The Wasilla Planning Commission on July 22 denied an elevated administrative approval request (AA 25‑160; RS 2506) for a 41‑by‑34‑by‑12‑foot U‑shaped retaining structure at 1018 E East Lakeshore Avenue, concluding the structure did not meet applicable municipal code criteria for the proposed accessory building and posed potential off‑site impacts to Wasilla Lake.

Staff recommendation and findings: the contract planner recommended denial, citing noncompliance with the Wasilla Municipal Code standards for dimensional requirements, drainage control, and off‑site impacts. Staff noted that while the structure had been presented as a boathouse (which can be exempt from the 75‑foot setback if primarily over water), the submitted photos and documentation did not demonstrate the boathouse was "located primarily over water" as required by WMC §16.24.0.03(c)(3). The planner also said there was no documentation showing construction prevented runoff into Wasilla Lake or that the project would avoid pollution of the lake.

Applicant and testimony: Rory O'Boyle, attorney‑in‑fact for owner Marlene Smith, told the commission the structure and site have a lengthy history going back to the early 2000s and said springs flow beneath the structure; he said "approximately 80% of the floor is covered with flowing water" and that the roof was added to protect people and the springs. The applicant argued the structure functions as a boathouse and that demolition or heavy equipment to remove it would risk further harm to springs and the lake.

Public comment: nearby residents and property owners told the commission they were concerned about habitat and water quality. One resident, Michael Fugere, said the inlet is shallow (he estimated about six inches) and that he did not see the structure as a boathouse. Another, Kathleen Conning, said the area is used by birds and is a salmon spawning area and asked for greater protection. A third resident, Alexis Brown, said she could see water movement under the structure and urged the commission to investigate habitat impacts.

Commission discussion and rationale: commissioners acknowledged sympathy with the owner but emphasized code compliance and precedent. Several commissioners said structures built without proper permits and within setbacks cannot be retroactively legalized when they do not meet the code requirements; they cited concerns about setting a precedent that would encourage similar after‑the‑fact work. Commissioners also noted that reviewing parties, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, flagged Wasilla Lake as an anadromous waterbody and that a fish‑habitat evaluation may be required for activities modifying lake bed or banks.

Outcome: the commission voted unanimously to approve RS 2506 (denying the administrative approval request AA 25‑160). The motion and roll call vote were recorded; Brown, Seals, Langel, DeYoung and Stafford voted in favor of the resolution denying the elevated administrative approval.

Taper: staff and commissioners encouraged the owner to pursue permitted alternatives consistent with the municipal code and recommended avoiding demolition actions that could worsen spring discharge or habitat without a mitigation plan and proper permitting.