Meadow Lakes eyes special use district

MEADOW LAKES — The planning commission will consider a special use district for the neighborhood here.

The district has been in the works since 2005, when the borough completed what is known as a comprehensive plan, or set of guidelines for future development in the area. A special use district — or SPUD — is a set of rules governing acceptable development in a set area.

If that sounds a bit like the z-word — as in zoning — that’s because the districts are essentially one form of the concept, said borough planning chief Lauren Driscoll.

“Zoning, to be legally in line and to be correct, has to mirror and have the support of your comprehensive plan,” she said. “We have the borough-wide comprehensive plan. Communities can then go in and do very specific comprehensive plans for just their area.”

If approved — and based on just a whiff of political opposition to the plan, that could prove difficult — the Meadow Lakes Special Use District would become the borough’s 10th active district. The early special use districts — the first was established in 1962 at Nancy Lake Recreation Area, according to the borough website — were primarily used to protect wilderness areas.

However, as the years passed, more concentrated areas have elected to participate. The last one was the Knik Special Use District, amended in 2008, which created special corridors for mushing within a designated area.

“What you’re just seeing is a social shift,” Driscoll said. “It used to be much simpler when there wasn’t as much density.”

The establishment of a special use district should not be seen as a precursor to incorporation of a city or vice versa, Driscoll said. The two issues are unrelated, she said.

Special use districts differ from ordinances, like the kenneling ordinance recently passed by the borough assembly, in that they are limited only to specific areas, and don’t apply to the whole borough. The formation of the districts is largely driven by a specific local project or issue, she said.

“In communities like Meadow Lakes, Big Lake, Talkeetna, they’re outside the core area, but they still have economic components to them,” Driscoll said.

If approved, the special use district would set the minimum lot size at 2 acres. It would restrict, but not eliminate, gravel mining in some areas. It would also set up five areas with different procedures in each of them.

As the community’s name might suggest, lakes are at the heart of the issue, according to Driscoll.

“The district is just an attempt to kind of preserve what brought them all there,” she said. “It’s access to clean water in Meadow Lakes’ case. In Talkeetna it’s about a small town atmosphere. Each one of them’s got something they want to have. How do you keep that thing you all treasure?”

Advocates for the Meadow Lakes SPUD say Meadow Lakes is growing too rapidly to avoid the formation of the special use district. The community now has about 9,000 residents, and it’s growing, according to Community Council spokesman Tim Swezey.

“Because the community areas have not been clearly defined, such as Rural Residential or Town Center, personal security and financial opportunities have been lost or compromised,” he wrote, in an email.

The district is more about protecting the rights of property owners than limiting them, Swezey added.

“We are continually working with residents to make sure their property rights are preserved,” he wrote. “Under the (district), you would be assured when you purchase or build a home in the residential district, an adult store, big box store, monofill site, high density subdivision, or junk yard would not be built next to you.”

Nevertheless, opponents, like Ethan Williams remain unconvinced. Williams doesn’t oppose a district — he was on the original authorship team in 2005 — but is infuriated by the process.

“I’m against the process really bad,” he said. “The SPUD definitely needs more work.”

“Basically, it’s a condemnation of people’s land based on restrictions and limitations, especially without a vote,” Williams added.

No serious attempt had been made to contact all property owners about the district, Williams said. As a real estate agent, he said he thinks the changes will cause dips in property values.

The charge of changes without representation were echoed by Mary Vincent, who opposed the process, whereby the community council passes the recommendation without a wide-spread referendum, sending it to the appointed planning board before it goes before the borough assembly.

“I think that is a total miscarriage of justice,” she said, of the community council voting restriction. “To have such a small group of people control such a gigantic area is wrong.”

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269 or brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com.