

11/7/07   
Raymond Duncan
1425 W. 23rd Ave
Anchorage AK 99503
I have bneen accessing the Chugach State Park since 1981 and frequently use Stuckagain hgts area to access the trail to Near Point Mountain. Please keep all access trails to the Chugach Park open to the public. I only wish I had stewardship to a trail head into the mountains. I would make sure it was available to the public and would consider it an honor to maintain, share and care for it.

11/7/07   
John Weddleton
11080 Mumby Circle
Anchorage AK 99516
The people buying property in this subdivision get a huge benefit living just a few steps away from a huge public park. The park is available to them through the generosity of the broader public. It seems like a small thing that in return, the same public should have a simple open access to that park. There are small access points to the CSP in the Prospect Heights area that have parking for just a few cars and don’t seem to draw much traffic. Those points are important for runners, bikers and walkers and create little impact on the neighborhood. The more small access points there are the less impact any single point will have. In every survey of Anchorage citizens, trails and parks rate as the most popular features of this city. They are also the least expensive public facilities. We should provide more, not less.

11/7/07   
Joel Adams
5949 Yukon Road
Anchorage AK 99507
It is bad public policy to side-step procedures that are well designed to address civic issues. Why have them at all? That the public should be barred from access to public lands is an East Coast travesty and should not be given a foothold here. There is a public access easement to the park, the platting board made its decision to keep it, and the developer did not appeal the decision within the time prescribed. Let’s stick to the rules, allow the public access to public property along a public right-of-way, and not allow the East Coast practice of essentially privatizing public treasures.

11/7/07   
Joe Stock
Please preserve public access to Chugach State Park at Stuckagain heights.

11/7/07   
Margaret Blabey
3382 Mt. Vernon Ct.
Anchorage AK 99503
I am opposed to this amendment. ALL of the Chugach State Park is public land that should be accessible to all Anchorage residents, and it is unfair to limit any access points to those lucky enough and wealthy enough to live next to the park. The more access points there are to the park, the less impact there will be at any one point. Making this proposed modification would set a dangerous precedent.

11/7/07   
Brad Simpson
13125 High View Dr.
Anchorage AK 99515
I am opposed to any change that would limit easy public access to the Chugach state park. This park is the jewel of Anchorage and having this access point cut off to the public elminates a signfigant benefit of living in Anchorage.

11/7/07   
Diana Redwood
Anchorage AK
I am a strong supporter of public access to Chugach State Park. Please do not allow private landowners to block off access to those who are not fortunate enough to live next door to the park in the Stuckagain Heights area. Thank you for your time and consideration.

11/7/07   
Gregory Klein
13020 Saunders Rd.
Anchorage AK 99516
I am opposed to any modification that would limit public access in lieu of the proposed limited private access. The park is for all people and as much as possible should be done to allow for access of the public. I also question the timing and the allowance for such a modification request.

11/7/07   
Jay Liggett
I am in favor of public access to Chugach State Park. As a Hillside resident, it seems obvious that we need more public access and trailheads to this valuable resource. Private access and private trailheads do not appear to be in the best interest of all MOA citizens. Please consider alternative approaches rather than private access. Thank you.

11/7/07   
Jason Lamoreaux
8321 Wellsley Ct.
Anchorage AK 99507
Why is this case before the board? The appeal was submitted long after the allowed time frame (7 to 20 days depending on the situation). There should be abolutly NO grounds for appeal at this point. The developer had his chance to appeal and failed to do so in the time allotted. Many people use these kind of access points to create a loop to hike or bike. They do not necessarily need a place to park, but just a way to get to a road so they can get back to either another trailhead or travel home to complete a loop of travel. I do this frequently, traveling my from house on lower hillside all over the park using various trailheads in a single trip. Those people need to realize that if there is no parking area at this trailhead, there will not be any "trailhead parties". It is beyond belief that you would even consider allowing a private devloper close off an existing public access point.

11/7/07   
Janice Tower
7645 Griffith Street
Anchorage AK 99507
The property owner is trying to preserve a PRIVATE access adjacent to his lots. Public access to Chugach State Park must be maintained to the highest degree in order to take pressure off the existing trailheads. By creating more points of access we reduce the congestion and problems at others. Owning property adjacent to Chugach Park does not entitle the owner to "lock up" public resources situated behind it. Public access ought to come with the deal. Other states have dealt with this issue. An example is Hawaii: just because a property owner has a beach-front location it doesn't entitle him to block access to the beaches, which are public. A landowner can't own the beach, much like a landowner in Anchorage can't own Chugach State Park. Thank you for your consideration. Janice Tower

11/7/07   
Michael Olive
If you want to spends lots of money to isolate yourself from the world, don't do it at the gates of a state park.

11/7/07   
Brandie Hofmeister
PO Box 202486
Anchorage AK 99520
I am opposed to the developers request to privatize access to the Chugach State Park. This not only sets a dangerous precedents but will further limit already crowded access points into the park. Why should just a select group of individuals fortunate enough to acquire one of the few properties adjacent to parkland be the only ones allowed to use our Public lands? Your decision tonight will directly impact me. I live in near the airport heights neighborhood and the Basher Road access points are the most convienant way to reach the alpine areas of the State Park.

11/7/07   
Tom Mason
3705 Arctic Blvd
Anchorage AK 99503
This item was already thoroughly debated before being decided by the Platting Board at the June 6, 2007 hearing. The developer had 3 options to appeal this decision and choose not to. Procedurally, how can this matter even be brought before the board? On a procedural basis, not to mention the request being in complete odds with the Anchorage 2020 plan or the ideals of the Alaska State Constitution to hold land in trust for all Alaskans, this request should be rejected.

11/7/07   
Kathryn Price
1120 E Huffman Road #341
Anchorage Al 99515
The Stuckagain trailhead at the end of the road has been a long time access point for all public and I have used it for 30 years. It needs to stay a public access point.

11/7/07   
Dolly Lefever
7000 Tall Spruce Dr.
Anchorage, Ak 99502
One of the major reasons I live in Anchorage is the ready access to city trails and to the Chugach Park. All of the trails into the front range are heavily used whether they are on the Muni maps or not. It seems to me that our development plans have not kept ahead of the development so the short sitedness on MOA and Parks has landed all of us into these assess struggles. Private access to a public park is not a president that I want to see happen. I also wonder why the platting board and the MOA set aside clearly defined proceedures for certain people. It raises ethical issues in my mind since I doubt that a similar appeal from myself would be honored. Hopefully the MOA, Trails and State Park personnel will make a concerted effort to make some equitable long term plans to allow adequate access to our treasured Chugach Park. It's a well known fact that the State has not supported Parks financially for many years. What makes Anchorage livable for me (and many others)is the access to the Chugach Park and to the in town parks and trails.

11/7/07   
Philip Repetto
8610 Jupiter Dr
Anchorage AK 99507
Eliminating public access from a public easement to access a State Park would be a dangerous precedent to set. Lets preserve access to Chugach State Park for all people who would like to use the park.

11/7/07   
Thomas Plawman
2300 Saint Elias Dr
Anchorage AK 99517
I am a strong supporter of public access to Chugach State Park. The park belongs to all the people of Alaska, and access points should be open to anyone who wants to enter the park. I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the plan to restrict an access point to only those who live in the neighborhood. I live in an area that borders along the Coastal Trail. This is the equivilent of only allowing people who live in Old Turnagain to use Lynn Airy Park to access the Coastal Trail. It is a totally wrong idea!

11/7/07   
Carol Fries
16641 Virgo Ave.
Anchorage AK 99516
I find that again the Planning Department has apparently chosen to selectively read and apply municipal code. This case is not a modification, it is not an amendment, it is quite simply a request for relief from a condition imposed by the Platting Board when the case was heard in June. Therefore it is an appeal for relief subject to AMC 21.11.304 B and AMC 21.11.304 E. There was no appeal filed and the Platting Board's action was final 20 days after June 13, 2007. This request takes a plat condition to provide a pedestrian access easement designed to accommodate low impact access which by its nature would accommodate neighborhood use and turns it into a selective, exclusive path to Chugach State Park for an elite club. I cannot believe that this was the intent of the Platting Board, Chugach State Park, or the public as evidenced by the June hearing. The Planning Department has clearly lost sight of their client and their funding source - the public. This just doesn't pass the red face test. Procedurely, this case should never have been brought back before the Platting Board and I would hope that the Platting Board considers the greater public interest in its deliberations and denies this request. Granting this request sets a terrible precedent procedurely and for future development along the municipal park interface. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

11/7/07   
Thomas Pease
309 East Manor Avenue
Anchorage AK 99501
Eliminating a public easement to Chugach State Park could establish a dangerous and potentially expensive precedent and would violate the intent of "neighborhood access points" to the Park. Too often in the past, the Municipality of Anchorage has signed away Park access to private property owners and developers, only to have to "reacquire" a public easement years later at considerable expense. Examples of such oversight include Bear Valley access to McHugh Peak, Upper DeArmoun to Rabbit Lakes, and the Stuckagain access point to The Dome. The end result is public/private-landowner conflicts, an unnecessary public expense, and often, substandard trailheads that detour around private property and are subject to erosion. Furthermore, the Park Plan calls for smaller, more frequent access points, referred to as "neighborhood access," to reduce traffic impacts to neighborhoods and to reduce impacts to trails and wildlife. Granting private or exclusive Park access to a neighborhood, while shutting out the public, is not the Plan's intent. Such an action will merely create strife and force Park access traffic onto adjacent private property owners. The real issue is a lack of funding for public Park access improvements. However, the lack of funding for adequate parking, policing and toilet facilities does not warrant relinquishing public easements to private landowners. At some point in the future, when funding for access improvements is available, the City will be faced with expensive easement buybacks with money that should have been spent on improvements. At the very least, the Platting Board should maintain the present condition established with the developer in June. This would allow the developer and his neighbors continued access to the Park while preserving the possibility of public accesss in the future. To grant private, invitation-only access to the Park sets a controversial precedent that harms the public and could cost the City huge money in the future.

11/7/07   
Laura Schue
1902 Alder Drive
Anchorage AK 99508
Based on Municipal law, Mr. Cremo's appeal is too late and illegal, and I am frustrated with the platting board's decision to re-open this case. The preferential treatment alone is cause for comment and an indication of our city's lack of commitment to its established public process for the public good. That said, I request the platting board's denial of Mr. Cremo's appeal to change the established public access easement (June 6, 2007 decision) into a private one. Supporting points for keeping this access point open to all include the fact that more access points will spread users, creating less traffic in all neighborhoods and less erosion on all trails. This is a sustainable plan for the health of the Park and the health of our community as a whole. Traditional access points to the public Chugach State Park should remain open to the public. Chugach State Park was not developed for the few who could afford to live on its boundaries; it was developed for the whole of the community and should remain so. Thank you. Laura Schue

11/6/07   
Walter Parker
3724 Campbell Airstrip Road
Anchorage AK 99504
This is a critical access point for those of us who access Chugach via Campbell Airstrip Road. I have live on the Airstrip Road for 50 years now, and would like to continue to use Chugach Park which I invested a lot of time in creating 1969-71. Please provide access for all and not just those in the neighborhood. This park is one of our state and local jewels and needs all the community support that can be mustered. Without access it is hard to create that support.

11/6/07   
Patricia McLoughlin
1327 H St
Anc ak 99501
Stuckagain Heights residents should not be the only people who should have access to the Chugach State Park areas available from the end of the stuckagain heights development. I live downtown in Anchorage, and use the park for recreation. I do not want to see my access to park areas limited in any way by policing/privatizine of roads or access points.

11/6/07   
Helen Nienhueser
2561 Lovejoy Drive
Anchorage AK 99508
I request that the Platting board deny the proposed modifiction to the easement that was approved in June through the "End of the Road" subdivision. There should be as many public access points to Chugach State Park as possible. Even within one neighborhood multiple access points are needed for locals to be able to walk to the park without getting in their car (which many will do to get to a trail that is a mile or even half a mile away, rather than walk on a street). Multiple access points also spreads the limited use that will come from outside the area thus limiting impacts on each . This access point is not intended to be a major point of access and the use it will receive in the foreseeable future will be primarily local and not sufficient to have an undue adverse effect on the neighborhood. But it should be public because over time the situation may change and the time to protect access for the future is now. Anchorage desperately needs access to Chugach State Park from the east side of town so as to relieve the pressure on Glen Alps which is too often over capacity. This need will only grow over time. Improved access from the east side will also mean less miles driven, less air pollution, and fewer cars on the road. Allowing this access to be private, for the neighborhood only, sets a very bad precedent. Widespread use of this practice would ultimately cut many Anchorage residents off from the park as Glen Alps can only handle a limited number of people. Furthermore, this proposed modification is not timely as required under the Municipal Code and should be denied on those grounds alone. Helen Nienhueser November 6, 2007

11/6/07   
Yvonne Goldsmith
6035 Bluebell Drive
Anchorage AK 99516
I object to the proposed amendment of condition 12 of the preliminary plat, for the following reasons: 1) The proposed amendment does not meet the spirit of the pedestrian access condition of the preliminary plat (“Providing a pedestrian access easement to Chugach State Park, the width and location of the easement to be resolved with the Municipal Trails Coordinator.” The preliminary plat condition meant public, not private, access. 2) Allowing a private access would convey tangible economic value to the developer and the residents of the subdivision, which other citizens do not share. This is patently unfair. The property already has higher value by virtue of being adjacent to the park. In general, private access to public lands is a bad precedent, because it conveys special privileges and rights to the private owners, for free. 3) The petitioner’s main objective is to prevent people from parking in the subdivision. MOA staff notes that “... adding a trail access point would result in additional parking in the neighborhood and undue burden on the homeowners who maintain the roads.” (MOA memo, 11/7/2007, p 8). However, this trail is to be a Neighborhood Access to provide “low intensity access... for neighborhood residents” (MOA memo, p 5). The demand for parking would be very low. And why shouldn’t walkers, runners, hikers or even bikers from nearby neighborhoods use the trail? I hope that, since we all live in the same community, I would be free to park my car in this subdivision at any time, just as those residents are free to park in the public, privately maintained, road in front of my house. 4) The conditions of the easement (Exhibit A) are too complicated and not enforceable (can only take up to 4 guests, not allowed to park a vehicle in a public right of way in Section 5 or 6). If not enforceable, then think through how this easement will operate 5 years from now.

11/6/07   
Mark Miraglia
7000 Tall Spruce Drive
Anchorage AK 99502
I've lived in Anchorage for the last 27 years and have enjoyed Chugach State Park for climbing, hiking and skiing for at least 20 of those. The increase in the number of users of the park since then is phenomenal and the number of areas for access is limited. It is unfortunate that the State has not seen fit to support a Park budget that would allow trailhead improvements such as parking. It also seems incredible that the State would not have updated the Chugach State Park Master Plan in the early 90's when development along the perimeter of the park began in earnest. Reviewing the case comments I see many folks have laid out the reasons that this item should not even appear on the Platting Board's agenda. Why did the petitioner fail to appeal the June 6th decision in a timely manner? I'm sure his consulting firm was aware of the requirements for such an appeal. Is this "Modification to a Condition of Approval" an end run around an appeal? The residents of Anchorage are extremely fortunate to have Chugach State Park as their backyard for all to enjoy, not just the few who can afford to live adjacent to it. As Anchorage grows and more people begin to recreate in the Park there will be a need for more public access points not fewer. I urge the members of the Z & P Board to deny this request. Thank you

11/6/07   
Bruc Neeno
PO BOX 90737
Anchorage AK 99509
My Wife and I are in complete opposition to the MOA Planning Department's decision to accept the appeal of the Developer to modify the terms of the easement. More importantly, with our growing State, it is more important than ever to improve and increase the accept points to our public lands. Access to Chugach State Park needs to remain public and open and unfettered. Sincerely, Bruce & Teresa Neeno

11/6/07   
Pam Robinson
3782 N. Inspiration Loop
Wasilla AK 99654
There are two issues that are very concerning in this case. The first is that the request for appeals on this case was not submitted in the time frame allowed for appeals and yet it was accepted for hearing. Procedures are in place to allow public appeals in a fair and judicious manner and should not be ignored. This undermines the process. Secondly, access to public lands should not be restricted to those few individuals that own property adjacent to the access point. As an avid hiker, I have accessed this particular trail system often. It is a quality of life issue for many of us choosing to live in the Anchorage area. Public access to trails should not be limited. This puts additional strain on the access points that are left available. The best way to reduce strain on our wilderness is to allow several access points. The more points of access, the less each one will be used. Please do not let the desires of a few outweigh the rights of the many to access our public lands.

11/6/07   
Todd Steele
11233 Bridger Cir.
Eagle River AK 99577
I have read the Amendment to a Condition of Approval filed in this case. I have also read the earlier ruling and the current staff report. I oppose this “modification” for the following reasons: 1. Procedural – Municipal Code compliance is the only way to insure efficient government operations. Additional public costs, possible lack of public review, and potential legal precedent are among many concerns that arise when petitioners fail to meet the Code requirements. If there has been a variance given in this case, surely others will take note and the intent of procedure compliance loses its credibility. The possible legal precedent may be grounds for administrative appeal even if the application is approved, thereby increasing the public cost to settle the dispute. Given the sheer number and arguments of those in opposition, I believe you must consider further action likely. Furthermore, I was disappointed not to see any discussion of if the “modification” is simply a re-evaluation of the board’s decision in the staff report as it seems clear to me that it is. Please deny consideration of the proposed modification as it did not meet the standards for re-evaluation of the previous ruling of June 7, 2007 of this public board. 2. Public Decision Making – It is my belief that this matter had been debated fairly in June of this year. This very body made the determination after rigorous public debate and deliberate due diligence. The “modification” request seems to set aside the decision with no new evidence to its merit. When a public board uses additional resources (I consider public board service as a resource for our municipality) to cover ground that has already been decided, it is bad policy and costs taxpayers money. Our community establishes general policy to avert the unnecessary use of public resources on every individual request. In my opinion, this request does not honor the broad decision made in June. In fact, it seems to defy the wishes of the public members who served admirably to set policy on this matter. Please do not consider this “modification” for it is an affront to the board’s earlier decision in an attempt to give one citizen the power of access to public property. 3. Personal – I currently live in Eagle River. I visit the Chugach Park about 80 times per year. When I resided in East Anchorage, I entered the park through this and many points in the Stuckagain Heights area no less than 30 times per year. Over the years, the development has limited the access to this area of the park. While there are other access points mentioned within the area, traditionally, public members have used multiple access point to vary the type of visit to our park and increase safety. For example, the higher elevation access points allow for less time in dense, forested areas during times of high bear activity. 4. Equal access to public lands and enforcements – I am also concerned by the request language indicating that the public easement would be “for those members of the public who live in the neighborhood, which in this case is more than a square mile in area.” How might enforcement be done, not only here but for other areas where such variances are granted? Will the already strained police resources be needed to enforce the “neighborhood” rule? I sense that public members will use the easement as they have done before setting the potential for nasty public disputes near this property. Finally, please consider the obvious public opposition of this modification as evidenced by the case comments submitted. By my count it is running some 10 to 1 in opposition. Please don’t allow the wishes of the select few in our community able to purchase property abutting park land from those public members wanting to access our community treasure.

11/6/07   
Madeleine Grant
2513 Lord Baranof Dr
Anchorage AK 99517
Please please preserve public access to our parks & do not make this private access. At a time of increasing obesity and development, citizens need access to traditional trails as well as new ones, not to have them limited by development. thanks! Madeleine Grant MD

11/6/07   
Jacquelyn Sparrow
2050 Waldron Dr
Anchorage AK 99507
For the well being of a city, it is sad when any parkland access becomes private vs public. The 'Jewel of Anchorage' -Chugach Park- should have as many public access routes as possible. If a private access to the park is allowed at this time, it will add precedent to further development adjacent to the park. At a time when our citizens are losing confidence that we have access to open honest government, a request for reconsideration long after the deadlines, and without explanation certainly raises questions. The original decision made by the platting board should remain as is. Sincerely Jacquelyn Sparrow

11/6/07   
June Takagi
4050 E. 142nd Ave.
Anchorage 99516
As others have already stated the legal and other reasons why public access to Chugach State Park should be preserved at Stuckagain Heights, I would like to address the issue for future park users. I used to live close to Tudor and Baxter/Campbell Airstrip Rd. intersection when my sons were little, and the first mountain summit they reached was Near Point from a trail that led up the mountain from the old restaurant site on Stuckagain Heights. It took us three hours and they were 3 and 5 years old. That trail is no longer accessible as it is behind a private home. Near Point can still be reached from Prospect Heights Trailhead, but not in three hours by preschoolers. The thrill of their first summit has never left them, and 9 years later, they are avid hikers, skiers, and frequent users of the Chugach State Park trails. There is not a better way to instill respect, love and awe of the beauty and wonder that is Alaska than to have easily accessible, safe, public access points into Chugach State Park. As stated by others, multiple smaller trailheads will lessen the impact on any one neighborhood that abutts the Park. I also feel that smaller trailheads give me the opportunity to teach my young trail users to respect private property and foster good stewardship of trails and trailheads so that trail users and residents of the area, together can enjoy and be proud of the richness that Chugach State Park offers. I strongly urge the preservation of public access, open to all, in the Stuckagain Heights to the Park.

11/6/07   
Jason Sweeney
Eagle River
What is the point of having a public park if all the access to it is privatized? Please do not allow this or any other act to restrict access go through.

11/6/07   
clark yerrington
340 no. flower st.
anchorage AK 99508
if the developer's request is approved, it will set a really lousy precedent. it's been pretty well established by other comments here that the platting board shouldn't even be hearing this request. starting in the '60s and into the '70s and '80s various access points were established and developed. i still have a copy of the book '55 ways' from the '80s. my friends and i consulted the book each time we headed into the park, and we tried to always be informed about whether we might be treading on private property and unwelcome. the experience of hiking in the park is too precious to cut off any established access point. for the last couple years i've hiked with a small group of people on weeknights during the summer. our ability to fully enjoy the different destinations and peaks depends on being able to drive directly to the destination point and take off. when we do this, unless we're leaving from glen alps or some other place with ample parking, we stage vehicles in town someplace and carpool in one or two cars to the access point. if we had to hike even a half mile from the place we could legally park, we might not be able to make the summit and be back before it's too dark to see. basically, i think we're always conscious of the neighbors' privacy and concerns. that attitude isn't always paid back in kind, to say the least about it. the platting board's complicity with cremo's request would in my estimation amount to a legitimization of the kind of behavior that's been noted in the rabbit creek/bear valley area, and a few other places: residents placing fake, official-looking no parking signs, trying to run people off, vandalizing cars, even putting up expensive locking gates to barricade off public streets.

11/6/07   
Denise Brown
Stuckagain resident
Anchorage AK 99507
I don't think I need to repeat everyones comments about the laws and status. However, everyone whom has commented seems to only be thinking about how close they can park to the accesses to the Chugach State Park instead of focusing on the reason that they are all claiming they want the access which is to HIKE. The impact that this would have on the immediate residents of Tulugak and Middlerock doesn't seem to be anyone's concern. It should not be Mr. Roger Cremo's or our burden to take on policing the element that this would invite to our homes. That I don't want to expose my family to. My husband and I have worked very hard and sacrificed many things over the years to build our home here in Stuckagain working full time jobs and building our home ourselves from the ground up. My point is we are not wealthy just hard workers who searched for years for a place to raise our family in the city with a more rural feel. I think that you all have a very uneducated and prejudice opinion of the people of Stuckagain Heights. Everyone of my neighbors are very hard workers wanting only the best for their families. I don't feel that with the other accesses that are in Anchorage that more accesses are what we need. What we need is the accesses that we do have to managed in a more effective way. My husband is a police officer for APD and I can tell you that the element of people that we are concerned with is not the nature lover wanting to go hiking and show their families the beauty of Alaska that we all admire and are in awe of. It is the element of people that most of you are not aware of that does exist in Anchorage on a very large scale. That likes to use public trail heads and parking lots for there own personal profane uses. Including but not limited to drug use, drinking, gang activity, sexual crimes, general loud parting, dumping (condoms, beer cans, bags, drug paraphernalia to mention a few). These are things that you all seem to be over looking or maybe just believe don't happen. However, I'm hear to tell you that it will and does and it will only increase if there is a public access and a parking lot. I'm sure most of you would not want these things or people in your yard or driveways with your children. Further more I believe that the access that Roger Cremo is offering is more than generous.

11/6/07   
Dorothy Martin
3111 E42nd Ave #A
Anchorage
As a <10 year user of this particular access to CNF, I am very concerned about the continuing violation of procedures to allow for "modifications" ....Does the bending of rules ever stop? Shame on you for placating to the few individuals who are self appointed to owning and limiting access to PUBLIC lands for a few dollars more. In addition to the already stated facts as to why this proposal to deny the public access to thier own land... should not even get a (belated)second hearing, I believe that creating more opposition between users of public lands and owners is, simply stated - a very short sighted and bad idea. From the University and Provedence district Dorothy Martin

11/6/07   
Gail Johnson
9600 Midden Way
Anchorage AK 99507
I am content with the excellent access that already exists (with parking lots) in this area. I would love to be able use at least one of those trailheads if it were improved for wheelchair use.

11/6/07   
Gretchen Roffler
13000 Foster Road
Anchorage AK 99516
Public access to the Chugach State Park should be maintained - as the park is public property and one of the greatest assets of living in the Anchorage Municipality. Existence of the park pre-dates this development project. Recreationalists, some of which have used this area for decades are generally respectful of local landowners as has been the case at other access points around the Anchorage bowl. Furthermore, this proposal is not in accordance with Municipal petition codes because it was submitted outside of the allowable timeline and should not be considered.

11/6/07   
Ruth Glenn
PO Box 102702
Anchorage AK 99510
I live on Romania Dr. an area that has the same kind of access challenges that this case does. I support keeping access open in all areas adjacent to the Park even if it means an increase in traffic on our road. I encourage you to keep access truly public and not just for the people who live in a certain subdivision. This is not public access but private access for those homeowners lucky enough to live in the area. Please do not set a precedent that would severely limit already limited access to our park. The commission should hold the developer to the original decision and not allow this reconsideration.

11/6/07   
Benjamin Garnett
9800 Basher Dr.
Anchorage AK 99507
Public Access to traditional longstanding trails into the Chugach moutains behind Stuckagain Heights as been blocked by developers in this neighborhood over the last five to ten years. The reason I moved to this neighborhood was its unique immediate access points to the backcountry on well developed trails. I also know that many who do not live up here enjoy these access points. I believe if you look at the history of this neighborhood you will realize that restricting access at these points is damaging to a lot of folks. A select small group is profiting greatly from this development. I highly encourage those responsible for this decision to present the history of how this land was originally obtained at the hearing. This may sway the muni to come up with a more collaberative approach to find a solution that meets the needs of all involed. They should have no right to restrict access to the backcountry at traditional trailheads. Current development by Joe Henry in particular at the end of Basher and with his newer sites up the North fork of Campbell Creek have put new homeowners and those who want to go for an adventure in the backcountry at odds. The municipality must recognize the value of the wilderness experience that exists within and at the fringes of our city. Restricting access at traditional access points to a small number of wealthy homeowners would indicate to me a loss of perspective that could easily become a larger issue in future elections.

11/6/07   
Naomi Bargmann
3119 Rosella St.
Anchorage AK 99504
After reading through the comments, I believe that all pertinent points have been made and all I can say is that I am in complete agreement with those who believe that this case should not have been put forth for another debate. Why is the municipality bending the rules for this person? Is it money?? One has to wonder. I fight to live in Alaska not only for its beauty, but because I know there are many others in this state who agree that this land is for us to take care of and to appreciate. Privatizing something so precious, will only create distrust and anger and then with that goes stewardship. This is not the direction we want to go as a community. Please consider the fact that Chugach State Park is a public park that we all enjoy and want to protect. It is NOT in the best interest of future generations to set an example that people with a lot of money can always have what they want.

11/6/07   
Juniper MacFarlane
4243 Chelsea Way
Anchorage AK 99504
I believe that it is imperative for the platting board to deny Mr. Cremo's appeal. Not only is it wrong for procedural reasons, but completely unfair to other Park users who happen to live in a different part of town. I live just down the street from the Stuckagain Heights area (Baxter and Tudor), and have been using the informal trailheads at the end of the road to access Chugach State Park for 8 years. I consider this access point my neighborhood access to the Chugach and feel that it is not the right of the developer to deny access to the park based on where in town an individual owns a home. Crowded trailheads can be a nuisance for both homeowners and trail users, and the best solution is to have multiple smaller trailheads to disperse traffic. Denying access to this particular trailhead would be unfair to potential trail users and to homeowners in other areas bordering Chugach State Park. Please deny Mr. Cremo's request and ensure equitable treatment for all Anchorage trail users. Thank you for considering my comments. Juniper MacFarlane, a frequent traveler on Chugach State Park trails.

11/6/07   
Ellen Campfield Nelson
Arkansas Drive (Spenard)
Anchorage AK 99517
Access points to Chugach State Park should be public. The area of Stuckagain heights neighborhood has been a contentious issues for many years, since traditional trailheads have been blocked by private landowners and private developers without resolution of where these well-used and much-loved trailheads should be relocated. A legal, public easement is needed in this area. Further, the MOA needs to work with Chugach State Park to update and implement an improved, comprehensive access and trails plan. This work should work to resolve an important public/private issue of road access and maintenance, as well as mitigation of impacts on nieghborhood residents. Currently, new trailheads such as the one in Bear Valley and on Canyon Road are success stories from the standpoint of increased access to the state park - but they are failures from the standpoint of joint management and minimizing impacts on residents; local residents near these trailheads are paying for the maintenance of the roads without any support from MOS or Chugach State Park. Further, many of these residents have very valid concerns about increased use of their local roads, safety issues and violations and vandalism at the trailhead. These concerns would be addressed through mechanisms such as traffic calming measures, posted signage, public education and trailhead enforcement. I belive that there should be a trailhead at the Dome/Stuckagain Heights neighborhood, that it should be for public use, and that the MOA should provide the leadership needed to address valid resident and developer concerns related to development of these valuable public right-of-ways.

11/6/07   
Jeffrey Demain
PO Box 330
Girdwood AK 99587
I am writing in oposition to privatizing public access to Chugach State Park. Reversal of previous conditions opens the door to bad presidents that risk free access to one of our greatest treasures. The developer's proposal is not in accord with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal to limit access is not local, neighborhood “public” access, but instead a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership and, of course, the rest of Anchorage is excluded. His proposed "private policing" conditions would even have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions. This is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. It is important to defeat attempts to privatize access to Chugach State Park. The precedent set by granting this developer’s request for a non-public easement could be used to justify private access at as-yet undeveloped areas. There is a limited supply of property abutting Chugach State Park. State park lands should be managed for and accessible to the public at large, not just a select group of individuals fortunate to acquire one of the few properties adjacent to parkland. Thank you for your consideration. Jeffrey G Demain, MD

11/6/07   
Brad Gessner
11100 Stony Brook Drive
Anchorage AK 99516
To whom it may concern: I am an Anchorage resident of 16 years with a long history of using the Stuckagain Heights access point to Chugach Park. I have climbed Knoya and Tikishla peaks from this trailhead, which, in the absence of this access, would require overnight gear. I have spent numerous short days hiking over the creek and up to the nearby knoll. Moreover, apart from Stuckagain, no access exists to this part of Chugach Park from Hillside to Arctic Valley. I am a firm supporter of private property rights. But Cremo and the people who bought from him knew very well the long history of public access from this site. They did not try to change access a priori, as would have been appropriate, but post facto after completing their development. Consequently, I have no sympathy for issues of "inconvenience" for local residents. Moreover, as I understand the case, the current administration has supported Cremo's illegally late protest to an earlier decision by the platting board. What justification exists for this, other than a potential political contribution from a wealthy donor? Please do not exclude the almost the entirety of Anchorage from accessing this portion of the park, to create a private playground for the wealthy. You should honor the platting board's original intent to require an access point for the entire public. If you do not, our community will be the poorer for it. Those of us excluded will remember during the next election and I can only hope the city becomes bogged down in a lawsuit to which I will gladly contribute. Sincerely, Brad Gessner, MD

11/6/07   
Brad Meiklejohn
2727 Hiland Road
Eagle River AK 99577
Dear Folks, I am concerned about the proponent's effort to create a private easement to Chugach State Park at Stuckagain Heights. If allowed, this would set an unfortunate precedent of privatizing access to Chugach State Park. All portions of Chugach State Park should be accessible to all persons, regardless of where you live. No person or group of persons should have exclusive access rights to any portion of Chugach State Park. Access to Chugach State Park is a growing problem as "traditional" points of access are being blocked by private owners. Public access to the park is increasingly limited to major access points, resulting in crowding and resource damage. The ideal solution is to spread public access out across the entire boundary of the park. I encourage you to deny the request to create a private easement at this and every other location along the boundary of Chugach State Park. Sincerely, Brad Meiklejohn Eagle River, Alaska

11/6/07   
Eric Teela
POB 1261, 446 Vail St
Girdwood Al 99587
This request for amending public access to limited private access to chugach state part is not at all acceptable. It is not in keeping with the concept that the Chugach state park is owned by all Alaskans and that private property rights shall not by used to limit access to this public resource. The developer needs to review his civic values or cease developing property as a livelihood. Roger & Ghislane Cremo should be fined heavily for attempting to circumvent platting board rules and for attempting to violate the publics interest. Please Deny this request out right and place the additional burden of providing an entire lot for public access parking on the developer as punishment.

11/6/07   
Lucy Peckham
8900 Jupiter Drive
Anchorage AK 99507
I find it very disheartening that the Platting Board is willing give credence to Mr. Cremo's belated attempt to circumvent their June decision. Chugach State Park is a very valuable resource to the citizens of Anchorage, demonstrated by the steadily increasing use of the park. Most of the accesses are already crowded on evenings and weekends. We need more public access points, not private, limited ones. Do not allow Mr. Cremo to privatize this potential access point to Chugach State Park.

11/6/07   
Peter Holck
2425 Juneau St
Anchorage AK 99508
I strongly disagree with the developer's proposal to modify the previous platting board decision. Clearly the proposed modification should not be permitted a hearing as per procedures specified in the Municipal Code (request not filed in a timely manner). More importantly, attempts to privatize access to Chugach State Park does not serve the public interest, instead exclusively benefiting the privileged few of the immediate neighborhood. It is difficult to believe that residents of the area will be inconvenienced by state park visitors; over the course of many years of utilizing access points in Stuckagain Heights, I have yet to observe more than half a dozen vehicles at any access point. I fail to understand why that level of use is considered onerous or unsustainable. Finally it would seem prudent to avoid making further modifications to Chugach State Park access until the completion of the Chugach State Park Access Plan to be included in the Alaska State Park Strategic Plan due in 2008. Trampling existing procedural rules to allow privileged access only to a resource to be enjoyed by all citizens seems short-sighted, and hints of gerrymandering for the annointed few. Please reconsider this action.

11/6/07   
Marybeth Holleman
9641 Homestead Trail
Anchorage AK 99507
As a former resident of the Stuckagain Heights neighborhood, I am writing to protest the Platting Board’s agreement to reconsider its June 2007 decision to allow a public pedestrian easement into Chugach State Park in the Stuckagain Heights area (case number S11592-2). I’m very concerned that the board has chosen to again debate – and possibly overturn – its earlier decision, at the request of the developer, Mr. Roger Cremo. Furthermore, Mr. Cremo requested a modification to the board’s determination long after any appeal should have been allowed. This, in itself, is reason enough to deny Mr. Cremo’s request. But there are several additional reasons why the Platting Board should not allow Mr. Cremo – or other Anchorage developers – to establish private access points into Chugach State Park, when and where public access is possible. The park belongs to all of us, not just to a few private landowners. As a current resident of Anchorage’s Hillside area, I’m one of many residents who depend on public access into Chugach State Park. And as someone who has frequented Chugach Park several times a week for over 20 years, I know first hand the overcrowding problems that have resulted at the existing trailheads (Glen Alps, Rabbit Creek, and Prospect Heights being prime examples) because there are so few access points into the park, particularly in Anchorage’s Hillside area. I can’t emphasize enough, that we Anchorage residents need MORE, not less, public access into Chugach State Park. Any Platting Board decision to backtrack on its earlier decision would set a bad precedent, which other developers could then use to justify private access from other areas of the city that abut the park. As much as possible, state park lands should be accessible to the public at large, not just to those individuals fortunate enough – and wealthy enough – to acquire the few properties adjacent to parkland. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that Mr. Cremo’s proposal is not in agreement with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal would create a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership, thus excluding the rest of Anchorage. His proposed "private policing" conditions would even have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions. As others have no doubt pointed out, this is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. I also understand that the municipality’s planning department has supported Mr. Cremo’s proposed change. Yet its report refers to – and depends on – outdated plans that have little, if any, bearing on the present circumstances of increased development and too few access points. As you know, the Municipal Trails Plan is scheduled for an update and a Chugach State Park Access Plan is scheduled for completion within the next year or so. Controversial "private access points" like the one in this case should not be allowed to extinguish public access before those plans are completed. And contrary to what the planning department claims, the current number of access points into Chugach State Park is insufficient and the presence of the few existing ones is not sufficient reason to allow Mr. Cremo to have his own private access. Thanks for considering these comments. Marybeth Holleman

11/6/07   
Brian Looney
10941 Baronik Street
Anchorage AK 99516
ACCESS to Chugach State Park should be public not private and as more development occurs access becomes more and more important. The proposed conditions of the easement are a farce. Please reject the developer's proposal to modify the Platting Board's original conditions. Let’s keep the Park access available to the PUBLIC.

11/6/07   
Allison Sayer
32600 Eagle River Road
Eagle River AK 99577
I was appalled to hear that an attempt has been made to privatize access to Chugach State Park in Stuckagain Heights and that the petitioner was attempting to slide in the proposal without time for an appeal. The existence of the park predates the existence of the subdivision, and it is not a private resource to be co-opted by a few landowners. Please do not accept this proposal, which would shut many midtown residents out of their own park.

11/6/07   
jeff sauve
209 E 11th Avenue
Anchorage AK 99501
I have lived in the Anchorage bowl for more than twenty years now and have frequently used this trailhead to access Chugach State Park. Privatization of an access point that is an established right of way is unwarrented. This issue was resolved earlier this summer and now the developer wishes to circumvent the process and, having missed the deadlines for appeal, is now trying to do an 'end run' around the process and have this trailhead privatized to limit access to the public where right of way has already been established. I strongly urge the board to deny this request for private access and enforce the conditions for public pedestrian easement already established. The requested modification was submitted outside the established timeframe for changes and further, these proposed changes themselves are a 'taking' of public access and lands.

11/6/07   
Linda Benson
7021 Tall Spruce Drive
Anchorage AK 99502
I attended the June meeting where this developer agreed that he would provide public parking and access into the Chugach State Park. I live near Kincaid and would not ever think of this as my private park. Accesses to public lands should not be given to only a chosen few. Do not let any developer cut off public access to our parks. Also I read that this developer did not meet the deadline for an appeal so why are you even considering his appeal now.

11/5/07   
Bob Kaufman
4600 Silver Spring
Anchorage AK 99507
I understand the feelings on both sides of this case. I do feel it's important that we preserve access to Chugach State Park. I feel strongly enough about the public's right to use the Park that I raised a gift several years back to protect 717 acres deep within the Peters Creek drainage of the Park that was otherwise slated for a 320-house development. However, in this case, I question whether it's fair to impose an access requirement after the fact. Roger Cremo did not create the Chugach State Park access issues we are dealing with today--and he should not be expected to personally bear the brunt of solving them by having to accept an onerous access provision that some would now try to retroactively attach to his business before the board. The way to solve these problems is through taking more of a win-win approach and a long-term planning approach. Or, if people really feel strongly enough that access should be forced upon this particular parcel, then they should do what I did: raise the money to buy the property from the current owner, then grant it back to the Park under whatever conditions they want--including the specific access provisions they would like to see.

11/5/07   
Nicole Jennings
Anchorage AK 99504
I think it is very dangerous to look at privatizing access to Chugach State Park for setting future precendent. Allowing a developer to control access to a state park is absurd being that it completely negates the point of having a State Park which is available to all residents and visitors. One thing that makes Anchorage unique is being able to access the third largest state park in America within just a few minutes of anywhere in Anchorage. In addition to this it appears the developer's proposal is not in accord with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal to limit access is not local, neighborhood ³public² access, but instead a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership and, of course, the rest of Anchorage is excluded. As Chugach Park is"public land" I don't believe any area of access should be "private" no matter how many access points there are. I am also a concerned citizen with knowing that this issue was already discussed and decided on June 7, 2007. If that is the case, this should be denied based on MOA codes. None of the reconsideration methods should be available to Mr. Cremo, since his request was made in September 2007, long after the June 8, June 14, and July 3 deadlines specified by the Municipal Code. Keeping all access to the public land of Chugach State Park public is part of what makes Anchorage such a wonderful location for both residents and visitors alike.

11/5/07   
Jim Scherr
3140 Admiralty Bay Drive
Anchorage AK 99515
I have hiked from this trailhead for over twenty years and it is one of my favorite trails in Anchorage. I was most recently there two weeks ago and showed it to a friend who moved here this fall. She loved the solitude of this trail. Without this trailhead, I don't know how I would ever be able to access this beautiful area. Obviously the developer wants to keep the access but I object to the developer requesting that the trailhead be restricted to residents of the neighborhood. I object to this privatization of access to the Park. I ask that the Planning board turn down this request to restrict access to this trailhead.

11/5/07   
Kathleen Metcalfe
6624 Imlach dr
Anchorage ak 99502
I live on the west side of town very near Kincaid Park. I like to hike/walk/ride and enjoy Chugach Park. There are very few access points that I am able to enter the park and every one of them is necessary. Please Please Please keep this access way open to the public and allow people to continue to use what has been theirs for the past 35 plus years. I was just up there 2 weekends ago showing friends from "outside" the big wildlife from a trail near the University. Each access point is very important to the citizens of Anchorage. Thanks for your time. Keep our park open to the public and keep our trail entrances PUBLIC

11/5/07   
Bob Butera
Access to Chugach State Park should be public not private. By closing off this public access it essentially makes this portion of CSP a private area.

11/5/07   
Jeff Campbell
13391 Westwind Drive
Anchorage AK 99516
It was decided this summer that public access would be required. The developer missed the deadlines to appeal, and now appears to be trying to circumvent that omission. We need more public access points, not fewer.

11/5/07   
Victory LaValle
Regarding the proposed platting of the stuckagain heights region I am a opposed tax payer. In Alaska we cherish our independance and access to our wonderful wilderness playground. Taking away access to STATE PUBLIC LANDS seems criminal... The developer should be arrested. For misleading his buyers if he promised them their own private urban wilderness. Or the owners need to move to California if they want to own wilderness that they only have access to.... In addition the developer's proposal is not in accord with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal to limit access is not local, neighborhood “public” access, but instead a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership and, of course, the rest of Anchorage is excluded. His proposed "private policing" conditions would even have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions. This is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. It is important to defeat attempts to privatize access to Chugach State Park. The precedent set by granting this developer’s request for a non-public easement could be used to justify private access at as-yet undeveloped areas. There is a limited supply of property abutting Chugach State Park. State park lands should be managed for and accessible to the public at large, not just a select group of individuals fortunate to acquire one of the few properties adjacent to parkland. If my taxes pay for the city services that these homes have access too. i should have access to our beloved chugach. Thanks for the consideration. Victory LaValle

11/5/07   
Margaret Cronin
12220 Woodchase Cir
Anchorage AK 99516
a) This proposed modification should be denied on procedural grounds in accordance with Municipal Code. The issue raised in this request was openly debated in a fair public hearing at the Platting Board meeting on June 7, 2007. It is obvious that this request for modification is actually a request for re-evaluation of the Board’s June 7, 2007 decision. There are three ways a Platting Board decision can be resurrected for re-evaluation: (1) a member of the Board may request reconsideration within 24 hours of the original vote (21.11.502), or (2) anyone may request a review of the decision and then appeal the review, but the request must be submitted within 7 days after the decision is made (21.11.304 B), or (3) someone may allege new evidence or changed circumstance and request rehearing, but the request must be submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final (21.11.503). If neither of the first two methods is pursued in a timely manner, the decision becomes final 7 days after it was decided on record. The third method is only available if the request is submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final. None of the methods are available to Mr. Cremo, since his request was made in September 2007—long after the June 8, June 14, and July 3 deadlines specified by the Municipal Code. b) The developer's proposal is not in accord with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal to limit access is not local, neighborhood “public” access, but instead a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership and, of course, the rest ofAnchorage is excluded. His proposed "private policing" conditions would even have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions. This is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. c) It is important to defeat attempts to privatize access to Chugach State Park. The precedent set by granting this developer’s request for a non-public easement could be used to justify private access at as-yet undeveloped areas. There is a limited supply of property abutting Chugach State Park. State park lands should be managed for and accessible to the public at large, not just a select group of individuals fortunate to acquire one of the few properties adjacent to parkland. I live away from individual access points, but use the park frequently - at almost all access points currently available, including the one in this case. d) Although residents may be inconvenienced by state park visitors using their neighborhood as an access point, the best means to reduce impacts to all neighborhoods abutting the park is to establish many public access points. The more Chugach State Park access points there are, the fewer the effects on any one neighborhood. e) The Planning Department Staff report relies on Municipal Trails Plan (1997) and Chugach State Park Master Plan (vintage mid-1980s). These outdated plans could not have anticipated the extensive development along the park boundary in recent years. The Trails Plan is due for updating in 2008. The Alaska State Park Strategic Plan includes a provision for creating a Chugach State Park Access Plan in 2008. Public access should not be extinguished before these plans are updated. f) the staff report points to several nearby CSP access points as justification for allowing this one to be private. How many public access points are enough? The CSP Access Inventory recommends access points every 1000 feet along the park boundary.

11/5/07   
Dianne Holmes
The staff report omits citing the most important official document in determining this access issue. Anchorage's 2020 Comprehensive Plan clearly states as goals and policies that access to Chugach State Park (#65) shall be protected as well as providing for pedestrian and trail connections in all plats and re-plats (#55). Providing dedicated public pedestrian access will not create an imposition on the subdivision, but not creating one, will. This requirement was fulfilled by the Platting Bd for the Grandview Subdivison a few yrs ago and must be similarly applied here or else the decision will be out of compliance with 2020, which has the weight of law behind it in several instances. On each page of 2020's policies there is a statement that says the policies provide direction to public officials and the general public. This can not be ignored. If the Platting Bd decided previously to require a dedicated easement, then that requirement can not be changed without violating 2020's policies and goals in that regard.

11/5/07   
Matthew Rafferty
1560 F Street
Anchorage AK 99501
Dear Platting Board Members, I urge you to protect access to Chugach State Park at Stuckagain Heights. Chugach State Park is what distinguishes Anchorage from all other cities in America. Where else can a resident access a 500,000 acre wilderness, complete with grizzly bears, wolves, glaciers, alpine late, salmon streams, and more? As Anchorage grows and develops, it’s critical that we do so with foresight, retaining the uniqueness and character that creates an unparalleled quality of life. For over seven years, I’ve been accessing Chugach State Park via trails from Stuckagain Heights. Each fall, I set out on these trails to gather blueberries for the winter. On one occasion, as I sat in the tundra silently picking, I looked up to see a black bear 100 yards away pursuing the same activity – stocking up on a nutritious food source to get ready for the long winter. To privatize this access would be tragic, an elimination of a valuable public resource that can be enjoyed by anyone who has the gumption to lace up their shoes and the imagination to explore. Chugach State Park belongs to all of us and Anchorage is far better for it. Also, the Chugach State Park Trails Plan is set to be revisited in 2008. It would be imprudent to destroy access to this resource before the plan can be revised. The future of our city depends on your actions. Please make your decision with the nearly 300,000 residents of Anchorage in mind as opposed to the best interests of a developer and handful of homeowners. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matt Rafferty 1560 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 907-929-7390

11/5/07   
Leslie Dickson Dickson
3561 Orbit Circle
Anchorage AK 99517
To the Board: This proposal limits access only to residents that live adjacent to the park. Many of us can't afford to live there, but still should have access to our fabulous state park. I use the park weekly, and do not want my access limited due to my choice to live in town (by the airport). I have seen my access points limited and limited and some of my old access points are now private. This creates erosion on new trails that people cut out to avoid crossing private land - in one event, I was met at the base of someone's driveway with a gun! This isn't right. We have to keep this wonderful park accessible to all - it's a PUBLIC park. The folks who want to live there have chosen to live abutting a state park, and will have to deal with the visitors to the park. The more access points there are, the less impact each access point will have on the neighbors. I realize that public trail heads are notorious for theft, drinking teenagers, etc. and I have been a victim of car break ins many times. However, most users are skiers, runners and hikers - like me - and solution is more security, not fewer access points. Further, this proposed modification should be denied on procedural grounds. There was a public hearing on this issue at the Platting Board meeting on June 7, 2007. This request for modification is actually a request for a re-evaluation of that decision. This request for appeal was not made by a board member within 24 hours (21.11.502), nor was it a request for a review of the decision and appeal within 7 days (21.11.304 B). There is no new evidence or changed circumstance to justify a rehearing within 30 days (21.11.503). Because none of these exigencies exist, the decision should be final. Mr. Cremo's request was made in September 2007 - why does he get another bite at the apple? Is this in the hopes that people will assume the decision has been final and not make comments? This is not a fair manner in which to run our government and I hope his appeal will be denied as too little, too late. Sincerely, Leslie Dickson Avid park user and fan

11/5/07   
Todd Priest
7030 Apollo Drive
Anchorage AK 99504
I want to add my voice to the public comments for this development project. I believe access to parks should be public. I live near this access point and have used this area to reagh the trails in the Chugach. If we want a healthy, fair city where people feel they have a right to the public resources, we can't limit these access points .

11/3/07   
Bill Sherwonit
2441 Tulik Drive
Anchorage AK 99517
I am writing to protest the Platting Board’s agreement to reconsider its June 2007 decision to allow a public pedestrian easement into Chugach State Park in the Stuckagain Heights area (case number S11592-2). I’m troubled that the board has chosen to again debate – and possibly overturn – its earlier decision, at the request of the developer, Mr. Roger Cremo. It’s my understanding that Mr. Cremo requested a modification to the board’s determination long after any appeal should have been allowed. This, in itself, is reason enough to deny Mr. Cremo’s request. But there are several additional reasons why the Platting Board should not allow Mr. Cremo – or other Anchorage developers – to establish private access points into Chugach State Park, when and where public access is possible. As a resident of Anchorage’s Turnagain area, I’m one of many locals to depend on public access into Chugach State Park. And as both a former member of the park’s advisory board and frequent Chugach visitor, I know first hand the overcrowding problems that have resulted at the existing trailheads (Glen Alps, Rabbit Creek, and Prospect Heights being prime examples) because there are so few access points into the park, particularly in Anchorage’s Hillside area. I can’t emphasize enough, that we Anchorage residents need MORE, not less, public access into Chugach State Park. I’m sure this is a refrain you’ve heard over and over, because it’s a growing problem. Any Platting Board decision to backtrack on its earlier decision would set a bad precedent, which other developers could then use to justify private access from other areas of the city that abut the park. As much as possible, state park lands should be accessible to the public at large, not just to those individuals fortunate enough – and wealthy enough – to acquire the few properties adjacent to parkland. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that Mr. Cremo’s proposal is not in agreement with the CSP Access Inventory that he quotes. His proposal would create a private, exclusive access based on a certain area of land ownership, thus excluding the rest of Anchorage. His proposed "private policing" conditions would even have his subdivision residents lose their exclusive right of access if they violated any one of his numerous conditions. As others have no doubt pointed out, this is not "public" access in any way, shape, or form. I also understand that the municipality’s planning department has supported Mr. Cremo’s proposed change. Yet its report refers to – and depends on – outdated plans that have little, if any, bearing on the present circumstances of increased development and too few access points. As you know, the Municipal Trails Plan is scheduled for an update and a Chugach State Park Access Plan is scheduled for completion within the next year or so. Controversial "private access points" like the one in this case should not be allowed to extinguish public access before those plans are completed. And contrary to what the planning department claims, the current number of access points into Chugach State Park is insufficient and the presence of the few existing ones is not sufficient reason to allow Mr. Cremo to have his own private access. Thanks for considering these comments, Bill Sherwonit 2441 Tulik Drive Anchorage, AK 99517 907-245-0283

11/3/07   
Bonny Sosa
2211 Lincoln Avenue
Anchorage AK 99517
As a volunteer "get active"-ist working hard to get more of Alaska's youth and families outside and moving for public health reasons, I would hope you would work to open more public access to our Chugach State Park rather than lock up access points. Chugach State Park was created for the people of the state to enjoy and recreate in. Alaskans health issues are on the rise and although lack of access to recreational areas for all is just one of many reasons for this problem, it is still one of the reasons. Hiking is one of the few "free" activities that families can enjoy together. There are not enough public access points to the park at this point in time. We continue to limit access for only a few of the elite that can afford hill side homes. This is not right! What is good for this community is a healthy active community that recreates regularly in their state park. Please do not remove this access point. Be a part of the solution to Anchorage and Alaska's youth. They may only be 25% of our population but they are 100% of our future here in Alaska. Thank you for your consideration

11/3/07   
Hezekiah "Ky" Holland
PO Box 111250
Anchorage AK 99511
I have reviewed the petition and staff information available on line. I request that the request for private access in this new plat be denied. While the request appears to be submitted too late for proper review, technicalities are not always the best basis for public policy. In this case there are two issues of policy important to me. One is the use of outdated plans for making current decisions. Anyone informed on issues of trails and pedestrian access are aware of huge gaps in those plans. They provide a frame work, but should not be the basis of excluding new trail development, such as proposed here. Second is the policy of public vs. private access. I believe that all access points should be public into the park as well as out of the park. (Can you image sign in the part warning that some trails are essentially private because the exit is blocked?) The park is a public resource and all access points should be public. The property developer and future owners derive private benefit from being located adjacent to the public park - providing access to others to these access points is a reasonable public policy the MOA should embrace. The petitioner's argument that that there already other access points and the MOA's position that this particular access location were not previous planned are both weak points that do not increase the public value of our parks and only serve to increase the private value of the development by excluding public access and perceived risks of public intrusion into the development.

11/2/07   
Pauline Ruddy
Beaver Place
Anchorage
I attended and testified at the June 7 hearing regarding the new proposed end of road subdivision in Stuckagain Heights. At that hearing, the Board overwhelmingly agreed that public access must be inlcuded in the developers plans. The plat was approved on the condition that public access right of way to the Chugach State Park was included. Members of the Board noted the concerns by local citizens regarding the potential for parties or crime to increase, but stated that such activity is a seperate issue from public access to the Chugach State Park. It is very upsetting that the developer in this case has not followed the decision of the Board Members and in stead has appealed to make access to the Chugach State Park even more restrictive. The public access suggested was not to create a large parking area, but only sufficient parking to allow small numbers of visitors to the State Park. The Board in making their requirement for inclusion of a public access to the State Park, argued that with the growing population of Anchorage and increased development along the State Park boundary, the need to ensure public access to the public State Park was increasingly important and that need addressed now. I am a resident of East Anchorage and have accessed the State Park from the three trail heads in the Stuckagain Heights neighborhood,including the access now in question. Each trail head takes the user to different areas withing the park and each offers a different vistas and recreational experience. It is my hope that the Board Members take into account their original decision at the June 7 hearing and their reasoning in considering the developers appeal. Further it is not clear that the developer in this case is following the requirements of appeal for the Platting Board and review of procedures is in order before consideration of the appeal should granted.

11/1/07   
David Evans
Anchorage AK
November 2, 2007: Part II - I would have liked to have addressed staff report comments. However, as of today’s close of business (four business days before the scheduled platting board meeting and over 40 days after the petitioner submitted his request), the MOA Planning Department’s staff report still has not been completed, or at least not posted on-line for public review.

11/1/07   
David Evans
Anchorage AK
November 2, 2007: Part I - This modification should be denied on procedural grounds in accordance with Municipal Code. The issue raised in this request was openly debated in a fair public hearing at the Platting Board meeting on June 7, 2007. It is obvious that this request for modification is actually a request for re-evaluation of the Board’s June 7, 2007 decision. There are three ways a Platting Board decision can be resurrected for re-evaluation: (1) a member of the Board may request reconsideration within 24 hours of the original vote (21.11.502), or (2) anyone may request a review of the decision and then appeal the review, but the request must be submitted within 7 days after the decision is made (21.11.304 B), or (3) someone may allege new evidence or changed circumstance and request rehearing, but the request must be submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final (21.11.503). If neither of the first two methods is pursued in a timely manner, the decision becomes final 7 days after it was decided on record. The third method is only available if the request is submitted within 20 days after the decision becomes final. None of the methods are available to Mr. Cremo, since his request was made in September 2007—long after the June 8, June 14, and July 3 deadlines specified by the Municipal Code.

11/1/07   
Tom Meacham
9500 Prospect Drive
Anchorage AK 99507
October 12, 2007 James N. Reeves, Esq. Anchorage Municipal Attorney P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT Re: Attempted evasion of appeal process from Platting Board decision (End of the Road Subdivision, S11592-1) Dear Jim: I am an officer and member of the Chugach Park Access Coalition (CPAC), a local non-profit corporation dedicated to establishing and preserving public access to Chugach State Park. One of the primary activities of CPAC is to participate in municipal plat hearings that involve proposed private subdivisions adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Park that may foreclose public access to the Park, unless adequate, permanent public access easements are required to be reserved through the plat approval process. The proposed preliminary plat for Roger Cremo’s End of the Road Subdivision S11592-1 (in the Stuckagain Heights area) came before the Municipal Platting Board in June of this year. The applicant proposed no access easements through his subdivision to the adjacent Park. Some CPAC members and others in attendance at the plat hearing gave testimony concerning the need for platted public pedestrian access through the subdivision to the Park. Some others testified against the concept. Following this testimony, and discussion among the Board members, the Platting Board on June 6, 2007, issued its decision approving the plat with conditions. One of those conditions is that the subdivider must provide a permanent public pedestrian access easement through the subdivision to the Park boundary. It is clear through testimony and Board deliberations that the Board was requiring a permanent, public pedestrian access to the Park. The Board’s decision became final on June 13, 2007, pursuant to AMC 21.11.304 B. The subdivider has pursued no appeal from this final decision of the Platting Board. AMC 21.11.304 E. requires that any timely appeal from a Platting Board Decision, or alternatively, a “written motion alleging changed circumstances,” be filed with the Clerk within 20 days after the Platting Board decision becomes final. No such documents were filed in this case, either within 20 days after June 13, 2007, or to the date of this letter. However, Mr. Cremo on September 20, 2007, filed with the Planning Department a packet of materials that, if approved, would overturn all this. The Planning Department has, in public notices on its website, cryptically and obscurely described his filing as a “Modification to a Condition of Approval on a preliminary plat which was approved June 6, 2007 by the Platting Board,” S11592-2. This “Modification” is scheduled for a public hearing before the Platting Board at its November 7, 2007 meeting. We believe that the Planning Department’s acceptance of this proposed “Modification” and its scheduling as an agenda item with the Platting Board are unlawful, because its actions and Mr. Cremo’s attempt are clearly contrary to municipal appeal ordinances, procedures and deadlines. Mr. Cremo’s proposed “Modification” would overturn the Platting Board’s final decision requiring platting of a permanent public pedestrian access through his subdivision, to the Park. This “Modification” would make the proposed access available only to the lot owners within his subdivision under strict conditions of individual use, and would impose “penalty” sanctions that would permanently terminate the access rights of a particular lot if the strict use conditions were violated. This proposed “Modification” is so far removed from the permanent public pedestrian access to the Park that the Platting Board required in its June 6, 2007, decision on Plat S11592-1, that it merits no serious discussion at all. Further, the Planning Department (through Margaret O’Brien, Senior Planner), has been unable to adequately explain how this “Modification” could lawfully be brought before the Platting Board at all, long after the time to appeal or to plead “changed circumstances” to the Municipal Clerk has passed. We are asking that your office promptly advise the Planning Department and the Platting Board that the End of the Road Subdivision’s proposed “Modification” of a final plat condition adopted by the Platting Board is clearly untimely, is an attempt to evade the appeal provisions clearly established by ordinance, and must be rejected and withdrawn from the Board’s agenda. Thank you very much, in advance. With personal best wishes, Thomas E. Meacham Vice President Chugach Park Access Coalition

