Gig Harbor officials support move that would restrict development on the east side of the bay

Gig Harbor city officials support a move that would restrict development in the unincorporated area on the east side of the harbor.

Pierce County officials are discussing plans that would include removing portions of East Gig Harbor from the county’s urban growth area. Such a move would mean the area would become zoned for rural development and could not be annexed into the Gig Harbor in the future.

“I reached out to the county to see if they were interested,” Mayor Kit Kuhn said.

Kuhn said the east side of the harbor is a complicated terrain that would not be cost effective to annex.

“There is only one road, basically, in and out,” he said. “To bring the standards up in the east bay to what most of the city has, including sidewalks, curbs, police protection, utilities, sewer, it would probably be in the excess of $50 million. I don’t see us being able to support that.”

Newly elected City Council members and the mayor also are in favor of removing the area from the growth area because it would help them reach their goal of easing density in the city.

“If you tie into the city sewer, you are allowed twice the density than is allowed in the county,” Kuhn said. “And you possibly cannot deny a developer that right. So by taking it out of the UGA, it would make east bay more rural.”

Some residents of the area, which is steep and wooded in parts, support the idea.

“I wish to express my concern of East Gig Harbor being in the UGA and my support of it being removed.” Patricia LeBlanc told the Pierce County Council during the Sept. 11 public meeting at Peninsula High School.

LeBlanc said the area is “completely unsuitable for urban growth,” being susceptible to landslides and lacking more than one way into and out of the community.

“It’s hilly, curvy, and (the road) is barely two lanes wide,” LeBlanc said. “I have never once seen a sheriff’s car there.”

LeBlanc said she has lived in East Gig Harbor for 43 years and does not want to see it overly developed.

“In fact the only people I believe would want to see East Gig Harbor change are those who want to sell their property at a higher price,” she said at the council meeting.

City officials, including Councilwoman Jeni Woock, also support removing the area from the growth area. She cited concerns about the lack of roads into the area and a rugged landscape that would create development roadblocks.

“If building continues in this area, what does this mean for the emergency services when needed?” Woock said. “I am concerned for the safety of our residents.”

Pierce County Councilman Derek Young said removing East Gig Harbor from the growth area is not a new idea.

“East Gig Harbor, as the name would apply, makes it seem as if it’s a part of the same community. It absolutely is and always will be,” Young said. “The question is where do we want urban growth to go? Do we think that area is appropriate for urban development and can the city provide those services? Probably not.”

Young said East Gig Harbor residents have requested annexation in the past, but previous city administrations have declined those proposals. Young says if enough residents say they do not want to lose the chance to annex, the county would not likely move forward with the proposal.

Some landowners and developers are not happy with the idea of removing the area from the growth area, since it would mean east bay properties would never receive city services such as water, sewer and city police. Residents who consider themselves Gig Harbor residents but live in unincorporated Pierce County would never be able to vote in city elections.

Barry Margolese, a developer from Seattle who has been involved in multiple development projects in Gig Harbor, owns two parcels in the proposed removal area. Margolese said he heard about the proposal to remove East Gig Harbor from the growth area in August.

“My first thought was … connections are available, and it’s near the city. Why make it rural?” Margolese said.

Margolese bought the two properties, which total about five acres, over 10 years ago. He wanted to place a couple single-family homes on the lots, but after the recession in 2008 he chose to wait.

Margolese said he has plenty of experience working with the city and county. He was a part of the decision to help preserve the Eddon BoatYard in downtown Gig Harbor and built the small cul-de-sac behind the post office off Stanich Avenue.

If the area where Margolese’s properties become rural-zoned, he would only be allowed to build one single-family home per five acres.

“Were not out in the bush here,” he said. “That kind of zoning is great for somewhere like Olalla ... maybe the county should consider a one single-family home per acre zone.”

Homes for sale on Goodman Drive in the proposed area have waterfront views. According to www.zillow.com, a real-estate sales website, some homes there are listed between $2 million and $4 million. A 0.34 acre lot is listed for sale at over $400,000.

Young said the original decision to include East Gig Harbor in the growth area was not wise and likely would not have happened today.

The county will start discussions about making adjustments to the growth area and other comprehensive plan amendments during its Sept. 18 meeting.

“We will get the bill with all the recommended amendments to be presented to the County Council,” Young said. “By the end of September, we will pass out information about which amendments we want to initiate.”

Other amendments are specific to certain districts and some are county wide. The East Gig Harbor amendment would go to the county’s planning commission and the Gig Harbor Peninsula Advisory Commission and the Pierce County regional council for review and by next spring it would come back to the Pierce County Council for final approval. Public hearings would be held.

“By then we can vote to remove it for the final map change or keep it there,” Young said.

This story was originally published September 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM.