By Jeff Switzer, Herald Writer
When ecoterrorists torched a pocket of multimillion-dollar luxury houses near rural Echo Lake, it highlighted an ongoing debate in Snohomish County over how to keep suburbia from shifting into the rural areas.
The county is considering stricter limits on the number of houses built in rural areas, and might require builders to preserve and replant trees when constructing new neighborhoods on the county's scenic back roads.
The rules target rural cluster subdivisions, where houses are built close together and large swaths of open space around them are preserved.
The Street of Dreams, struck by arson, was part of a future 48-house rural cluster near Maltby called Quinn's Crossing.
A banner left at the Street of Dreams arsons said "McMansions in RCDs r not green," believed to be a criticism of rural cluster developments. In these projects, large homes often are built on suburban-style lanes and cul de sacs instead of being more spread out on traditional rural homesteads.
The arsons raise the profile of the debate, but don't push the county toward any course of action, County Council chairman Dave Somers said.
"We can't respond to terrorist attacks," Somers said. "We need to do what's right for the county."
The fires "make it much harder to take a reasoned look at land-use," Somers said. "It detracts from the debate about what is appropriate in terms of rural and urban development."
The county planning commission plans to make a recommendation March 25 on whether the County Council should adopt the new rules. The council would have final say on the rules, likely this spring.
The issue has been stewing for years.
County rules since 1996 have allowed clusters of houses to be built in rural areas, but interest spiked in recent years.
Applications increased five-fold in 2006, and rural residents started complaining to the county that the developments were the newest form of urban sprawl.
The projects brought traffic and city-style neighborhoods to pastures and timberland, and raised hackles with some rural residents who said they felt like they were driving through Lynnwood.
A dozen years of clustered housing in the county has protected rural open space from sprawling development better than if property owners cleared rural properties and built a typical subdivisions, builders and county planning officials said.
To address concerns, the county is proposing stricter landscaping rules and smaller clusters of houses. Projects also would be required to be built on larger and wider lots.
The proposals are fine, but the rules don't go far enough, said Maxine Tuerk, co-chairwoman of SnoPorch, People Opposed to Rural Cluster Housing.
Her group still wants a temporary ban on the developments until better regulations are in place. They especially object to rules that give builders permission to build between 15 percent and 100 percent more houses by clustering them together.
"The bonuses are one of the critical portions of cluster housing," Tuerk said.
Current rules allow clusters of 30 homes in a project, but that will be cut to 13 if the rules are approved. If the projects rely on underground wells for drinking water, the rules put strict limits on the number of houses allowed. If water is piped in, there's no limit on the number of 13-house clusters allowed in a project, but each group must be separated by landscaping.
The projects are popular with builders. In some parts of the county, building houses in a cluster allows twice as many homes to be built compared to a standard subdivision, so long as 45 percent of the land is preserved as open space, said Tom Rowe, county division manager of development, review and construction.
In other rural areas, a builder can ask for 15 to 35 percent more houses by setting aside 45 to 65 percent of the land as open space, he said.
In the end, it spells both more houses and more preserved open space.
Proposed landscaping rules will help screen the projects, said Brian Holtzclaw, counsel for the Edmonds-based developer The McNaughton Group. His company already has applications for about 640 building lots under the old rural cluster rules.
Limiting clusters to 13 houses apiece doesn't make sense if public water is available, he said.
The spike in applications in 2006 doesn't show a big trend toward rural housing, he said.
"Is there a problem, or is this a solution looking for a problem?" Holtzclaw said.
The proposed rules help, but sidestep the key concern, Somers said.
"Some of the design elements help them fit into rural character better than in the past," Somers said. "The unfortunate thing I don't like is they are not dealing with the density bonus issue yet."
The county isn't proposing any changes to the bonus provisions at least until next year, county planning director Craig Ladiser said.
"It's complicated," he said. "Much more complicated than we thought."
Reporter Jeff Switzer: 425-339-3452 or jswitzer@heraldnet.com.
