Still work to be done:

CHELAN - Over 70 Chelan Valley residents gathered in the city council chambers on Wednesday, May 17 for the final public hearing on the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Their overall feel of the plan, which began last November and coming to a head with a possible motion for council approval at the end of July, is that it needs some tweaking.

Their list of grievances include:

• Population size and the zoning along Lakeside Bay

“The plan has seriously under-estimated both the current population of 5,000 and the future growth,” Friends of Lake Chelan representatives John Olson and Steve Kline read off a prepared statement. “According to the (Chelan County) PUD’s meter administrator we have 4,224 residential meters in Chelan. With an average of just three people per meter, that’s 12,672 that live here now… The planning department’s fact sheet states that the summer peak population for just Chelan is over 25,000. When you add similar summer numbers from both the north shore and south shore, it’s conceivable that the summer population, that all use Chelan services in one way or another, is currently approaching 75,000. (So) something well over 5,000 must be used for planning purposes.”

Olson and Kline - along with a few other residents who gave testimony later in the evening - also expressed their disdain for the zoning of “Commercial Waterfront/Water Transportation Hub along the Lakeside Bay portion of Zone 7.

“Such zoning would permit 40-foot condos and a large marina like Sunset Marina,” Olson argued during his monologue. “This zoning will will result in the following losses to the community: lake view, water quality, up lake view corridors, public access to the lake, the extreme need of a third waterfront park, - as identified in the city’s Parks and Recreations and Open Space Plan (PROS) - recreational opportunities, quality of life and the character of the town. In short, this zoning would damage and degrade the general welfare as outlined in the plan’s vision and intent statements.”

In order to solve the park problem, Olson and Kline proposed rezoning Lakeside Bay as “Public lands and facilities”. Essentially, this would allow the city to purchase the recreational land from the Goodfellows’ and turn it into a park.

“Once you zone and pay for the land and the plan under RCW 36.70A.300 is deemed “final order” in compliance with the Growth Management Act, the petitioner’s only recourse is back to the GMA Hearings Board, not the city of Chelan,” Olson stated. “The petitioner must prove a preponderance of evidence that the zoning action was arbitrary and/or discriminatory, which in this case is neither.”

Planning Director Craig Gildroy responded after the meeting by pointing out that the property in question is already zoned Commercial Waterfront and already allows water based transportation uses.

“The commercial waterfront zone is the only area for water dependent commercial uses,” Gildroy stated. “The intention is not to promote condominiums with a large marina; however, these two uses are currently allowed within this zoning district... a park is (also) a use allowed within the zone. The Parks Department has adopted a PRO’s plan and the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with that plan. This plan addresses the parks level of service and needs over 20 years. The city has adopted long term strategies for waterfront access within the Shoreline Public Access Plan, Capital FAcilities Plan appendix and the PRO’s plan.”

• Zoning Issues along Downtown

Because Mark Ericks lives within the current Downtown Mixed Use zoning, he was turned away in his attempt to refinance his house. The reason: If anything happened to his house or it was burned down, he couldn’t replace or rebuild it.

“I understand the comp process and visioning and know that it is important to dream about what we want the community to be, but I know things can happen,” Ericks said in his statement. “We were through the terrible fires, and to not be able to rebuild our home that we invested our life in seems like the wrong vision for the future.”

• Clustering on the Butte

“My concern is that with increased density, how many acre of open space is required?” Evie Hirschberger asked rhetorically. “Developments should be making sacrifices and exchanging acres of open space to the public. I’m concerned how increased traffic will affect roads, so I want you to consider the amount of density that you occur on Holiday Hills and keep that in mind, because I have to live there and it will highly affect myself and the neighbors that live on those streets.”

• Affordable Housing and electrical wiring

“I am thrilled to see in the plan the recognition of the need for affordable and senior housing, I just hope we go beyond words in municipal codes and I hope we get together as a community when we see projects that can be converted into affordable housing,” Michael Gibb said in his opening statement. “I am also thrilled again to see baked into the cake the recognition that in the future our wiring needs to go underground.”

Gibb is apart of the focus group for the new PUD substation and explained that although under-grounding transmission lines may be prohibitively expensive, distribution lines, which run from the station to each meter, are very doable and affordable.

“We should accept nothing less for new developments and new wiring structure other than underground lines to protect views,” Gibb said. “We need to get developers in the same room discussing far in advance the need for electrical infrastructure and setting aside property where growth is occurring for another substation.”

Gildroy said that although they can’t administer impact fees for power, the city will participate with the Chelan County PUD for future substations.

“The current and proposed policies indicate development should carry a proportionate share of the cost for extending and increasing the capacity of needed public utilities and is further implemented within the proposed adequate public facilities code so that all new development will be reviewed in regard to public facilities,” Gildroy said.

• Industrial zone by Apple Blossom Center

Jon Eberle, President of Development Partners, asked that the current industrial zoned area east of Apple Blossom Center be changed since there has only been one sale in the last 13 years for an industrial use, and that was for an existing building.

“Other than that, we have had zero transactions,” Eberle pointed out. “We hired an engineer and asked him to find out what it would cost to create 3-to-5 acre parcels that are flat and level and usable for industrial. He came up with a 28 acre layout, however, since it isn’t flat, he had to carve out dirt and possibly big rock to make it a flat site. The cost of doing that alone is $3 and that doesn’t bring in access, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. so that is another $3. So the owner could give them the land for free and their expense to level would be $6 a foot and they would say ‘no thank you’. There is no demand or the physical capability to put that use on a hillside.”

Eberle said that a better use would be for affordable housing.

“You could use slopes if you build with dense home sites, and it wouldn’t compete with second home demand because they are all on the water,” Eberle insisted. “The residential would still have gorgeous views, just not the water. Our goal is to convert that area. Allow us to meet the demand with dense home sights and using the slopes and footprints that are available.”

Gildroy said his staff will be meeting with Eberle within the next week or two, but remains a little hesitant to the idea of putting more residential zones at Apple Blossom Center.

“The Comprehensive Plan future land use map already provides enough residential land, and the city does need to plan for jobs and the economy (as well),” Gildroy said. “Housing at a price point (workforce housing) that meets residents needs is a top priority. The future land use map does have areas that accommodate workforce housing and there are proposals within the unincorporated UGA that will provide workforce housing like what Jon Eberle said this area would do. All of this information will be included in the city’s review to determine if the Comprehensive Plan has the right balance of residential, commercial and industrial zoned land.”

If you were unable to attend the hearing, the Planning Commission will take written comments until June 13. On June 14 they will have workshop to discuss the plan, but will not take input from the public. On June 27, the Chelan City Council will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan update and implementing regulations. Throughout July, the council will be debate the plan before making a motion for approval at their regular meeting on Tuesday, July 25.  

Zach Johnson can be reached at lcmeditor@gmail.com or (509) 682-2213.