|
Rural life, city life: Course of development up for review Urban
Growth Areas: Where should cities grow?; Many jurisdictions in process
of reviewing urban development plans 10/28/02
South Sound residents have an opportunity to influence how their
cities grow into outlying areas. That means anyone who wants property put into a UGA -- or taken out of one -- should speak up. Some people, such as Tony Farwell, don't want to live in a UGA. Farwell's home is in a UGA southwest of Tumwater, and he's disturbed by the changes taking place there. He dislikes the density in new housing developments, a proposal to locate an urban village on nearly 300 acres and a proposed road plan that would connect or extend several streets. "I think they need to put it in check," Farwell said. "People live out here for a particular reason, because they like the country." Not everyone in that area agrees. Kelly Cairns, project manager for the proposed urban village on property owned by Case Doelman, said the area is close to urban services and Interstate 5, thus it makes sense for it to be in the UGA. Farwell and others in his neighborhood, like Sherry Buckner, say they've been frustrated at nearly every turn when they've objected to plans to urbanize the area. "They make the plan on paper, they spend thousands of dollars ... and then they have a public hearing," Buckner said. "Is that citizen input?" Buckner asked. Lacey Principal Planner David Burns said he understands the frustration, adding residents are fighting a series of losing battles as long as they're part of the UGA. One of the ironies of state law, he said, is that it requires public comment while at the same time leaving cities little leeway within UGAs. "Jurisdictions don't have a lot of choice in developing (within) growth boundaries. They have to do that," he said. The state Growth Management Act dictates reduced sprawl, which means cities and their growth areas are required to accommodate denser development. "Just to come in and say, 'We don't want it, we don't want it, we don't want it,' that's not going to do anybody any good except to make everybody frustrated," Burns said. That means people in UGAs can go one of three routes: move to an area outside the UGA, work with cities on things that can be controlled -- such as design standards -- or try to get their neighborhood removed from the UGA, he said. Time for change For those who'd like to pursue the third option, now's the time. Every 10 years, those UGAs must be examined and adjusted, according to state law. In Thurston County, that time is approaching. The timeline reflects the county's comprehensive plan, which was set in 1995. The comprehensive plan implements the requirements of the GMA, adopted mainly to reduce sprawl. It includes elements required by the Act, such as land use designations, and serves as the framework for accommodating population growth while protecting sensitive environmental areas over the next 20 years. Updates to the plan -- including adjustments to UGA boundaries -- are due by the end of 2005, but it takes a lengthy process to achieve these. -First, each city must assess its UGA, something Lacey and Olympia already have started to do. Tumwater plans to look at its UGAs in 2004. Community meetings with affected residents are part of that process. -The cities then adopt proposed adjustments and give them to Thurston County. During the city process, proposals are reviewed by city planning commissions and city councils, each of which has public hearings. -After the county gets the cities' plans, its Planning Commission and County Commission each take a stab at it, with another series of public hearings along the way. Residents can speak at community meetings or hearings, and also can file paperwork -- called a legislative amendment request form -- with the county asking for their area to be removed from or added to a UGA. Such applications are part of the comprehensive plan adjustment process, and are due by the first Monday of August each year. There is no fee to file such a request, said Jennifer Hayes, associate planner for Thurston County. Annexations While residents in UGAs can expect growth, there is a problem for cities that are supposed to annex and help urbanize those areas. A state Supreme Court ruling in March has halted most annexations in the state -- including four in Tumwater, one in Olympia and one in Lacey -- by declaring the more popular of two methods for annexing land unconstitutional. With the popular petition method, the weight of a petitioner's signature is determined by the value of the person's property. That was declared unconstitutional. The other method is an election for registered voters who live on property in the defined annexation area. It is unworkable and almost never used, said Dave Williams of the Association of Washington Cities. The court decision prompted Tumwater and other cities to place moratoriums on extending services to its UGAs, essentially putting new development on hold in many places. In Tumwater, for example, the Doelmans' planned urban village cannot be constructed without utilities to support it. Buckner and Farwell consider this good news, while the property owners are hoping the issue will be resolved. "We have lots to go through before we're ready to dig up dirt and put things on the ground," Cairns said. "We're watching and hoping." Williams said that is a major issue