Dear Editor: I am writing to clarify a few things mentioned in last Tuesday's Sentinel regarding the Community Land Trust subdivision plan. They have proposed building a 3-bedroom home on a substandard 47-feet-wide lot above the current new housing, with no onsite parking, with Mills Street being used for parking. Code requires 80 feet for a lot and two parking spaces on the lot.
Nobody is objecting to an additional home being added to the project. Despite Mr. Hughey accusing neighbors of NIMBY. Nobody objected to the initial development, they could squeeze one more in below. It has been a good use of the land.
Neighbors are objecting to adding the project to Mills Street. It is not maintained by the city, no repairs, no plowing, and no garbage service at the first whisper of snow. It is one of the first and last icy spots in town and is dangerously to walk on without spikes, and cannot be used by two-wheel-drive vehicles. No deliveries in winter. It is 20 feet wide in spots with a blind corner driveway, there has already been an accident on the street.
Most of the rainwater from a large section of the Gaven subdivision runs along one side into a culvert, the other side is also extremely wet. There is a small year round pond before it eventually runs down to a very large culvert basin installed when the new homes were built. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring the street up to City standards, 60-feet wide (required when adding a subdivision to an unimproved street) to then be maintained by the city, even with that being done there will still have to be steps down to the house, the lot is well below the grade of the road. The code requires two parking spaces per unit. There is already developed parking for the project, the stairs will still be needed.
Now the Trust has received another grant to help develop the rest of the uplands, so likely the plan will change again, the last mailing proposed to neighbors was for three houses above the existing homes. It would be a waste of money to spend it building out Mills Street and installing a turnaround on the hill below the existing drive so vehicles could exit going up the hill. The same funds could purchase a lot suitable for building and pay to put in another house, or even a duplex and use existing parking. That would save also the city money by continuing no services to the drive.
Everyone would like to have more affordable housing, but building in spots that are prohibitively expensive is not a responsible use of grant and donation monies given to the cause. There are building lots for sale in town.
Mary Magnuson, Sitka
