Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1980-043I DATE: 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 1 32 March 2 0 1980 e. 5 INTRODUCFD BY: PROPOSED BY:_ ORDINANCE NO. 80-43 IN THE P'iATTER OF' AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM POTENTIAL SUB- URBAN TO RURAL AND TO AMEND THE INTERIM ZONING MAP;FROM GENERAL PROTECTION TO'RURAL ONE ACRE, RURAL TWO ACRES, AND FORESTRY ZONE DESIGNATION IN THF,VICINITY OF THE SOUTH BAY.OF THE LAKE WHATCOM SUB -AREA. WHEREAS, the 6Vh.atcom County Planning Department received a Petition from citizens requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan Potential Suburban Designation to Rural- and to Amend the Interim Zoning Ordinance from General Protection to Rural Two .Acres in the vicinity of the South Bay Area.of the .Lake Whatcom Sub -area. WHEREAS, after a duly advertised public hearing on January 13, 1980, the Planning Commission u.nanimously.,r.ecommended that the Whatcom County 1970 Comprehensive Plan affecting the South Bay vicinity',of Lake Whatcom Sub- area be amended from Potential Suburban to Rural (See Exhibit. "A" Planning Commission Findings and Staff Report attached and incorporated herein): In addition, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended rezonirig'. this particular area from General Pro- tection to Rural One Acre, Rural Two Acres and Forestry Zone. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council believe that further study does indicate a need to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Potential Suburban to Rur.al,for the designated area and to rezone this particular area from General nrotection to rural One Acre, Rural Two Acre and Forestry Zone designations. (See Council Findings and Conclusions for specific reasons attached and incorporated as Exhibit ",B "). THEREFOr E, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTAPLISHFD: Section 1: The 1970 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended from Potential Suburban to Rural Ordinance - 1. r� r 1 2 3 4, I 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 5 , (affecting the South Bay v c,ini.ty of the Lake Whatcom Sub -area as described as Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 2: The Whatcom County Interim Zoning Map is hereby amended from General Protection Zone to Rural. One Acre, Rural Two Acres and Forestry Zone as described in Exhibit ".U" attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 3: This ordinance to be reviewed by the Whatcom County Council at such time as sufficient utilities and services become available to allow increased densities. w PASSED this 5th day of June, 1980. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON � ialrpers n Attest: Joan Ogden County Auditor & Ex- off:i..cio Cl .E- of the Council APPROVED (, ) VETOED By. rwtYL CL CCE* -C�iIZ t- D epu tr A T FORM: - - --- ? APPROVED S 0 OR Jodi Louws, County Executive Phi.l:ip A. rka -_ Cda te Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Published March 20, May 2 (Notice of Hearing) and June 12, 1980 rxh16f-F c3 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM POTENTIAL SUBURBAN TO RURAL AND ZONING MAP FROM GENERAL PROTECTION TO R1A, R2A, AND FORESTRY IN THE SOUTH BAY VICINITY OF THE LAKE WHATCOM SUB -AREA. INTRODUCTION l �5- � ` Z) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Application and fees were filed with the Whatcom County Planning Department by the South Lake Whatcom Community Association, Inc., (691 property owners), requesting that the Whatcom County Planning Commission consider amending the What- com County Comprehensive Plan Map from Potential Suburban to Rural and changing the existing zoning from 02 eral Protection to Rural two acres in the vicinity of the South Bay of the Lake Whatcom Sub -area. On January 15, 1980, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed change. Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the subject area Comprehensive Plan Map designation be amended from Potential Suburban to Rural and Forestry uses. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the area be zoned from General Protection to Forestry, Rural one acre and Rural two acre. (See Planning Commission Findings and Maps which are incorporated by reference herein.) The County Council held an additional public hearing on May 13, 1980 to receive comments for and against the proposed action. For the reasons stated below, the County Council adopted the Planning. Commission's recommendation fully. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1. U N 5 mn AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL ACTION 1. W.C.C. 2.24.740 Upon petition of fifty percent (50 %) of the owners of the land, any area or district hereafter regulated under the provisions of this Ordinance, the Commission shall consider any changes affecting such district or area and after holding such public hearing or hearings as the size and character of the district are believed to warrant, shall report its findings to the Board with its recommendations. 2. RCW 36.70.410 - Amendment When changed conditions or further studies by the Planning Agency indicate a need, the Commission may amend, extend, or add to all or parts of the Comprehensive Plan in the manner provided for approval in the first instance. 3. RCW 36.70.440 After the receipt of the report and recommenda- tion of the Planning Agency on the matter referred to in RCW 36.70.430 the Board may approve and certify such plan, change or addition without further reference to the Commission; provided, that the plan, change, or addition conforms either to the proposal as initiated or recommendation thereon by the Commission. 4. RCW 36.70.570 - Adoption Official controls shall be adopted by Ordinance and shall further the purpose and objectives of a Comprehensive Plan and parts thereof. 5. RCW 36.70.620 - Action by a Board Upon receipt of any recommended official control or amendment thereto, the Board shall, at its next public meeting, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 2. set a date for a public meeting or it may by Ordinance adopt or reject the official control or amendment. 6. Home Rule Charter Section 2.20(d The County Council shall exercise its legis- lative power by adoption and enactment of Ordinances or Resolu- tions. It shall have the power to: (d) Adopt by Ordinance Comprehensive Plans, including improvement plans for the present and future develop- ment of the county. 7. Home Rule Charter Section 2.22 - Organization A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum at all meetings. Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council except where two - thirds (2/3) vote is required, in which case two - thirds (2/3) of the entire Council shall be necessary. DOCUMENTATION OF EXHIBITS The findings are based on the record as entered at the two public hearings held by the Planning Commission and County Council. The exhibits listed are the basis for the decision and are incorporated by reference herein: A. Planning Commission Hearing held on January 15, 1980 Exhibit A - Staff report dated 1 -10 -80 Exhibit B - Applications dated 9 -14 -79 Exhibit C - Petitions Exhibit D - Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Request Maps Exhibit E - Environmental checklist by Applicant FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 3. Exhibit F - Final Declaration of Non - significance Exhibit G - Legal Notice Exhibit H - Recommended Zoning Districts Map (unofficial) Exhibit I - Environmental checklist by Planning Department Exhibit J - Final Declaration of Non - significance on Planning Department recommended zoning districts. Exhibit K - Letter from Harold and Faunt Visser (opponents) Exhibit L - Letter from Rita Swanberg (opponent) Exhibit M - Letter from Mrs. William Stockton (opponent) Exhibit N - South Lake Whatcom Petition File CMT 5 -79 Exhibit O - Letter from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit P - Letter from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit Q - Letter and Petition from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit R - Letter from Frank and Ann Swierkowski (opponent) Exhibit S - Letter from H & C Miller, S.W. and S.P. Beebe, B.M. Beebe, K.M. and B.E. Broderick, L. Butler and R. Wolters (opponents) Exhibit T - Letter from A. Darlene Masler (proponent) Exhibit U - Letter from Faye and Vera Dixon and Glenn and Agnes Anderson (opponents) Exhibit V - Letter from Wilbur and Mary Westerman (.opponents) Exhibit W - Letter from Leonard and Pamela Andrews (opponents) Exhibit X - Letter from Leonard Andrews (opponent) Exhibit Y - Gunnar Jerns, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit Z - Michael Morrow, oral and written testimony (opponent) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 4. Exhibits A.a through O.o - Testimony from numerous proponents. Exhibit P.p - Mrs. Craig H. Johnson, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit Q.q - Lee Smallwood, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit R.r - Letter from M. Ramona Villani (proponent) Exhibit S.s - Harry Fulton, testimony Exhibit T.t - Ron Jepson - testimony Exhibit U.0 - Richard Langabeer - testimony Exhibit V.v - Harold and Faunt Visser - oral and written testimony Exhibit W.w - Letter from Lee and Betty Smallwood Exhibit X.x - Letter from Ivy Hedgecoke Exhibit Y.y - Letter from Burrell and Gloria Hardan Exhibit Z.z - Letter from JoAnne Fuller Exhibit A.a.l - Letter from Hilda Spore B. County Council Hearing held May 13, 1980 Exhibit 1 - Letter from South Lake Whatcom Community Association Exhibit 2 - Letter from Lee and Betty Smallwood re- questing public hearing on rezone. Exhibit 3 - Letter from Frank Culp Exhibit 4 - Mimeographed petition from Robert LaGrandeur Exhibit 5 - Mimeographed petition from Richard Burrous Exhibit 6 - Letter from Nina Stockton Exhibit 7 - Notice of Hearing for 5/13 Committee of the whole meeting on this proposal Exhibit 8 - Letter from A. W. White Exhibit 9 - Letter from Lloyd Wheeler Exhibit 10 - Letter from Katherine Fort Exhibit 11 - Letter from R. W. Lymon, D. L. Lymon, M. Daulby and W. Daulby FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 5. Exhibit 12 - Letter from Oliver Chapple Exhibit 13 - Letter from Larry and Cathy Boff Exhibit 14 - Letter from D. H. Smashing, Elmer Brown, Jack Drafs, J. Dale Greene, Jim Reid and M. O. Larson Exhibit 15 - Written testimony from South Lake Whatcom Independent Property Owners Exhibit 16 - Letter from Craig Johnson Exhibit 17 - Letter from Noble Erickson Exhibit 18 - Letter from A. P. Mustacich Exhibit 19 - Testimony from M. O. Larson Exhibit 20 - Note from Ray Drabik Exhibit 21 - Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Copeland Exhibit 22 - Letter from Burlalla Investments Exhibit 23 - Map of area entered by Lee Smallwood Exhibit 24 - Charts entered by Don Sparling Exhibit 25 - Letter from Rachel Davis Exhibit 26 - Letter from Ruth Ward Exhibit 27 - Testimony read by Faye Dixon Exhibit 28 - Letter from Maurice Eveleth Exhibit 29 - Letter from Nancy Hildebrand Exhibit 30 - Map of area submitted by Harry Fulton Exhibit 31 - Letter and testimony read by Harry Fulton Exhibit 32 - Mimeographed petition from Jay Hedgecoke Exhibit 33 - Mimeographed petition from Agnes A. Anderson Exhibit 34 - Letter from Anhild and Clayton Faller Exhibit 35 - Letter from Mary and Clifford Grinnel Exhibit 36 - Letter from Mrs. Leo Rindspach Exhibit 37 - Letter from Veva Panter Exhibit 38 - Letter from Lanor Hicks Exhibit 39 - Letter from Erick and Marlene Carlson Exhibit 40 - Letter from Walter Miller Exhibit 41 - Mimeographed petition from Oscar and Pearl Swedal Exhibit 42 - Mimeographed petition from E. A. Carlson FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 6. Exhibit 43 - Mimeographed petition from Patrick Toselli Exhibit 44 - Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Regan Exhibit 45 - Unsigned exhibit Exhibit 46 - Mimeographed petitions submitted by South Lake Whatcom Property Owners' Association Exhibit 47 - Letter from E. Neuzil Exhibit 48 - Letter from Edwin Rosenberg Exhibit 49 - Letter from L. Wynn Carr Exhibit 50 - Letter from Paul Robusa Exhibit 51 - Letter from South Lake Whatcom Property Owners' Association Exhibit 52 - Mimeographed petition Exhibit 53 - Legal notice of public hearing Exhibit 54 - Findings and Conclusions of Planning Commission Recommendations GENERAL FINDINGS The following are findings relating to principal features of the application and are not necessarily an exhaus- tive and conclusive listing of all factors and policies con- sidered by the Council members. Nonetheless, the following analysis provides a reasonable basis for explaining the decision: 1. The subject property consists of 1491.67 acres and is located along land along Cain Lake Road, South Bay Drive and Iowa Heights in the vicinity of the south end of Lake Whatcom located in Sections 20 -23, 26 -29, and 32, T37N, R4E. 2. The area is sparsely populated with one dwelling unit per 6.2 acres. The predominant land uses are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 7. forestry (58 %), followed by public recreation (6 %), private recreation (6 %), agricultural (0), and vacant land (2 %). The Planning Department findings indicate that 22% of the land is platted; however, only 14% is occupied by residential units. 3. All evidence indicates that the subject property is rural in nature. 4. Sewage disposal and treatment are achieved through the use of individual septic tanks.. The Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan for Water District No. 10, and Water District No. 12 does not designate the South Bay area for sewer service in the near future. 5. Water service is obtained by a number of means. Citizens of the South Bay -Cain Lake Facility obtain potable water by pumping surface or ground water. Residents of the Glen Haven Lakes Development are served by private water association. A portion of the subject area lies within the boundaries of Whatcom County Water District No. 10. The Water District's Comprehensive Plan for the South Bay vicinity indicates that a public water system may be constructed sometime between 1984 and 1998. The Water District's plans indicate that two wells may be constructed, which would serve as the water source to serve the District's estimated population of 1,070 for the South Bay Vicinity. However, this plan is at least four years away. 6. Fire protection is adequate for the subject area. The property is situated within the boundaries of Fire District No. 18. However, police protection is minimal. Due to the rural nature of the area, the Whatcom County Sheriff's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 8. Department seldom patrols. 