Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1984-0631 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30' 31 32 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: DATE: June 21' 1984 ORDINANCE NO. 84 -63 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHORELINE MAP DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA KNOWN -AS SANDY POINT ARM WHEREAS, an application was filed by the Sandy Point Heights Company to. amend the map designation of the County. Shoreline Program for a 5.2 acre site adjacent and .southeast of the Sandy Point Heights plat; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid application requested that the Shoreline designation be amended from Conservancy to Rural; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 43.12C and WAS 197 -10 a preliminary Declaration of Non - Significance was issued on May 8, 1984; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Department reviewed the proposed amendment and submitted a staff report dated May 10, 1984 recommending approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 15, 1984 upon this matter and subsequently adopted Findings, Reasons and a Motion recommending approval of the proposed amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County Shoreline Program be amended in accordance with the Findings, Reasons and Motion of the Planning Commission which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein. ORDINANCE - 1 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30' 31 32 PASSED this 5th day of July , 1984. ATT,ST�- C 1 e r k.. s,4 t W Co c 11 APPROVED AS-TO FORM: BRUCE-L. DISEND, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ( g) APPROVED ( ) VETOED I U_ IL Shirley Van Z ten Executive July 6 1984 Pate Published June 27. 1984 and July 11 , 1984• This Ordinance becomes effective on July 166' : 1984. ORDINANCE - 2 4 EIBIT - ORDINANCE NO. 84 -61 ORDINANCE NO.' 84 -62 ORDINANCE NO. 84 -63 ,r File Ref.c CM 2.84 ?,M 1 -84 SPA 1 -84 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY RE R� PGj ES U PANN I NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE ) 1010 CJOMPREHENS I VE PLAN, INTERIM ) Z ING ORDINANCE AND WHATCOM ) 6606Y SHORELINE PROGRAM MAP ) DES I GNAT I ONS FOR AN AREA KNOWN ) �► I NDY POI NT ARM ) 1 tJlv 1 c.1-984 W&ATCOM COUNTY FINDINGS, REASC NCL AND. MOTION WHEREAS, Whatcom County Planning Department received on March 16, 1984, an application from Sandy Point Heights Company to amend the map designations for the 1970 Comprehensive Plan, Interim Zoning Ordinance and Whatcom County Shoreline Program for a 5.2 acre site adjacent and southeast of the Sandy Point Heights plats and an environmental checklist. The Comprehensive plan amendment request is from "Agriculture" to "Suburban "; the none map amendment from "Agriculture District" to "Suburban Itesidential District" (S9.6); and the shoreline program amendment Is from "Conservancy" to "Rural "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Revised Codes of Washington (RCW) 43.21C and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197 -10, a Preliminary Declaration of Non - Significance was issued on May 8, 1984; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70.390 and 36.70.590, and WAC 173 -19- 06201, notice of public hearing was published on Wednesdays, April 25, May 2 and May 9, 1984, in the Westside Record - Journal which is the official county newspaper and newspaper of general circulation for the area, and a copy of the notice was sent to the Lunmi Tribal Council on April 24, 1984. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the affected area on April 24th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the proposed amendments and submitted a staff report dated May 10, 1984 (see Attachment "A"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 15, 1984; and WHEREAS, a quorum of the Commission was present at the hearing; and V1 �t . ;. y WHERRAS, the Pladming Commission has now concluded its rings; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action by the Whateom County. P'Lann i ng Commi s sTon: 1)k The comprehensive plan and zone change involves 5.2 acres and the shoreline amendment invovles 6.60 linear feet of marine shoreline. 2.;: The site is isolated with no potential for futher expansion. $: The property was zoned "Agriculture" in 1976 due to flood hazard conditions. Since that time new data reveals the site is not exposed to the hazard. . With a rezone to Suburban Residential, potential lots would increase from 5 to 20 lots. 5. Probable development of the lots would be single family residences. 6. The County's Shoreline program would allow residential development in both the Conservancy and Rural designations. Open space and setback standards would be slightly reduced with the Rural designation. 7. If retained in Conservancy, variances for reduced setbacks would have to be obtained. 8. Bulkheads would be allowed under either shoreline designation, although more specific findings are required in the Conservancy designation. 9. The site's soils are rated prime agricultural land. 10. The site's size and location make it impractical to farm. 11. The site has apparently been,filled but is undeveloped. 12. According to the I.ummi Tribe, the area in which the site is located is used by'an endangered species. This proposal's impact on the species would likely be minor when compared to potential development of the entire area. 13. Water and sewer service is available. 14. There is a change in conditions as to reasons for designating the site Agriculture. 15. The proposed shoreline amendment is generally consistent .with RCW 90.58 and relevant portions of WAC 173 -16. y. 1 1B. That all the requested amendments received favorable vote of the majority of'the total number of Planning Commission, 1T.. That the Chairman and Secretary are hereby directed to place their signatures on this documents, and to transmit the same together with the aforementioned Attachment "A" to the County Council. Done and passed by majority vote this 15th day of May 1984. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Planning Department Staff Report dated 5/10/84 A77 #A14QV 7 'Aa Date: May 10, 1984 File Refs CM 2 -84, 7.M 1084, SPA 1 -84 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT: Sandy Point Heights Company RE UF.ST: The applicant is requesting to amend the comprehensive plan, zoning and shoreline designations for 5.2 acres of property adjacent to Sand Point Heights subdivision (see" Attachment 1). The comprehensive plan and none change would be from "Agriculture" and "Agriculture District' to "Suburban" plan designation and "Suburb,on Residential District" MOM zone. The shoreline amendment would change the designation from nConservancy" to "Rural" for 660 linear feet of beach. The site includes 15 existing lot$. of the Sandy Point Arm plat and one unplatted area proposed to be divided into S lots by the applicant. LOCATION: The subject site is located adjacent and ,south of the Sandy Point Golf Course end is bounded by the Sandy Point Heights subdivision to the west, Lummi Hay to the south and Lummii River to the east. The shoreline amendment is concerned with lots 13, 14 and 15 of the Sandy Point Arm plat and that property southeast of the lots to the flood gates of the Lummi River. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C, and WAC 197 -10, a "10* Iml -nary Declaration o on- Ignificanoe was issued on May 8, 1984. Presuming no adverse statement's are received, a Final Declaration of Non- Significanoe be Issued on May 28, 1984. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.390 and 36.70.590, and WAC, 173 -14- 062(1), notice of public hearing was published on Wednesdays, April 25, May 2 and May 9, 1984, in the Westside Record - Journal which is the official county newspaper and newspaper r of general circulation for the area, and a copy of the notice was sent to the Lummi Tribal Council on April 24, 1984. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the affected area on April 24. HISTORY: The original Sandy Point Arm plat was approved in October 1970 and recorded in July 1971. The area where the property is located was originally designated "Floodplain" the 1970 Comprehensive Plan and zoned "General Protection District" in 1974. The plan and :coning were amended in August 19760 to agriculture due to flooding considerations. The shoreline designation was established by the adoption of the county's program in May 1976. Review of County records could not ascertain the rationale for designating the site as Conservancy. REGULATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS Regulatory Effects of the Requests There are several regulatory aspects associated with the proposed amendments. For the zone change, the request would: 1. Change allowable land uses from agriculture, fire halls, community clubs, schools, churches, schools, animal hospitals and accessory kennels and stables, fish farms and aquaculture, home occupentions, outdoor recreation, sewage and rendering treatment plants and processing agricultural products; tS single family dwellings and accessory uses including panting for guest recreational vehicles, schools, non - commercial boat docks, churches, fire stations, community club centers, private swimming Pools, playfields, day care, neighborhood grocery stores not greater than 1250 square feet, private kennels, and home occupations. Due to lot size, location, and available recreation services the probable use 'of the lots would be single family residential. Bulk regulations would be affected as follows: 2. Reduce the minimum parcel size from one dwelling per 40 acres to 9600 square. 3. Reduce lot frontage from 600 to 35 feet, and establish a lot width of 70 feet. 4. Reduce front yard setbacks from 50 to 30 feet; side yard setback from 20 to 5 feet (minimum for one side, 10 feet for the other side); and inwiese the rear yard from 20 to 25 feet. 5. Establish lot coverage requirements at 35 to 40%. 