10/26/07   
Steve Clark
2440 E. Tudor Road, PMB 121
Anchorage AK 99507
The comments by Robert Hall fairly depict the relevant facts of this case. There are already two access points, with public parking, to Chugach Park in the Stuckagain Heights neighborhood. The argument that a third public access point is needed seems weak. Mr. Cremo’s willingness to dedicate an easement across his private property for the use of lot owners and their guests is actually quite generous. I think that all of us who live in the area developed by Mr. Cremo would agree that we already owe him a debt of gratitude for his stewardship of the land. Some have argued that other access points involve too much walking to reach Nearpoint and that not being able to drive to the proposed easement is inconvenient. Anyone who thinks about those arguments has to question why someone is hiking into the mountains in the first place. Speaking strictly for myself, although I imagine many share the same reasons, I hike up Nearpoint to be outdoors, get some exercise and enjoy a pleasant walk. That I have to walk a little extra is totally inconsequential. Mr. Cremo’s proposal shows great respect for all the owners of lots in Stuckagain Heights. We choose to live here for the relative seclusion it provides and having a constant stream of traffic entering the neighborhood would destroy that seclusion. In particular, the owners of the two houses immediately adjacent to the proposed easement would be severely impacted by unfettered public access. According to the Chugach Park Access Inventory, p. 13, encouragement is given to the provision of “low density access” for “neighborhood residents” and Mr. Cremo’s proposal provides exactly that. It should be approved.

10/23/07   
robert hall
9875 middle rock road
anchorage
the above comments show a significant lack of understanding of the actual conditions regarding this application. first,ever since this property was homesteaded in the 1950s this has been private property. there is no history of "public access". state law does allow a person to walk across private property that is unimproved and not posted. however, statues also expressly state that a history of this activity reserves no right to future use. many would like to punish mr cremo for his generosity in allowing this activity over the years by having the muni take a piece of his property and allow anyone unlimited access to this property in perpetuity. second, there have been comments that this appeal introduces a restriction to on street parking on stuckagain roads. on street parking in this area is already illegal and regardless of what happens with this plat it will continue to be illegal. the roads in stuckagain are constructed to muni standards that do not permit on street parking. cars parked on the roads as they are constructed interfere with the safe flow of traffic and hinder access by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks or ambulances to the homes and property in the area. if an access through this subdivision were to be allowed by mr cremo there will be no legal parking available. people not residing in the area would be unable to use an access except by parking at the already existing nearby trailheads that lead to the same trail. the P&Z board has no authority to require rebuilding existing roads to new standards nor can they require roads in this new subdivision be built to a different standard than the rest of stuckagain roads. third, the P&Z board cannot "grant" public access through the platting process. they can make it a requirement for a subdivision to proceed but there is no obligation that mr cremo follow through with his application if he finds the conditions unacceptable. he has every right to withdraw his plat application and post no trespassing signs and deny access to everyone. fourth, their has been little comment on the fact that the proposed subdivision plat carves out a pond that would not be part of any of the lots. this pond would then be available to the muni as the only significant local water source for fighting home or wildfires in the area. this pond is the result of a dam constructed by mr cremo at his expense. if this pond were included in one or more of the lots mr cremo would stand to gain substantially monetarily. the pond likely then would not be available for fighting fires. instead he is, in effect, donating the pond to the muni. their has been no acknowledgment of this generous gesture on his part. if mr cremo were to withdraw his application he can deny access to the pond by the fire department, decreasing the fire safety of the local homeowners as well as the anchorage bowl in general. fifth, the original application was reviewed by the professional staff of the P&Z dept, the muni trails coordinator and chugach state park staff and they unanimously supported the plat as originally proposed. whether they though the pond was a significant enough asset to the city or whether the presence of two immediately adjacent trailheads with existing public parking were enough is not known. it was only the P&Z board members who felt that this was not enough.

10/16/07   
Adrian Beebee
3720 Reflection Dr.
Anchorage AK 99504
I grew up in Stuckagain Heights and lived there for over twenty years. I still live nearby, visit friends and family frequently and use the trail the proposed easement would access once a week or more. Since our teenage years, I and the friends I grew up with have probably been the most frequent users of this portion of Near Point during winter months. Yet, because the proposed amendment treats Stuckagain Heights as a collection of lots and legal titles rather than as a community of friends and family, the proposed plat amendment would exclude me from using this "public" access unless accompanied by one of my parents. Even for a legally titled owner of a lot in good standing, the admendment seems to view use of the easement as a distasteful, borderline-criminal act. Lot owners are restricted to no more than four accompanied guests, must not park their cars alongside the road anywhere in Section 5 or 6 (which could be well over a mile away from the easement), or risk being sued by their long-time neighbors and friends. Besides being onerous, arbitrary (how was the 4-guest limit determined?) and contradictory to the petitioner's statement that the easement will be owned by the lot owners, the proposed restrictions are not practically enforceable and contain plenty of loopholes. For example, nothing prevents a lot owner from hiring him or herself out as a professional "accompaniest" to escort groups of four along the easement. It's not far to the Chugach Park Boundary, five minutes one way at most. At five bucks per person, and six trips per hour, the accompaniest could pull in $120 per hour! Just by walking back and forth! Wow! It's no more far-fetched than the petitioner's claim that these restrictions are necessary to prevent busloads of tourists from zooming through Stuckagain to view Near Point, a mountain that has hitherto entirely escaped the attention of tour companies. The restriction on parking alongside the road in the right of way in "preparing" to use the easement also contains plenty of loopholes. Suppose, for instance, it's the passengers in the car who go hiking while the driver doesn't. Can it be said that they, the passengers, parked in the right of way? What about if someone parked in the right of way, went inside for lunch, and only later decided to go hiking? There's no need to enrich the legal profession while hashing out these issues in neighborly lawsuits. I know that residents of Stuckagain Heights, and especially those who are inclined towards outdoor activity, are considerate adults who don't want to create a nuisance or disturb anyone's peace. The plat should simply state that the easment is for the use of residents of Stuckagain Heights, their family and guests. If someone has an issue with someone else's use of the easement, it can be resolved through civil discourse rather than civil court.

9/30/07   
Ted Moore
14530 Echo Canyon Road
Anchorage AK 99516
The question of whether or not public access (or private neighborhood only access) to Chugach State Park through this proposed subdivision was thoroughly debated before being decided by the Platting Board at its June 6, 2007 hearing. The platting board unanimously required creation of a public pedestrian access easement. The developer elected not to appeal this decision within the required time period and only now, over three months later, requests to be allowed to substitute an access easement even more restrictively limited to only residents of the immediate area. The developer’s proposal to limit use of the easement to certain approved lot owners and their families and a limited number of guests, with a right of revocation and a total ban on vehicular parking along publicly owned rights-of-way is a travesty of the Platting Board’s decision requiring public access to the park through this subdivision. This will never become a major access point into the park, and the developer’s concern about busloads of tourists utilizing the access point is unfounded, but nevertheless the public should not be barred from gaining access to Chugach State Park in this area. The developer’s request is without merit and should be summarily rejected.

 




Zoning & Platting Cases On-line website