7. The secondary arterials of the South Lake Whatcom Boulevard, Cain Lake Road, and South Bay Drive cur- rently provide adequate service to the area. With maximum build out of the potential suburban (5,500 dwelling units), the Planning Department estimates that all the roads would be over ,their respective design capacities in terms of volume. 8. There are four soil types and associations predominant in the subject area: 1. Barneston silt loam association; 2. Rough mountainous land; 3. Skagit silty clay loam; 4. Squalicum silt loam association. The Soil Conservation Service Information indicates that Barneston silt loam association located south of South Bay and east of Cain Lake Road is moderately suitable for dwelling and road development while posing severe limitations for septic tanks. The Soil Conservation Service Information indicates that the remaining soil types occupy the remainder of the subject area and impose severe limitations for dwelling, septic tanks and road development. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service Percolation rates for soils of the proposed rezone are correlated with the Health Board's regulations for new single family sub- divisions without public water supply and.indicate-.that a minimum lot size of two (2) acres would be required. This is consistent with the proposed rezone desginations. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 9. 9. The final declaration of non - significance was issued by the Whatcom County Planning Department. The County Council concurs with the DNS issued by the Department. 10. The majority of land at the south end of Lake Whatcom has been classified Potential Suburban since the original Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1970. The General Pro- tection zoning control was implemented as a tool to effectuate the purposes of the Potential Suburban classification. SPECIFIC FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Findings 1. Further studies indicate that the present Comprehensive Plan designation of Potential Suburban is in- adequate for the subject area. The policies of the Potential Suburban classification indicate that the intent of the classi- fication is "to preclude non - residential development other than an occasional neighborhood grocery store and avoid pre- mature requirements for urban services." They further provide "that no public efforts shall be made to promote extensions of urban services until suburban areas are adequately developed and serviced." Thus, the County Council agrees with the Planning Staff and Planning Commission in that the underlying purpose of the Potential Suburban classification is to "hold or reserve obvious future neighborhood land areas until a full range of urban level services can be provided." The georgraphic areas where Potential Suburban classification should be applied is on the fringes. of urban areas such as Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Blaine and Nooksack. The Potential Suburban designation is wholly inadequate in reference to the South Bay Lake Whatcom sub -area which is located in a rural setting far removed from the urban or fringe areas. Amending the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION'S OF LAW - 10. designation from Potential Suburban to Rural will avoid the premature requirements for urban services and will ensure a logical and sequential extension of urban services first to the fringe areas,and thento other areas. The Potential Suburban classification should not exist in areas that are remotely situated from urban and /or suburban areas such as the South Lake Whatcom sub -area. Thus, amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for the subject area will result in savings to the County by prematurely avoiding the expense of providing urban services to remote rural areas. In addition, the forestry practices that occur in the area in question are not compatible uses within the present Potential Suburban classification. The continuation of these uses is best served in the Rural designation. Thus, the County Council finds that the Potential Suburban classification for the subject property is entirely inadequate and that amending the Comprehensive Plan Designa- tion to Rural will be in the public interest. B. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The Comprehensive Plan designation from potential Suburban to Rural will further the following goals and underlying policies of the Comprehensive Plan which were adopted by the Whatcom County Council in July of 1979. 1. Regional Design Goals Future urban development should occur within or immediately adjacent to existing urban areas in order to eliminate sprawl and strip development, assure the provision of adequate range of urban services, conserve agricultural and forestry lands, optimize investments and public services and conserve energy resources. Future development in rural areas should be low density, compliment existing rural character, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 11. contribute to the conservation of agricultural and forest land and not resolve demands for urban level services. 2. To encourage a predictable pattern of urban and rural development which utilize previously committed land areas and existing facility investments before committing new areas for development. 3. Land -use Goals: Urban residential development should be planned in areas that can be economically and ef- ficiently served with existing or planned services, optimize energy use, function as integral neighborhood units, and can environmentally support intensive land uses. 4. Cultural and natural resources: To identify and manage environmentally sensitive areas in such a manner as to ._prevent destruction of the resource base and reduce potential losses to property and human life. 5. All of the above Comprehensive Plan goal state- ments would be furthered by amending the Comprehensive Plan classification from Potential Suburban to Rural in the South Lake Whatcom sub -area. Thus, the Coun y Council finds that these goals are in conflict with the present Comprehensive plan designation in light of the existing land use and location of the sub -area. LAND -USE FINDINGS 1. The County Council adopts the staff's findings and reports as to the existing use, zoning and optimal land - use designations of the subject and property in question. Proposed reclassification of the subject area from Potential Suburban to Rural and zoning amendment from General Protection to R2A, R1A and forestry is compatible with the uses which exist in the subject property. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L" f�W - 12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCLUSION Based upon the above factors and balancing any conflicting goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and existing land uses thereof; the proposed reclassification of the subject property from Potential Suburban to Rural is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The County Council therefore adopts and amends the Comprehensive Plan map from Potential Suburban to Rural as indicated on Exhibit C attached and incorporated by reference. The recommendation of our Planning Commission is fully adopted. OFFICIAL CONTROL FINDINGS 1. The subject property is zoned General Protection District in order to implement the existing Potential Suburban plan designation. The purpose of the general protection zone is "to establish a multiple -use zone in which expansion of business, industry and concentrated residential development are only restricted to the minimum extent necessary." The minimal restriction of this particular zone is that those uses that are not permitted are conditionally permitted. Thus, the General Protection zoning designation is an inadequate tool to implement the Rural classification. 