Defining urban, rural for today’s land

By Martha M. Ireland
for Peninsula Daily News

Nov. 11, 2005

      The rural-urban dichotomy enshrined in the state Growth Management Act doesn’t match realities in Clallam and Jefferson counties.

      The act categorizes all land uses as either urban or rural. Whatever’s inside an incorporated city presumably must be urban, while unincorporated areas must be entirely rural, unless they are designated urban growth centers.

      The act attempts to prevent problematic growth such as what occurred in unincorporated King County.

      My family lived between Seattle and Tacoma from 1979 to 1988, in a community that began as a logging settlement in the late 1800s, and later took its name from Federal Highway 99, which cut through the area in the 1920s.

      Even after King County officials determined to direct as much growth as possible to Federal Way, residents repeatedly voted down incorporation in the name of preserving rural character.

      Our former neighbors belatedly incorporated Federal Way in 1990, the same year growth management was enacted. It was instantly the state’s sixth largest city.

      Federal Way’s rural feel had been long gone when we escaped to our little Clallam County farm.

      Here city and county planners must work around state growth management standards that don’t quite fit.

      For example, Sequim’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the law “does not allow for the designation of resource and agriculture lands within Urban Growth Areas,” but cites the town’s heritage as justification to “encourage small scale agri-business within the city and urban growth area.”

      As requested by landowners, Sequim has annexed vast rural lands—from John Wayne Marina on Sequim Bay to near the Dungeness River—despite having ample undeveloped property already within its limit. 

      Ironically, new-to-the-city properties were quickly converted from working farmland to major retail centers. Meanwhile, citizens demanding preservation of what they perceive to be rural lands stymied development of vacant parcels that have been inside the city—and unfarmed—for decades.

      While Sequim has grown large during the last 15 years, Port Townsend was drawn large from its beginning.

      The grand city platted in the 1850s “still has a lot of vacant land with a lot of uses that encourage rural character,” said Jeff Randall, director of long range planning.

      Port Townsend’s Comprehensive Plan permits “agriculture and small animal farming in some areas, [encouraging] the growing of food in the community, which is unusual for urban growth areas,” Randall said.

      Other Port Townsend neighborhoods are zoned and developed very densely, he added, citing 5,000-square-foot lots for single-family residences, and 3,000-square-foot minimums for multi-family units.

      Likewise, Sequim’s residential densities range from a decidedly rural “up to one home per acre” where city water and sewers are unavailable, to a full-urban-services multi-family zone allowing a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre.

      However, every proposed higher density development generates heated opposition, which often cites Sequim’s Comprehensive Plan goal of “maintaining its friendly, small town, rural atmosphere.”

      That language may encourage unrealistic expectations, suggest city councilors who propose deleting the phrase.

      Proposing calling Sequim a “small city” prompted more heated opposition, but the underlying issue is compliance with state law that expects multiple housing units per acre in cities, and demands multiple acres per dwelling unit elsewhere.

      “The question of rural in Sequim may be different than in Port Townsend,” Randall said, “If people are arguing that they don’t want urban density that would be in conflict with the Growth Management Act.”

RELATED STORIES:

11/4/05 - Farm futures: Kitchen-Dick to Dabob Bay

11/18/05 - Farmland preservation—what next?