This is not the best way to grow
Saturday, February 6, 2010
“Rural character” is not easily defined, but certainly it would not by preserved by building hundreds of suburban homes clustered on a mountainside. And if an urban growth boundary is to be a genuine boundary, it would not make sense to build small suburbs just over the line.
For those reasons and more it is correct for the city of Wenatchee to appeal, again, Chelan County’s recent changes to its land-use plan that would allow relatively dense residential development just south of Wenatchee. Of particular concern are the stated plans of two landowners to develop up to 230 homesites on 521 mountainous acres south of Squilchuck Road and west of the Malaga-Alcoa Highway. No plans have yet been filed, but landowners indicate they will develop homes in clusters on the benches and against the bluffs, and leave most of the land in open space. The county’s comprehensive plan changes would allow this. The city says this would violate the Growth Management Act in principle and fact by allowing urban-density development outside the urban growth boundary. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board agreed in an earlier appeal, sent the matter back to the county, and the county again approved substantially the same changes, for the same potential development.
It is difficult to look at the mountain and not agree with the original assessment of the county’s planners, that the land is too steep and the hillside soils too subject to erosion, enough to create a hazard for those who might make them home. Even if developers are able to overcome the engineering and geological difficulties, the homes would create a definite “visual impact” and would not be in keeping with the rural character of the area. That is what Growth Management rules are meant to protect.
If the hearings board sustains this appeal, as it should, city and county officials should again combine their efforts for a common goal: orderly and logical growth that preserves the beauty of the foothills that surround Wenatchee. That is possible to the south of town, and the north and west. City and county should work together with these ends in mind.
This is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Editor and Publisher Rufus Woods and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.

















Comments
Want to comment on this story? Registered users can use the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
red2 (lola horse) says...
What is wrong with "clustering"? This type of developing retains a lot of open space and is a perfectly legal path for developers to take as set forth in the County code in certain Zoning areas. What does the Urban Growth Boundary Area have to do with existing county development standards. You want to draw a line around the city and make everybody live inside the line, people don't want that, at least not me.
February 8, 2010 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Lola, all the loony liberals (who aren't elitists mind you...hic....hic..) want the majority of people to all live on top of each other. So THEY can enjoy the pristine nature.
February 9, 2010 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Boy, that one got pulled quickly. Anyone care to explain?
February 9, 2010 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
riderofthestorm (B M) says...
If the region is to continue to grow, there will be sprawl. That is the current American standard for urban and suburban growth, not mixed-use New Urbanist development. Just the reality of the situation we're in.
February 9, 2010 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Peggy (Peggy Love) says...
My two cents. Sprawl makes no sense for the future. More people actually want to be near enough to actually walk places or use public transit. This valley is not filled with wealthy people, in case you haven't noticed. Additionally, do you who are so in favor of this realize how expensive it will be to stabilize the mountainside? My guess is that you don't trust the planners who said the hillside could be subject to slides, or that you just don't care. Anybody remember the house destroyed up by Kahler Glen due to landslide? My guess is that some developer bought up some really steep mountainside land really cheap and hoped to make a killing by building houses and selling them to folks who don't have a clue about the possible dangers. The bubble burst and now housing developments are pretty much at a stand still and prices are not moving toward the sky any more. Let's just follow the law and let the developer eat it.
February 9, 2010 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )