Sultan City Councilmembers voted unanimously last week to further consider the 124th Street annexation request, and will forward the proposal to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board for additional analysis.
The 124th Street annexation was initially brought to the Sultan City Council for consideration during the May 28, 2015 council meeting. The request involves annexation of eight parcels of property on the north side of 124th Street Southeast, a dead-end road west of Sultan Basin Road. The area proposed for annexation is roughly 80 acres, with 2.717 acres of right-of-way along 124th Street. The property was incorporated into the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA) in 2006, and is zoned unincorporated low-density residential by Snohomish County.
If annexed, the property would be incorporated into Sultan's city limits.
During the council meeting last May, city staff said the idea was to subdivide and build 300 or 400 homes, although there is no formal development proposal currently on the table.
Property owner Rusty Drivstuen is using the 60-percent petition process to drive the request. A petitioner must first gather signatures from property owners representing 10 percent of the assessed value of the annexation area, which Drivstuen achieved last year.
He was given the green light by councilmembers to move forward with the next phase, which included gathering signatures from property owners representing 60 percent of the assessed value.
During a public hearing that began on Jan. 25, was extended to Feb. 11 and closed on Feb. 25, the vast majority of testimony was in opposition of the proposal. That hearing was found to be invalid due to legal deficiencies related to the 60-percent petition, which was short one signature. The new public hearing was set pending receipt of a legally sufficient petition by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office, and took place Thursday, March 24.
In addition to Drivstuen, four people spoke in favor of the annexation, while 10 spoke in opposition. Drivstuen maintains the property is ideal for development, without the burden of environmental constraints.
Concerns raised by opposition include urban sprawl, noncompliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan, traffic impacts and roadway hazards, lack of city infrastructure and limited boundaries contiguous with existing city limits. They say the recent population allocation reduction in Sultan does not warrant annexation and moving forward would create an island that does not fit in with surrounding properties.
Each side of the argument has many intricacies. Drivstuen says state law requires cities to provide areas for future development, and as part of the UGA, the annexation area is "mandated for growth.GÇ¥ Opponents say the proposal is incongruent with the 2011 Comprehensive Plan update, which "discourages annexations into the city until buildable land is unavailable within the city.GÇ¥
Opponents also find the proposal in violation of Planning Goal 6 of the Growth Management Act, which addresses property rights.
Three of the five residents speaking in favor of the proposal offered little detail other than they wanted to see the community grow. Lifelong Sultan resident Ted Casey gave additional information on why he feels the annexation would be a benefit.
Casey said he's tired of Sultan being a bedroom community and frustrated with Sultan's downtown area, which has been stagnant for years. He's ready for growth that could help bolster the local business economy, he said. He asked councilmembers to recall the last time they purchased a T-shirt or a pair of socks anywhere in Sultan.
"There is none,GÇ¥ Casey said. "If we could bring in some sort of a bigger business, it would not only create jobs but it would build more tax base for the city of Sultan.GÇ¥
Sultan resident Toni Reading reminded council that aside from the party of ownership, the majority of testimony has been against annexation. When a person purchases real estate, she said, it is purchased as is ' not what it could be in the future.
"Speculation is never a guarantee, and it's not the council's role to pave the path for future speculation, which is what I feel that this is all about,GÇ¥ Reading said.
Stan Heydrick pointed out what he felt were discrepancies between what was said during the May 28, 2015 council meeting in relation to who would bear the cost of development and what is being said now. During last year's discussion, Councilmember Jeffrey Beeler asked who would be fiscally responsible for extending utility services to the area.
Sultan City Administrator Ken Walker told council the costs associated with infrastructure improvements, such as extending sewer lines, would be the responsibility of the developer.
"This is at odds with what appears on the petition signature page, which states that the undersigned are possibly responsible for infrastructure improvements within the annexation area,GÇ¥ Heydrick said. "There's a big difference between "possibly' and "pay all.' That's something you need to look at.GÇ¥
Heydrick said since the property's inclusion into the UGA in 2006, Sultan's future population allocation has been reduced by 25 percent, rendering the annexation unnecessary. Additionally, he feels the proposal is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
The plan says to support annexation proposals that meet three specific criteria; the area can be supported with adequate facilities and urban services, there is an adopted land use plan in place and the annexation achieves growth as set forth in the plan.
None of the criteria have been met, Heydrick said.
"Without a land use plan or proposed zoning for the area, it is impossible to determine if annexation meets the economic needs and goals of the city,GÇ¥ Heydrick said.-á -á
He also feels it's inconsistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), which tries to reduce sprawl by encouraging building within urban areas before annexation is considered.-á
"This is echoed in the city's own comp plan of 2011, which discourages annexation in the city until build-able land is unavailable within the city,GÇ¥ Heydrick said. "And that's not the case.GÇ¥
Council took action on the annexation proposal after the public hearing was closed, voting unanimously to move forward by submitting the proposal to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. Councilmember Beeler clarified that they were in no way voting to approve the annexation, but were simply voting in favor of further investigation. He confirmed with interim city planner Brad Collins that they could reject the proposal at any time.
"I think it's arguable to say that it gets increasingly difficult for the city to put the brakes on,GÇ¥ Collins said.
Councilmember Russell Wiita made the motion to move forward. If they city had property owners within city limits willing to develop their properties, then they might not need to look at annexation, he said.
"We don't have that,GÇ¥ Wiita said. "We don't have a bunch of landowners that want to develop.GÇ¥
And they need to consider property rights, he said.Further consideration of the proposal will occur after a determination by the boundary review board. For more information about the 124th Street annexation petition, visit http://ci.sultan.wa.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DOC-2.pdf
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment