Wasilla rejects housing density concept

WASILLA — On Monday night, the city council was one vote short on an ordinance that would allow for conservation subdivisions in Wasilla.

Conservation subdivisions are communities built with smaller lots but shared open spaces. The number of houses in a given subdivision does not change, but the houses sit closer together allowing for parks, trails and natural green areas.

Currently, the minimum lot size in Wasilla is too large to allow the density needed for conservation subdivisions, according to code. The ordinance in front of the council on Monday would have allowed developers to put houses on smaller lots given that the remaining land was protected as open space. Additionally, any plan with lots below the minimum size would have to be approved by the city planner.

As soon as Mayor Rupright opened the floor for public comment, Steve Stoll had a list of questions he asked the council to consider before voting. He asked what the new minimum lot size would be, how much paving would be involved, what about the sewer and water and who would be responsible for the open space maintenance if the homeowners’ association failed. Lastly, he asked, how many duplexes would be allowed in the new subdivision, and isn’t this just a rezone of the rural residential zones.

A number of builders testified in support of the ordinance. A smaller lot size would give them more flexibility without increasing the overall density of the subdivision, said Gary LaRusso. There would be the same number of houses on a conservation subdivision as a subdivision with one-acre lots, Jess Hall said. The green space would have a direct marketable value as builders could capitalize on natural assets, said Ralph Baldwin.

Kathy Wells, executive director of Friends of Mat-Su, reminded the council that as the city looks to annexing more land, not all parcels will be developable for one-acre lots. This is going to be a necessity with growth, she said.

Before the discussion went to the council, more Wasilla residents voiced their concerns.

One simply said “Welcome everybody to North Anchorage.” A few objected to outsiders telling Wasillans what to do and thought this sounded a bit too European. The public comments closed with a retired prison guard saying the closer you put people together, the more friction it causes.

The council’s discussion began with the city attorney clarifying that this would not be a rezone. It would simply add an option and apply to all areas in specific ways.

Deputy Mayor Doug Holler asked why the council should pass this now when a new city comprehensive use plan is under way. Councilwoman Leone Harris agreed this was putting the cart in front of the horse. A provision for this should be included in the new comprehensive plan after further public participation.

Councilwoman Diannne Woodruff took the floor and reiterated there would be no change to overall density. You could have the same number of duplexes in a conservation subdivision as you could now, she said. There is no space in Anchorage subdivisions for people to meet. This would allow people to walk and talk to their neighbors, she said.

There is no need to wait for the new comp plan, Woodruff said, because the plan is simply recommendations and not actual policy. In the meantime, the city could miss out on some opportunities, she said.

The open space could be passive instead of active, requiring little to no maintenance, Woodruff continued. In response to people from Outside telling Wasillans what to do, she said the city is beyond the point where all the builders are local. A community septic and water system is better for the environment because it requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to do testing on the system, she said.

Councilman Kristofer Larson was absent. A motion was tried and failed to postpone the vote until next meeting.

When the council voted on the matter, Council members Ron Cox, Nancy Hall and Woodruff voted in favor of passing the ordinance. Council members Holler and Harris voted against it. The ordinance failed 3-2 because a minimum of four votes is needed to pass any ordinance.