for cities themselves. The court decision has cast doubt on the validity of many annexations done within the past 50 years. If the decision is retroactive, it can change boundaries for taxes, elections and other matters, he said. In addition, many cities have extended utilities beyond city limits with the requirement that people don't protest an annexation during the petition process -- legally binding contracts that cities now have no way to put in effect, he said. The Association of Washington Cities isn't waiting around for a solution. It's spearheading an effort to introduce legislation during the next session to fix what they see as a problem. State Sen. Karen Fraser said the Legislature is likely to take the issue up in the upcoming session, despite having huge issues such as the budget and transportation occupying most of its time. "I believe there will be a lot of discussion and there will be a lot of efforts to, quote, fix it," Fraser said. "This is a giant issue. It will get attention." Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court granted a motion for reconsideration of its March decision, said William B. Collins, Washington assistant attorney general. "The court could conclude after that petition method is still unconstitutional, or it could conclude that the petition method is constitutional," Collins said. "I think the issue is still in play, but I don't think it signals what the court will decide." Any ruling, however, is unlikely to come before either the end of the Legislative session or the beginning of the building season, Williams said. Not automatic Even if cities regain their ability to annex by petition, it doesn't mean such annexations will be automatic. For example, the Thurston County Boundary Review Board this year vetoed a 475-acre annexation that would have brought the urban village planned by the Doelman family into city limits. The board cited irregular boundaries that would have interrupted the natural neighborhood. Residents like Buckner and Farwell touted the decision as a victory for the area, while Cairns said it didn't change the family's plans to develop. Though Buckner, Farwell and others objected to the annexation because they're trying to preserve the rural nature of their neighborhood, Burns said others make the decision not to annex on a purely financial basis. In Lacey, for example, county residents often don't want to annex because the city can tax utilities, he said. Burns added that, from the city perspective, most annexations are losers financially - unless there is commercial development that the city will be collecting taxes on. "For every dollar in services, we collect 34 cents in taxes for residential property," he said. For Tumwater, the Doelman annexation is important in the short term because if the property becomes part of the city before it's developed revenue goes to Tumwater. If not, Thurston County gains the additional income from development fees. In the long term, tax revenue goes to whichever jurisdiction the urban village is in. Though it seems the GMA contains many ironies, Burns said residents he meets with have a few of their own. "I've been out to places and heard people say, 'We don't want more density,' and at the same time, 'We don't want sprawl.' " Sidebar:Tumwater neighborhood fears loss of rural nature LINDA TARR THE OLYMPIAN Residents who live near 81st Avenue are opposing a proposed transportation plan in their latest fight to preserve the rural character of their neighborhood. They object to the proposed Black Hills Subarea Transportation Plan, which the city will have a Tuesday hearing on. The plan will make new road connections on some roads and increase capacity on others. Resident Sherry Buckner opposes urbanization of her neighborhood, which lies in Tumwater's Urban Growth Area, in general. "When you put a road down, urbanization happens just like that," she said with a snap of her fingers. Tony Farwell said that if the plan passes the new roads would ruin the private, secluded feeling his family enjoys. "If they do that, it'll probably be the thing that'll drive me out of my area," Farwell added. Others, like Kelly Cairns, who represents the Doelman family, say urbanizing the area is a good idea. The Doelman family plans a mixed-use urban village in the area. The Tumwater/Thurston County Joint Plan specifically notes the Doelman property is expected to provide a variety of housing types close to needed services, such as commercial establishments, a high school and a transit route along Littlerock Road. The Tumwater School District also has requested a school site be located within the urban village, according to the Black Hills Subarea Transportation Study. The study also notes that the area has a high potential for commercial and residential growth by 2020, and recommends integration of the new road plan into city and county comprehensive plans to preserve new connection routes. Road improvements such as new connections would be made as development occurs, according to the plan. What's next A meeting on proposed Black Hills Subarea Transportation Plan will be at 6 p.m. Tuesday at Black Hills High School. On the Web Association of Washington Cities: www.awcnet.org/awc.htm State Sen. Karen Fraser: www.leg.wa.gov/senate/members/senmem22.htm City of Lacey: www.wa.gov/lacey City of Olympia: www.ci.olympia.wa.us City of Tumwater: www.ci.tumwater.wa.us
|