2. It is clear that the General Protection zone authorizes a broad spectrum of development, not all of which is compatible with the Rural classification. In addition, the General Protection classification was an inadequate tool to further the policies of the Potential Suburban classification of the Comprehensive Plan. Residential densities greater than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres should be discouraged in potential suburban areas unless sufficient services and utilities are provided to avoid future public costs. However, with the utilization of the General Protection zone and the establishment of sufficient services, densities may range in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 13. the subject property from five (5) dwelling units per one (1) acre to 20 dwelling units per one (1) acre for multiple family and seven (7) dwelling units per one (1) acre for mobile home developments. Thus, the general protection zone is an inadequate tool in implementing the Potential Suburban classification as well as the Rural classification. 3. The continued existence of the General Protection zoning classification in the Comprehensive Rural classifica- tion would lead to severely impacting the existing service levels of fire, police, transportation and roadways. In addition, the General Protection zone is unlimited in the nature of allowing broad spectrum uses and would be question- able as a means of protection and promoting the rural character and general welfare. 4. Section 510.015 of the Zoning Ordinance states "that the General Protection zone was intended as an interim zone until such time that acceptable single -use classifications are available." Therefore, the General Protection classifi- cation was an overlay intended to be interim and was perceived by the legislators of this county to be replaced when further studies and reasonable decision making would be accomplished. Further studies and changed conditions indicate that now is the appropriate time to rezone the area. 5. Further studies disclosed a number of important factors to be considered now, which were not available in 1970 when the original general protection overlay was adopted. Based upon existing land -use patterns, environ- mental features, existing lot size and ownership patterns, the subject area would be best served by new zoning classifications FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 14. that implement the Rural Comprehensive Plan designation. A substantial portion of the property in question presents an average lot size of more than five (5) acres. In addition, the existence of the poor drain soils and corrective sewer measures indicate that minimum lot sizes shall be not less than one (1) acre for those particular soil types with extremely high or low percolation rates. Thus, the existence of these soil types are persuasive indicators that the area would be conducive to a Rural setting with lot sizes of one to two acres. County Health Board Regulations Section 8.A further indicate that minimum lot sizes shall not be less one (1) to two (2) acres for those particular soil types with extremely high or low percolator ration rates which exist in the subject property. Furthermore, the existence of major timber holdings in the southern portion of the area and indications by the timber companies of continued force management further indicate that portions of the property should remain Forestry classification. 6. Furthermore, Skagit County is the southern border of the rezone area. Present zoning designations for the border in Skagit County are Rural five acre bordering Cain Lake, to Forestry towards the mountainous areas. The present rezone from the interim zone General Protection to Rural one acre, Rural two acre, and Forestry would be more compatible with the zoning classification of the southern border. Whatcbm County must serve the welfare of the entire effective community when it considers rezoning property. This community would include Skagit County as well as Whatcom County. Thus, approval of the rezone request would further coordinate regional planning which is beneficial to all citizens and a great assistance in avoiding the problems which exist as a result of poor planning. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 15. 7. The staff report also cites specific land use criteria for the utilization of the R2A zone. However, these same criteria are applicable to the R1A zone which was recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Council. They are: (a) Areas that are underlain by the Barneston and Squalicum silt loam associations that require a minimum of one - two acre lot sizes according to the Health Board Regulations; and (b) Areas that contain a concentration of platted lots which average two acres or less in size. Additional zoning criteria which has assisted the Council in determining the appropriate zones for the re- mainder of the property are: 1. Average parcel /lot size; 2. Ownership patterns with respect to timber management; 3. Consistency with existing land -use patterns; 4. Necessity of providing a blend of density and /or transitional zone betewen more dense developments and timber harvest activities; 5. The existing and planned level of community services; and 6. A continued reasonable use of land by the property owners. 8. Since the interim zoning classification of General Protection was adopted for the subject area, the Planning Department has had an opportunity to analyze and study the particular area fully. The staff report of the Planning Department contains some essential factors which the County Council believes are important in its ruling that the Interim General Protection classification should be amended now and replaced with permanent zoning classifications of R1A, R2A FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 16. and Forestry classifications. Because of the importance of these factors, the County Council chooses to reiterate them: (a) The existing provision of the General Protection zone is inadequate to implement the Rural land -use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. (b) Lands west of Cain Lake Road and north of South Bay Drive are con- sistent with suggested criteria for RlA zoning. (c) Lands east of Cain Lake Road and south of South Bay Drive contain poor drain soils and lot sizes that average 4.2 acres for platted parcels and 18.5 unplatted parcels. (d) No public sewers are planned for the area. (e) Major capital investments would be necessary to provide fire, police and transportation facilities for po- tential suburban densities. (f) A large number of existing vacant lots - 1,200 - have already been committed for development. (g) The major timber companies have expressed a desire to continue timber management practices which would be more compatible with Rural one acre and two acre zoning densities than with Potential Suburban densities of five (5), seven (7), and twenty (20) unit /one -acre densities. OFFICIAL CONTROLS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Thus, the Whatcom County Council adopts the Plan- ning Commission recommendation fully. The Whatcom County Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 17. Map shall be amended from General Protection Zoning to: (a) RlA District: Only those areas situated west of Cain Lake Road and north of South Bay Drive as shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. (b) R2A District: In those areas east of Lake Cain Road and generally south of South Bay Drive as shown on Exhibit "D ". (c) Forestry District: As shown on Exhibit "D ". 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone request is for the following area: A portion of land located in the south half of the Southeast Quarter of 20, the south half of Section 21, a portion of land in the Southwest Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 22, a portion of land in the Southwest Quarter of 23, a portion of land in,the Northwest Quarter of 26, and certain land in Section 27, 28, 29 and 32, Township 37 North, Range 4 East. 3. This rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, and /or welfare of the citizens of Whatcom County. DATED this Ok day of June, 1980. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHI GTON 6t." SHIRLEY VAN NTEN APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: Joan Ogden County Auditor & Ex- officio ! ClerA of the Co ncil By T PHILIP A. S R Deputy Deputy Prosecuting Attorney FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 18. Ui 414 FW aw;ip- C: 401 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington A42?.5 Phone 676 -6756 M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 11, 1980 ZT 23 TO: County Council I FR: Micheal E. Nicholson, Planning Director RE: Adoption of Interim Zoning Ordinance - ZT 23 The Planning Commission Resolution, which this memo is attached to, identifies Exhibit "A" as the Interim Zoning Ordinance. After consulting with the Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Council Chair- person, the Planning Agency is including the Interim Zoning Ordinance by reference since each Council member presently has a copy of the document for consideration. June S, 1980 File Ref.: ZT 23 PLANNING AGENCY REPORT I. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU'T'ION IN THE MATTER OF EXTENSION ) OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ) UNTIL JULY 1S, 1982 OR UN'T'IL ) FINAL ZONING IS ADOPTED ) FINDINGS, RECOMMENDA`T'ION AND MOTION WHEREAS, the Interim Zoning Ordinance is due to expire on July 1S, 1980; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held by the What- com County Planning Commission on June 17, 1980; and WHEREAS, a majority of the total Planning Commission members was in attendance and favor extension of the Interim 'Zoning Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASSENTS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR ACTION: ]. RCW 36.70.790 provides for adoption of temporary interim zoning map if the local planning agency is conducting studies and hear- ings for the purpose of enacting final land use controls. 2. The Whatcom County Planning Agency since 1972 has been conducting such studies which have lead to the mapping of several precise zones in various areas of the County. 3. The adoption of an emergency measure such as interim zoning is necessary to protect the public safety, health and general wel- fare while land use studies and plans are formulated. Temporary land use controls enable the local government to proceed care-Fully in adopting "permanent" zoning without being forced to impose mora- toriums stop�)ing all development. 4. Extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance will preserve order, maintain the purposes of the ordinance, and continue to further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan until such time final zoning is adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the County Council that the Whatcom County Interim Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit A) be extended for 24 months until July 1S, 1982 or until final zoning is adopted. page two 2. The Chairman and Secretary of the Commission are hereby directed to place their signatures on this document. Done and passed by a majority of the total membership of the Plan- ning Commission present this 17th day of June, 1980. Approved a to form WRATCOM COi NTY PLANNING COMMISSION this day of Jun ?, 19 8 la irman BY S cretar, LIST OF EXHIBITS: A. Interim Zoning Ordinance I . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Further, the Planning Department requests Council Action in the form of a resolution no later than July 15, 1980, the date of expiration of the current interim zoning ordinance. WHATCOM COU LA 1I ' DEPARTMENT ti c eal Nk chol son, Director DATE: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM POTENTIAL SUBURBAN TO RURAL AND ZONING MAP FROM GENERAL PROTECTION TO RlA, R2A, AND FORESTRY IN THE SOUTH BAY VICINITY OF THE LAKE WHATCOM SUB -AREA. INTRODUCTION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Application and fees were filed with the Whatcom County Planning Department by the South Lake Whatcom Community Association, Inc., (691 property owners), requesting that the Whatcom County Planning Commission consider amending the What - com County Comprehensive Plan Map from Potential Suburban to Rural and changing the existing zoning from General Protection to Rural two acres in the vicinity of the South Bay of the Lake Whatcom Sub -area. On January 15, 1980, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed change. Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the subject area Comprehensive Plan Map designation be amended from Potential Suburban to Rural and Forestry uses. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the area be zoned from General Protection to Forestry, Rural one acre and Rural two acre. (See Planning Commission Findings and Maps which are incorporated by reference herein.) The County Council held an additional public hearing on May 13, 1980 to receive comments for and against the proposed action. For the reasons stated below, the County Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation fully. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1. AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL ACTION 1. W.C.C. 2.24.740 Upon petition of fifty percent (50 %) of the owners of the land, any area or district hereafter regulated under the provisions of this Ordinance, the Commission shall consider any changes affecting such district or area and after holding such public hearing or hearings as the size and character of the district are believed to warrant, shall report its findings to the Board with its recommendations. 2. RCW 36.70.410 - Amendment When changed conditions or further studies by the Planning Agency indicate a need, the Commission may amend, extend, or add to all or parts of the Comprehensive Plan in the manner provided for approval in the first instance. 3. RCW 36.70.440 After the receipt of the report and recommenda- tion of the Planning Agency on the matter referred to in RCW 36.70.430 the Board may approve and certify such plan, change or addition without further reference to the Commission; provided, that the plan, change, or addition conforms either to the proposal as initiated or recommendation thereon by the Commission. 4. RCW 36.70.570 - Adoption Official controls shall be adopted by Ordinance and shall further the purpose and objectives of a Comprehensive Plan and parts thereof. 5. RCW 36.70.620 - Action by a Board Upon receipt of any recommended official control or amendment thereto, the Board shall, at its next public meeting, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 2. set a date for a public meeting or it may by Ordinance adopt or reject the official control or amendment. 6. Home Rule Charter Section 2.20(4) The County Council shall exercise its legis- lative power by adoption and enactment of Ordinances or Resolu- tions. It shall have the power to: (d) Adopt by Ordinance Comprehensive Plans, including improvement plans for the present and future develop- ment of the county. 7. Home Rule Charter Section 2.22 - Or anization A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum at all meetings. Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council except where two - thirds (2/3) vote is required, in which case two - thirds (2/3) of the entire Council shall be necessary. DOCUMENTATION OF EXHIBITS The findings are based on the record as entered at the two public hearings held by the Planning Commission and County Council. The exhibits listed are the basis for the decision and are incorporated by reference herein: A. Planning Commission Hearing held on January 15, 1980 Exhibit A - Staff report dated 1 -10 -80 Exhibit B - Applications dated 9 -14 -79 Exhibit C - Petitions Exhibit D - Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Request Maps Exhibit E - Environmental checklist by Applicant FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 3. Exhibit F - Final Declaration of Non - significance Exhibit G - Legal Notice Exhibit H - Recommended Zoning Districts Map (unoffici Exhibit I - Environmental checklist by Planning Department Exhibit J - Final Declaration of Non - significance on Planning Department recommended zoning districts. Exhibit K - Letter from Harold and Faunt Visser (opponents) Exhibit L - Letter from Rita Swanberg (opponent) Exhibit M - Letter from Mrs. William Stockton (opponent) Exhibit N - South Lake Whatcom Petition File CMT 5 -79 Exhibit O - Letter from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit P - Letter from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit Q - Letter and Petition from Elaine Zobrist (opponent) Exhibit R - Letter from Frank and Ann Swierkowski (opponent) Exhibit S - Letter from H & C Miller, S.W. and S.P. Beebe, B.M. Beebe, K.M. and B.E. Broderick, L. Butler and R. Wolters (opponents) Exhibit T - Letter from A. Darlene Masler (proponent) Exhibit U - Letter from Faye and Vera Dixon and Glenn and Agnes Anderson (opponents) Exhibit V - Letter from Wilbur and Mary Westerman (opponents) Exhibit W - Letter from Leonard and Pamela Andrews (opponents) Exhibit X - Letter from Leonard Andrews (opponent) Exhibit Y - Gunnar Jerns, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit Z - Michael Morrow, oral and written testimony (opponent) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 4. Exhibits A.a through O.o - Testimony from numerous proponents. Exhibit P.p - Mrs. Craig H. Johnson, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit.Q.q - Lee Smallwood, oral and written testimony (opponent) Exhibit R.r - Letter from M. Ramona Villani (proponent) Exhibit S.s - Harry Fulton, testimony Exhibit T.t - Ron Jepson - testimony Exhibit U.0 - Richard Langabeer - testimony Exhibit V.v - Harold and Faunt Visser - oral and written testimony Exhibit W.w - Letter from Lee and Betty Smallwood Exhibit X.x - Letter from Ivy Hedgecoke Exhibit Y.y - Letter from Burrell and Gloria Hardan Exhibit Z.z - Letter from JoAnne Fuller Exhibit A.a.l - Letter from Hilda Spore B. County Council Hearing held May 13, 1980 Exhibit 1 - Letter from South Lake Whatcom Community Association Exhibit 2 - Letter from Lee and Betty Smallwood re- questing public hearing on rezone. Exhibit 3 - Letter from Frank Culp Exhibit 4 - Mimeographed petition from Robert LaGrandeur Exhibit 5 - Mimeographed petition from Richard Burrous Exhibit 6 - Letter from Nina Stockton Exhibit 7 - Notice of Hearing for 5/13 Committee of the whole meeting on this proposal Exhibit 8 - Letter from A. W. White Exhibit 9 - Letter from Lloyd Wheeler Exhibit 10 - Letter from Katherine Fort Exhibit 11 - Letter from R. W. Lymon, D. L. Lymon, M. Daulby and W. Daulby FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 5. Exhibit 12 - Letter from Oliver Chapple Exhibit 13 - Letter from Larry and Cathy Boff Exhibit 14 - Letter from D. H. Smashing, Elmer Brown, Jack Drafs, J. Dale Greene, Jim Reid and M. 0. Larson Exhibit 15 - Written testimony from South Lake Whatcom Independent Property Owners Exhibit 16 - Letter from Craig Johnson Exhibit 17 - Letter from Noble Erickson Exhibit 18 - Letter from A. P. Mustacich Exhibit 19 - Testimony from M. 0. Larson Exhibit 20 - Note from Ray Drabik Exhibit 21 - Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Copeland Exhibit 22 - Letter from Burlalla Investments Exhibit 23 - Map of area entered by Lee Smallwood Exhibit 24 - Charts entered by Don Sparling Exhibit 25 - Letter from Rachel Davis Exhibit 26 - Letter from Ruth Ward Exhibit 27 - Testimony read by Faye Dixon Exhibit 28 - Letter from Maurice Eveleth Exhibit 29 - Letter from Nancy Hildebrand Exhibit 30 - Map of area submitted by Harry Fulton Exhibit 31 - Letter and testimony read by Harry Fulton Exhibit 32 - Mimeographed petition from Jay Hedgecoke Exhibit 33 - Mimeographed petition from Agnes A. Anderson Exhibit 34 - Letter from Anhild and Clayton Faller Exhibit 35 - Letter from Mary and Clifford Grinnel Exhibit 36 - Letter from Mrs. Leo Rindspach Exhibit 37 - Letter from Veva Panter Exhibit 38 - Letter from Lanor Hicks Exhibit 39 - Letter from Erick and Marlene Carlson Exhibit 40 - Letter from Walter Miller Exhibit 41 - Mimeographed petition from Oscar and Pearl Swedal Exhibit 42 - Mimeographed petition from E. A. Carlson FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 6. Exhibit 43 - Mimeographed petition from Patrick Toselli Exhibit 44 - Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Regan Exhibit 45 - Unsigned exhibit Exhibit 46 - Mimeographed petitions submitted by South Lake Whatcom Property Owners' Association Exhibit 47 - Letter from E. Neuzil Exhibit 48 - Letter from Edwin Rosenberg Exhibit 49 - Letter from L. Wynn Carr Exhibit 50 - Letter from Paul Robusa Exhibit 51 - Letter from South. Lake Whatcom Property Owners' Association Exhibit 52 - Mimeographed petition Exhibit 53 - Legal notice of public hearing Exhibit 54 - Findings and Conclusions of Planning Commission Recommendations GENERAL FINDINGS The following are findings relating to principal features of the application and are not necessarily an exhaus- tive and conclusive listing of all factors and policies con- sidered by the Council members. Nonetheless, the following analysis provides a reasonable basis for explaining the decision: 1. The subject property consists of 1491.67 acres and is located along land along Cain Lake Road, South Bay Drive and Iowa Heights in the vicinity of the south end of Lake Whatcom located in Sections 20 -23, 26 -29, and 32, T37N, R4E. 2. The area is sparsely populated with one dwelling unit per 6.2 acres. The predominant land uses are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 7. forestry (580), followed by public recreation (6 %), private recreation (6 %), agricultural (4 %), and vacant land (2 %). The Planning Department findings indicate that 22% of the land is platted; however, only 14% is occupied by residential units. 