6. increase the number of potential lots from 5 to 20 (15 existing and 5 now parcels) due to merger requirements, although administrative relief is available. For the shoreline program, major regulatory aspects of the amendment for single family And related development would be as follows: 1. Single family development is permitted in both the conservancy and rural designation. 2. Shore setbacks would be reduced from 75 to 45 feet although if retained in Conservancy, setbacks in combination with zoning requirements would preclude development of the parcels and variances would have to be obtained; sideyard setbacks from 15 to 10 feet. 3. Open space requirements would be reduced from 60 to 50%. 4. Bulkheads would be allowed in both designations although in the conservancy shoreline the applicant must demonstrate that less rigid and artificial means are not feasible. 5. Bulkhead development for single family residences in both designations is exempt from obtaining permits although program oompliance is required. - 2 - Land Use Considerations: The +land use, and comprehensive plan, zoning and shoreline gutf orm or the s to and adjacent areas are a s follows (Lummi Tribal land we code *W aline dwignationr in parenthesis): Existins Land Use Comp. Plan 7ont Shoreline Site: Vacant Agriculture Agriculture Conservancy (Residential) (Conservancy) North: Recreation, Agriculture, Agriculture, -- �—�- -- Single Family, Suburban Suburban Residential F Vacant, (Residential) S..w Tidelands Aquatic astR Tidelands, Agriculture Agriculture Rural, Naturo Agriculture ( Agriculture) (Natural) West Vacant, Suburban Suburban Conservancy Single Family Residential (Conservancy) (Residential) (Notes Lummi Tribal Shoreline program has not been adopted by the State of Washington.) Jurisdictional Comments: The site is within the Lummi Indian Reservation although the property is non -ind an ownership. The Tribal Council comments (see Attachment 2) Include (a) inconsistencies between the County and Tribe zoning and shoreline programs, (b) the site's classification as a salt water marsh, (c) area of the site used by an endangered species, (d) rationale for maintaining Conservancy and (e) the Lummi Nation's ownership of tidelands. Specifically, Dave Oriero representing the Tribe indicated the primary concern of the Tribe is consistency of the shoreline programs and the potential installation of bulkheads which may affect tideland areas in Lummi Bay. He indicated one possible solution to reduce this concern is the leasing of adjacent tidelands by individual property owners from the Tribe. Consistency between the County and Tribe Shoreline programs has been an ongoing administrative issue, which surfaces within the scope of this application. The tribal program does not allow residential uses in the Conservancy designation. While the County's program does allow such uses in the Conservancy designation. Thus, a conflict between the programs exist without any map amendment to the program. Regarding bulkhead development, the proposal may increase the possibility of such development, since six additional lots would be created on the shoreline and the houses could be located closer to the shoreline. However, bulkheads for single family residences could be allowed either in the conservancy or rural shoreline designation. To address the Lummi's concern, the County could require that any bulkhead development be contingent on leasing adjacent tidelands from the Tribe. The marsh, endangered species and rationale for shoreline designations are addressed elsewhere in this report. Topography: The site is flat and is at a higher elevation than adjacent low land area to the north, east and south including the golf course and farm, riverine and tideland i. - 3 - a areas. The area to the west is on an elevated plateau which is about 30 feet above the site's elevation, and along the shoreline steeply slope$ to the water. Soils: The site is depicted by several sources as a salt water marsh area. The Solid nervation Service indicates the site's soil as Eliza sUt loam, a flood plain soil consisting of stratified sand and silt. According to the SCS, the soil is characterized as having wetness, high water stable and susceptibility to flooding and is considered prime farmland. Visual inspection indicates the site has been filled and is Act swampy although may be subject to high water table. Flooding: The site is potentially exposed to flooding from Lummi bay and Lummi River. According to Ann Wessel, Shoreline Technician, flood elevation for Lummi Bay and Lumml River for the site Is 8 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) while information provided by the applicants indicates the site elevation between 10.01 to 10.61 feet MSL.. Thus, current information indicates the site is above the estimated flood levels from 4umml Bay and Lummi River. Endangered Species: The Lummi Tribal Council Indicates that the general area In which the site is located is used by Peregrine Falcons, an endangered specie. However, the . general area has been planned and zoned for residential. The significance of this amendment may likely have minor effects on habitat intrusion. Water and Sanitation: Water would be provided by the Sandy Point Improvement ompany, while sewer service is provided by the Lumml Tribal Sewer District. Both purveyors indicate service Is available to serve future development of the site.