Council approves east Monroe rezone amid protest

The Monroe City Council held the second and final reading of the east Monroe rezone ordinances on Tuesday, Nov. 24, again voting to rezone the property from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC).

The ordinances passed in a 4-3 vote. Councilmembers Kevin Hanford, Jim Kamp, Ed Davis and Kurt Goering voted to approve the rezone, with councilmembers Patsy Cudaback, Jason Gamble and Jeff Rasmussen dissenting.

The decision was made after a series of public hearings, including hours of public testimony from Monroe-area residents largely opposed to the proposal. Owned by Heritage Baptist Fellowship, the 42.8-acre piece of property consists of five contiguous parcels near the city's eastern boundary. The property contains environmentally protected habitat, streams, wetlands and floodplain, and is framed by steep slopes on the north side.

According to current environmental study performed, only about 11 of the 42.8 acres would be developable. Opponents and the three councilmembers against the proposal feel that LOS is the best designation for the property. Monroe Municipal Code states LOS can be used to designate lands that "lack the full range of public services and facilities necessary to support urban development and that are severely impacted by critical areas.GÇ¥

"That's the property,GÇ¥ Cudaback said during recent discussion.

Heritage Baptist Fellowship Pastor Thomas Minnick feels that GC is the best land use designation for the property, and has repeatedly asserted the church has gone above and beyond what is typically required on a non-project action.

The property was zoned Residential-9600 when it was annexed into city limits in 1970. In 1994, it was rezoned to Limited Open Space, which allows for one single-family residential dwelling per five acres and community facilities like parks and gyms. It also allows for churches, schools and preschools, all of which are contingent on conditional use permitting.

Heritage purchased the property in 1998, eventually deciding to seek a rezone to General Commercial, which would allow for the construction of a church without the need for a conditional use permit. A multitude of uses become available under GC zoning, including convenience stores, bakeries, coffee shops, drug stores, health clinics, taverns and restaurants.

The effort to rezone the property began around 2004, and the proposal's history is not without drama. During a council meeting in 2006, so many councilmembers recused themselves from a vote to place the rezone on the Monroe Planning Commission's 2006 docket there was no longer a quorum.

At that point, the Doctrine of Necessity kicked in, which legally permitted councilmembers to vote despite personal connection to the issue. Two councilmembers still refused to vote on the matter, and retreated into the bathroom at city hall and then remained in the lobby. The vote was held without them, and passed 3-2.

It took several more years to work its way through the process.

The property was rezoned from LOS to GC in 2012, but the Monroe Hearing Examiner ruled the EIS drafted by the city as inadequate. PACE Engineers was subsequently deployed to perform more in-depth environmental analysis.

The property was again rezoned from Limited Open Space to General Commercial in December 2013, but the ordinances were remanded back to the city with a determination of invalidity in August 2014 after a group of opponents petitioned the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).

The group faulted the EIS completed by PACE, and the GMHB agreed with them on a variety of issues.

Minnick stayed quiet last week, but Heritage attorney Trisna Tanus encouraged council to stay consistent with the decision they made in 2013 and vote to pass the rezone ordinances. She discussed a recently circulated petition signed by 397 Monroe-area residents opposed to the rezone, and said the opposition stemmed from "a variety of personal reasons.GÇ¥

"Those personal reasons do not trump the fact that this proposal is indeed consistent with the city's comprehensive plan,GÇ¥ Tanus said.

The opposition contends the east Monroe rezone proposal is not consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The city's current Comprehensive Plan states the east Monroe property "was annexed some years ago, primarily as a means of "protecting' the City's scenic gateway from the east along U.S. 2 and to prevent the proliferation of strip commercial uses along U.S. 2.GÇ¥

The city has been updating its Comprehensive Plan since 2013, but the new plan has not yet been adopted. In the new plan, east Monroe is referred to as the "East Monroe Study Area,GÇ¥ and the uncertainty over the future designation of the property is noted. This was done so the comprehensive plan could move forward, even though a final determination on the rezone has not been made.

The Monroe City Council will hold a public hearing on the updated Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday, Dec. 1, at Monroe City Hall.

Ashley Sellers has lived in Monroe for less than two years, and has become immersed in the east Monroe rezone proposal. She spearheaded the opposition petition, has examined and read the environmental studies, submitted extensive comments and researched many of the issues presented by the opposition, particularly in relation to landslides.

"I'm going to go back to the landslide issue, because I find it interesting that this isn't of more concern to you all,GÇ¥ Sellers said. "I happen to be a citizen of this city that I think could be a great city, and I think my safety and other people's safety is of utmost importance when you're considering something.GÇ¥

Sellers talked about the extent of the geotechnical studies performed by GeoEngineers. Experts are great, she said, but no study is absolute. She referenced a landslide that occurred near Index in December 2013, during which GeoEngineers studied the area and reported that, "additional major movements are not likely.GÇ¥

The hillside experienced a major movement less than a month later, and has continued to slide ever since, Sellers said.

She disputed a statement made by GeoEngineers in its recent geological hazards evaluation, which stated, "We were not able to observe much of the upper slope because of access restrictions.GÇ¥ Sellers has stated in previous meetings that she knows several property owners residing on the upper slope that would have granted access.-á -á

"They're saying that because they didn't have access, they weren't able to fully determine what slope stability was,GÇ¥ Sellers said. "I'm not saying don't ever move forward, but I am saying do the research. Take another two weeks, do the research from up top.GÇ¥

The city will go before the GMHB to find out if the SEIS remedies the inadequacies noted in the original EIS in January.