3. All evidence indicates that the subject property is rural in nature. 4. Sewage disposal and treatment are achieved through the use of individual septic tanks. The Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan for Water District No. 10, and Water District No. 12 does not designate the South Bay area for sewer service in the near future. 5. Water service is obtained by a number of means. Citizens of the South Bay -Cain Lake Facility obtain potable water by pumping surface or ground water. Residents of the Glen Haven Lakes Development are served by private water association. A portion of the subject area lies within the boundaries of Whatcom County Water District No. 10. The Water District's Comprehensive Plan for the South Bay vicinity indicates that a public water system may be constructed sometime between 1984 and 1998. The Water District's plans indicate that two wells may be constructed, which would serve as the water source to serve the District's estimated population of 1,070 for the South Bay Vicinity. However, this plan is at least four years away. 6. Fire protection is adequate for the subject area. The property is situated within the boundaries of Fire District No. 18. However, police protection is minimal. Due to the rural nature of the area, the Whatcom County Sheriff's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 8. Department seldom patrols. 7. The secondary arterials of the South Lake Whatcom Boulevard, Cain Lake Road, and South Bay Drive cur- rently provide adequate service to the area. With maximum build out of the potential suburban (5,500 dwelling units), the Planning Department estimates that all the roads would be over their respective design capacities in terms of volume. 8. There are four soil types and associations predominant in the subject area: 1. Barneston silt loam association; 2. Rough mountainous land; 3. Skagit silty clay loam; 4. Squalicum silt loam association. The Soil Conservation Service Information indicates that Barneston silt loam association located south of South Bay and east of Cain Lake Road is moderately suitable for dwelling and road development while posing severe limitations for septic tanks. The Soil Conservation Service Information indicates that the remaining soil types occupy the remainder of the subject area and impose severe limitations for dwelling, septic tanks and road development. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service Percolation rates for soils of the proposed rezone are correlated with the Health Board's regulations for new single family sub- divisions without public water supply and indicate that a minimum lot size of two (2) acres would be required. This is consistent with the proposed rezone desginations. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 9. 9. The final declaration of non - significance was issued by the Whatcom County Planning Department. The County Council concurs with the DNS issued by the Department. 10. The majority of land at the south end of Lake Whatcom has been classified Potential Suburban since the original Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1970. The General Pro- tection zoning control was implemented as a tool to effectuate the purposes of the Potential Suburban classification. SPECIFIC FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Findings 1. Further studies indicate that the present Comprehensive Plan designation of Potential Suburban is in- adequate for the subject area. The policies of the Potential Suburban classification indicate that the intent of the classi- fication is "to preclude non- residential development other than an occasional neighborhood grocery store and avoid pre- mature requirements for urban services." They further provide "that no public efforts shall be made to promote extensions of urban services until suburban areas are adequately developed and serviced." Thus, the County Council agrees with the Planning Staff and Planning Commission in that the underlying purpose of the Potential Suburban classification is to "hold or reserve obvious future neighborhood land areas until a full range of urban level services can be provided." The georgraphic areas where Potential Suburban classification should be applied is on the fringes of urban areas such as Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Blaine and Nooksack. The Potential Suburban designation is wholly inadequate in reference to the South Bay Lake Whatcom sub -area which is located in a rural setting far removed from the urban or fringe areas. Amending the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 10. designation from Potential_Suburban to Rural will avoid the premature requirements for urban services and will ensure a logical and sequential extension of urban services first to the fringe areas and thento other areas. The Potential Suburban classification should not exist in areas that are remotely situated from urban and /or suburban areas such as the South Lake Whatcom sub -area. Thus, amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for the subject area will result in savings to the County by prematurely avoiding the expense of providing urban services to remote rural areas. In addition, the forestry practices that occur in the area in question are not compatible uses within the present Potential Suburban classification. The continuation of these uses is best served in the Rural designation. Thus, the County Council finds that the Potential Suburban classification for the subject property is entirely inadequate and that amending the Comprehensive Plan Designa- tion to Rural will be in the public interest. B. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The Comprehensive Plan designation from potential Suburban to Rural will further the following goals and underlying policies of the Comprehensive Plan which were adopted by the Whatcom County Council in July of 1979. 1. Regional Design Goals Future urban development should occur within or immediately adjacent to existing urban areas in order to eliminate sprawl and strip development, assure the provision of adequate range of urban services, conserve agricultural and forestry lands, optimize investments and public services and conserve energy resources. Future development in rural areas should be low density, compliment existing rural character, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 11. 4 contribute to the conservation of agricultural and forest land and not resolve demands for urban level services. 2. To encourage a predictable pattern of urban and rural development which utilize previously committed land areas and existing facility investments before committing new areas for development. 