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ZONE AMENDMENT CRITERIA Zone and Comprehensive Plan: The two general accepted criteria for considering a zone and comprehensive plan amendment are that an error has been made In the original designation or there has been a change in circumstance. Review of the case files and discussions with the former Planning Director associated with the application of the Agriculture designations on the site in 1976, reveal that the best available data at the time indicated the site, was subject to flooding and was placed in the Agriculture zone and plan designation. It is in our opinion, while this action was not necessarily in error, new flood data reveals the site is not exposed to a flooding hazard and a changed circumstance exists. Furthermore, the site's isolation from other agricultural areas and small size would make it impractical to farm. In addition, the site's isolation would make It difficult for further residential intrusion into farming areas. Shoreline Amendment Consistency with State I.aw: Washington Administrative Code WAC Section 173 - 19060 states that any program amendment must be consistent with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173 -16. In reviewing the proposed amendment in relation to the above criteria, staff found that generally, the shoreline amendment is consistent with RCW 90.58.020. Most uses allowed by the zone district and probable development of the site (residential) are reasonable shoreline uses, and would not necessarily adversely affect public health, wildlife and aquatic life, and would still recognize private property rights consistent with the overall public interest. However, the change may create a slightly greater amount of inconsistency between the County and Lummi Tribe's program, since single family residences could likely be located closer to the water. The amendment would be generally consistent with the relevant Washington State Administrative Code sections on the following basis. For WAC 173 -16 -040(4), the amendment would represent a more consistent application of the Rural Designation sines - 4 - Other low bank, residential areas in the vicinity (Sandy Point) are currently designated Rural and would be generally consistent with the goals of the local program. Regarding the Conservancy designation (WAC 173- 16- 040(410iil), the site generally does not fit the criteria. Although undeveloped, the site has been filled; and any natural resource landward of the ordinary high water mark has been removed. Further - development of the site would not create or be exposed to any hazardous conditions, since sanitation would be handled by sewer and the site Is not within a flood hazard area. The site is appropriate for Conservancy in that it has potential multiple use, by providing recreation. Since the County's program allows single family development In Conservancy, this multiple use potential remains valid. The site appears to be more consistent with the Rural designation (WAC 173 -16- 040(4)(6)(111)). The site could support intensive recreation activity although the beach area may not make it aesthetically desireable and the zoning would not allow any type of development but an open park. Further, the shoreline program would require community recreation, beach access for any plat development. The Rural designation would also allow residential development in an isolated area and thereby slightly relieve pressure to expand into farm areas. Residential development would be consistent with adjacent areas and the program provides development standard to minim iss;e 'impaots on shoreline resources. WAC 173 -16- 060(2) addresses aquaculture activates which exist in Lummi Bay. However, no evidence has. been identified where the proposed amendment wound . adversely affoat those activites. The proposal would not significantly deter attainment of the adopted goals of the County's program. When compared with the existing designation, the amendment would create economic development which coexists harmoniously with the natural and human environment (Section 2.2.2). Potential for public access (Section 2.2.3) would remain unchanged as well as provision for recreational opportunities (Section 2.2.3). However, the amendment would also not further the goal of conserving the natural resources to the maximum extent (Section 2.2.7). The shoreline area would be consistent with the local Rural designation criteria. The area, subject to the zone change, is intended for low to moderate intensity uses; physical capabilities of the site can support intended uses; the site has been topographically altered; and intended residential development would be low density consistent with other areas in the county (Sandy Point). SUMMARY OF FINDINGIS Fib: 1. The comprehensive plan and zone change involves 5.2 acres and the shoreline amendment involves 660 Unear feet of marine shoreline. 2. The site is isolated with no potential for further expansion. 3. The property was zoned "Agriculture" in 1976 due to flood hazard conditions. Since that time new data reveals the site is not exposed to the hazard. 4. With a rezone to Suburban Residential, potential lots would increase from 5 to 20 --�• lots. - 5 - 6. Probable development of the lots would be single family residences. 6. The County's Shoreline program would allow residential development in both the Conservancy and Rural designations. Open space and setback standards would be slightly reduced with the Rural designation. 7. If retained in Conservancy, variances for reduced setbacks .would have to be obtained. 8. Bulkheads would be allowed under either designation, although more specifics findings are required in the Conservancy designation. - gc- The County and I.ummi Tribe shoreline programs are inconsistent, even within the same shoreline designation. The Tribe is concerned about these Inoonsistenoles. 10, The Lummi Tribe is concerned with bulkhead impacts on adjacent tidelands. 110 The site's soiled are rated prime agricultural land. 129 The site's size and location make It Impratleal to farm. 13. The site has apparently been filled but is undeveloped. 14, According to the Lummi Tribe, the area in which the site is located is used by an endangered species. This proposal's impact on the species would likely be minor when compared to potential development of the entire area.. 15. Water and sewer service is available. 16. There is a change in conditions as to reasons for designating the site Agriculture. 17. The proposed shoreline amendment Is generally consistent with RCW 80. 58 and relevant portions of WAC 173 -06. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above information and findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed comprehensive plan, zone and shoreline program map amendments. - 6 - a,. ON& �NMMMJAMIA lij �- ZFA;l ),Waft R"Nowilu El"no ..` LAi�RY =-r EY FRED F LANE V0, 0 MA-0 WILLWM E JONES JEWELL P W JAMES TIMMNM cEOROE�oAOA►w JAMES M ADAMS Caw,cw� Y EHNEST EF ERSON tow=� s VLRNON A LANE CaanrWma JAMES M wuSON Cowrcw, wL J1'ACNML'NT 2 LU M M I. INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 2516 KWINA RD. + SELLIN©MAM, MSHIN ©TON 982MOS • (NG) 7348160 DEPARTMENT- EXT. I April 10, 1984 �•,,, lyWV Larry Stoner Bureau of Building and Code Administration 441 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225 RE: Permit Application Review Comments, CM -84, ZM 1 -84 and SPA 1 -84 - Sandy Point Heights Company. Dear Mr. Stoner: Several comments must be passed onto your office before any clear decision from the Lummi. Nation will be made: 1) A definite gray area exists on the zoning issue within the exterior bounds of the Lummi Reser- vation. In no certain terms has the Lummi Nation attempted to circumvent the plans of the County but it would be at least advantageous to work out the complications that will surround the issues. The zoning of the Reservation area by the County does not fit into our zoning and many conflicts exist between the two. 2) As for the Shoreline Program designation issues, the tribe early on in the county's planning stages sent objection letters stating the tri- bal lands were exempt from Coastal Zone Manage- ment Processes. The County, however, instituted their shorelines designations onto the reser- vation. The Lummi Nation applied through the State Department of Ecology for the CZM planning funds and developed its own CZM plans and policies as such. In any case, the application for a Shoreline Program designation from "Conservacy" to "Rural" would necessarily need close examina- tion. The Lummi Bay Area is a very productive area from previous studies that are under way - with the particular area under question most likely classified a salt water marsh. As earlier reports were later confirmed, there is also use of this area by an endangered species the Peregrine Falcon. In no way do we want to be labeled alarmists but this may be of some consequence to the application. Dave Stoner April M 1984 Pe►ge Two 3) If the zone designations are made, it seems certain that extensive filling and bulk head work will need to follow before the area is suitable for development. The area seems more suited to its original designations on conser� vary given the dike location and proximity to the mud flats and Lummi Bay. The property is very attractive and would bring economic returns to its present owners but the true value is better defined in its cultural status as con - servacy. 4) Lastly, 4he Lummi Nation to t4e sole owner of the ' "land"area' below the 'vegetation line (tidelands);"", be assured we will be very concerned with our neighbior'-s land developments. Sincerel n ae Chairman UMMI IND-T USINRSS COUNCIL Dave Oreiro, Interim Planning LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL FPL:DO:mlc Enclosure/