Pierce County Regional Council Denies Three Bonney Lake Expansion Proposals

No one came to speak at Thursday’s Pierce County Regional Council on urban growth area (UGA) amendments in Bonney Lake. It didn't matter -- the conversation barely made it past the plan descriptions before the board recognized none of these growth amendments were ready to move forward to County Council.

Bonney Lake submitted three expansion plans to the Regional Council, all of which were denied. They included expansion ideas for Eastown, Fennel Creek and 214th.

“I’ll admit there are gaping holes here and I’m surprised the city made the proposal at this time,” said Mark Hamilton, Bonney Lake council member and city representative on the Regional Council. “We aren’t ready for this yet.”

Hamilton said Bonney Lake needed more time to work on the city growth proposals and amend its Capital Facilities Plan. He asked if it were possible to request an application withdrawal. The withdrawal request was refused.

“[The process] has already begun and gone before a public hearing. There is no mechanism that would allow withdrawal at this time,” said Cardwell.

While other regional council representatives voiced concern over Bonney Lake “putting the cart before the horse,” many spoke about how much they wanted to support the idea and further growth in the region.

Hamilton admitted he was surprised to find these items before the group.

 “It’s not really the prime time for these proposals. The city wasn’t going through the council and the administration put these plans forward,” said Hamilton. “In the city’s defense, however, this would help us out a great deal to create a full development to the north.”

Cardwell said that throughout Bonney Lake’s comprehensive plan amendment proposals, there showed a “lack of participation on the local level,” which he and staff found disconcerting.

“While a city may come to a county and ask the county to amend this area, it is beneficial on the county’s part to know there is support, not just from the city council, but from citizens, residents and stakeholders of the jurisdiction,” said Cardwell.

The Planning Commission also moved to deny the proposals based on the fact that the city of Bonney Lake failed to amend its Capital Facilities Plan, the same reasoning the county used when it denied the CUGA annexation proposal late last year. (Read that story .)

While the Regional Council can only recommend projects to the County Council and does not have a final vote in the matter, the unanimous ‘no’ to the city comprehensive plan amendments means the proposals will not move forward at this time. Bonney Lake cannot submit the same urban growth amendments again until the next cycle in 2013.

Here is a breakdown of what each proposal included:

Eastown: (Proposed area is south of 96th St. E. between 214th Ave. E. and 233rd Ave. E., just north of the city limits)

This proposal would extend Bonney Lake’s Satellite Urban Growth Area by 74 acres and apply a comprehensive plan employment center land-use designation. The current designation includes approximately 71 acres of rural reserve 5 and three acres of community center.

Fennel Creek: (Area west of 214th Ave. E. bounded on three sides by existing city limits)

The proposal would be to extend Bonney Lake’s urban growth area by a total of 330.7 acres and apply a parks and recreation and residential resource land use designation. The current design for the area included 109.9 acres of agricultural resource lands and 139.8 acres of rural reserve. The proposal would reserve the Fennel Creek area for what could be a future park and low-density housing.

214th (west of 214th Ave. E. bounded on three sides by existing city limits)

This proposal would expand Bonney Lake’s satellite urban growth area by a total of 29.7 acres and apply a comprehensive plan employment service land use designation. The current design for the area includes 12.52 acres of agricultural resource lands and 17.18 acres of rural 10.