Land rules passed

New Wasilla standards criticized

December 12, 2006

By MARY AMES/Frontiersman

WASILLA -The city adopted landscaping standards brought forward by the planning commission, but not before hearing objections from three people, including one who helped write the standards at last night's meeting.

Katie Hurley, who chaired the focus group that met 23 times to discuss amendments to Wasilla's ordinance on landscaping standard, said she had concerns that the final plan didn't address two issues discussed in their meetings.

&#8220There are no definitions of shoreline protection,” Hurley said. &#8220What's happening on Wasilla Lake and other lakes in the area show it's really important to have language that defines what the focus group intended - a 75-foot setback from the mean high-water line. It's terribly important with the number of people who use the lakes.”

When the focus group presented its plan to the planning commission, the draft included single-family dwellings, but the ordinance the planning commission put before the council did not, she said.

&#8220I'm disappointed,” Hurley said. &#8220I know the developers will use it as a loophole.”

Garvin Bucaria, who often addresses the city council on environmental issues, said he was less than satisfied with the landscaping plan. &#8220I know many of you are tired of hearing from me,” he said. &#8220But I know the value of the northern deciduous forest.”

Most disturbing to Bucaria were lawns that extend down to a lake, with all native vegetation removed.

&#8220We have a lot of shoreline, and virtually no protections,” he said. &#8220There are no incentives for retaining natural vegetation.”

When the ground cover is just grass, fertilizers flow down into the water table and wells, he said. The fertilizer enriches weed-growth in lakes, promotes algae blooms and is toxic and lethal to children, he said.

&#8220Please, please, look at this,” Bucaria said. &#8220Some of us are criticized for our doggedness. But if there are too many loopholes, we lose quality and health.”

Dianne Woodruff, another concerned city resident, thanked the focus group for the amount of time spent creating a good document.

&#8220What the planning commission submitted bears little resemblance,” Woodruff said.

The council should look back to the Feb. 28 planning commission meeting to discover the intent of the landscaping design, she said. In July, a permit was granted for a single-family dwelling on 40 acres, she said, and under this code, 29 acres could be cleared.

&#8220What's to prevent a developer from clearing the whole thing, putting up one house and putting in a lawn?”

Council member Greg Koskela, who sat on the planning commission before his October election to the council, also thanked the focus group for spending a lot of time on the amended landscaping standards. But he said the planning commission spent a lot of time of them, too.

However, he didn't think the city was ready to dictate to single families, Koskela said.

&#8220One person is not going to build a house on 40 acres,” he said. &#8220When we finished this at the planning commission, we felt we had a good document that is a work in progress.”

Council member Mark Ewing said he felt sorry for people in the focus group who put in time but were ignored.

&#8220I wonder how this makes people feel about being on committees that may be ignored,” Ewing said.

Council member Steve Menard said the plan was a starting point.

&#8220The practicability of vegetation near lakes is passionate not only with myself, but other people who live on lakes, too,” Menard said. &#8220Seeing where people bulldoze down to lakes irks me, but to tell a homeowner he can't have a lawn, I'm not willing to go that far in our community.”

Council member Marty Metiva also said the proposed ordinance was a work in progress, and Ron Cox, deputy mayor, said he was in favor of it as a starting point.

After voting unanimously in favor of an amendment offered by Koskela making the ordinance pertain to &#8220any lots cleared without permits and permission,” the council voted in favor of the ordinance as a whole, with Ewing voting no.

Koskela said residential property was not addressed in the ordinance, only commercial property. &#8220This is a good workable document,” Koskela said. &#8220This won't change the status of Wasilla Lake or Lake Lucille. The damage has been done.”

Contact Mary Ames at 352-2284 or mary.ames@frontiersman.com.