Dear Editor: Despite the assertions in a June 8, letter, I am well informed regarding regulations about adding a subdivision to an unimproved city street. Nov 25, 2025, after getting notice that Sitka Land Trust was planning on putting three houses on the sluffing hill above the existing homes, I phoned the Planning office and planner Kim Davis confirmed my research was correct. The builder adding to the street is responsible for upgrading the street to city standards. The ROW mentioned in the letter is currently wide enough for one vehicle, about 20’ wide, with no parking available that would not block the street. The dimensions referenced by Mr. Hughey’s letter are misleading at best. I also spoke to a Public Works official about it that confirmed the same, the road must be brought up to city specs. Hughey alleges to know nothing of these regulations and instead wants to force unwilling neighbors into his HOA to upgrade and maintain a city street.
As for the economics, the increased cost of improving Mills Street is money that does not need to be spent, no matter the source. It would only be common sense to do affordable housing projects at the lowest cost possible to leave more funds available for what comes next. There are three lots for sale in town that could be developed for multiple families for the cost of expanding Mills Street to meet code. There is also adequate parking for the proposed home (which no one is objecting to as proposed) in the current parking lots of the development. The home will require stairs coming down from Mills, or stairs up from existing parking. The site work is going to be expensive in itself, the uphill area will need shoring up, to reach a 45 degree slope so it doesn’t need an proper engineers report it will have to consume part of the 47’ wide lot, the three bedroom home will have no yard at all, and no onsite parking.
We are all aware that affordable housing is something the community wants and needs, but this project requires setting aside the careful planning of the past, needing a variance allowing a substandard lot, and another variance to not provide parking as required. It would also need a variance to set aside the rules to upgrade the street. The extension of the street as proposed would encroach on utility right of ways, requiring another variance. If codes are so easily set aside why should anyone be required to follow them? Any housing built is more housing in the market, so an argument could be made that no codes should be enforced anywhere in the name of affordable housing.
Buzz words, like “creative, collaborate, for every affordable opportunity” sound great until they are applied to things that inherently make no sense. This home could easily be built at far lower expense with existing parking, which has not even been considered, per Mr. Hughey’s public testimony. There is absolutely room for yet another home below on the flat area, in the space reserved for a community fire pit. This is a housing development, not a “housing project” requiring a “neighborhood gathering spot”. One would think it is more important to house one more lucky Sitkan family than to have a seldom used fire pit area.
It would seem that the Planning Commission, the City Planning Department, and neighbors have been spending a lot of time spinning their wheels for no reason with SCLT throwing out random ideas to see what will stick. There should be some onus on agencies that want to work with the city to do their homework before making applications triggering meetings, site visits, neighborhood upsets, and lawyer consultations, when they are making requests requiring multiple variances and or regulation changes. Applications should include actual drawings, engineering reports, road cost estimates, etc, that are then vetted against current code, not just vague assurances that things have been discussed. A variance request should not be considered an automatic yes, if that is the case our codes are useless and we should all be able to do as we please with public as well as private property. Collaboration requires sharing facts not suppositions. Regards,
Mary Magnuson, Sitka