3. Land -use Goals: Urban residential development should be planned in areas that can be economically and ef- ficiently served with existing or planned services, optimize energy use, function as integral neighborhood units, and can environmentally support intensive land uses. 4. Cultural and natural resources: To identify and manage environmentally sensitive areas in such a manner as to prevent destruction of the resource base and reduce potential losses to property and human life. 5. All of the above Comprehensive Plan goal state- ments would be furthered by amending the Comprehensive Plan classification from Potential Suburban to Rural in the South Lake Whatcom sub -area. Thus, the Councy Council finds that these goals are in conflict with the present Comprehensive plan designation in light of the existing land use and location of the sub-area. LAND -USE FINDINGS 1. The County Council adopts the staff's findings and reports as to the existing use, zoning and optimal land - use designations of the subject and property in question. Proposed reclassification of the subject area from Potential Suburban to Rural and zoning amendment from General Protection to R2A, RlA and forestry is compatible with the uses which exist in the subject property. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCLUSION Based upon the above factors and balancing any conflicting goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and existing land uses thereof, the proposed reclassification of the subject property from Potential Suburban to Rural is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The County Council therefore adopts and amends the Comprehensive Plan map from Potential Suburban to Rural as indicated on Exhibit C attached and incorporated by reference. The recommendation of our Planning Commission is fully adopted. OFFICIAL CONTROL FINDINGS 1. The subject property is zoned General Protection District in order to implement the existing Potential Suburban plan designation. The purpose of the general protection zone is "to establish a multiple -use zone in which expansion of business, industry and concentrated residential development are only restricted to the minimum extent necessary." The minimal restriction of this particular zone is that those uses that are not permitted are conditionally permitted. Thus, the General Protection zoning designation is an inadequate tool to implement the Rural classification. 2. It is clear that the General Protection zone authorizes a broad spectrum of development, not all of which is compatible with the Rural classification. In addition, the General Protection classification was an inadequate tool to further the policies of the Potential Suburban classification of the Comprehensive Plan. Residential densities greater than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres should be discouraged in potential suburban areas unless sufficient services and utilities are provided to avoid future public costs. However, with the utilization of the General Protection zone and the establishment of sufficient services, densities may range in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 13. the subject property from five (5) dwelling units per one (1) acre to 20 dwelling units per one (1) acre for multiple family and seven (7) dwelling units per one (1) acre for mobile home developments. Thus, the general protection zone is an inadequate tool in implementing the Potential Suburban classification as well as the Rural classification. 3. The continued existence of the General Protection zoning classification in the Comprehensive Rural classifica- tion would lead to severely impacting the existing service levels of fire, police, transportation and roadways. In addition, the General Protection zone is unlimited in the nature of allowing broad spectrum uses and would be question- able as a means of protection and promoting the rural character and general welfare. 4. Section 510.015 of the Zoning Ordinance states "that the General Protection zone was intended as an interim zone until such time that acceptable single -use classifications are available." Therefore, the General Protection classifi- cation was an overlay intended to be interim and was perceived by the legislators of this county to be replaced when further studies and reasonable decision making would be accomplished. Further studies and changed conditions indicate that now is the appropriate time to rezone the area. 5. Further studies disclosed a number of important factors to be considered now, which were not available in 1970 when the original general protection overlay was adopted. Based upon existing land -use patterns, environ- mental features, existing lot size and ownership patterns, the subject area would be best served by new zoning classifications FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 14. that implement the Rural Comprehensive Plan designation. A substantial portion of the property in question presents an average lot size of more than five (5) acres. In addition, the existence of the poor drain soils and corrective sewer measures indicate that minimum lot sizes shall be not less than one (1) acre for those particular soil types with extremely high or low percolation rates. Thus, the existence of these soil types are persuasive indicators that the area would be conducive to a Rural setting with lot sizes of one to two acres. County Health Board Regulations Section 8.A further indicate that minimum lot sizes shall not be less one (1) to two (2) acres for those particular soil types with extremely high or low percolator ration rates which exist in the subject property. Furthermore, the existence of major timber holdings in the southern portion of the area and indications by the timber companies of continued force management further indicate that portions of the property should remain Forestry classification. 6. Furthermore, Skagit County is the southern border of the rezone area. Present zoning designations for the border in Skagit County are Rural five acre bordering Cain Lake, to Forestry towards the mountainous areas. The present rezone from the interim zone General Protection to Rural one acre, Rural two acre, and Forestry would be more compatible with the zoning classification of the southern border. Whatcom.County must serve the welfare of the entire effective community when it considers rezoning property. This community would include Skagit County as well as Whatcom County. Thus, approval of the rezone request would further coordinate regional planning which is beneficial to all citizens and a great assistance in avoiding the problems which exist as a result of poor planning. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 15. 7. The staff report also cites specific land use criteria for the utilization of the R2A zone. However, these same criteria are applicable to the RlA zone which was recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Council. They are: (a) Areas that are underlain by the Barneston and Squalicum silt loam associations that require a minimum of one - two acre lot sizes according to the Health Board Regulations; and (b) Areas that contain a concentration of platted lots which average two acres or less in size. Additional zoning criteria which has assisted the Council in determining the appropriate zones for the re- mainder of the property are: 1. Average parcel /lot size; 2. Ownership patterns with respect to timber management; 3. Consistency with existing land -use patterns; 4. Necessity of providing a blend of density and /or transitional zone betewen more dense developments and timber harvest activities; 5. The existing and planned level of community services; and 6. A continued reasonable use of land by the property owners. 8. Since the interim zoning classification of General Protection was adopted for the subject area, the Planning Department has had an opportunity to analyze and study the particular area fully. The staff report of the Planning Department contains some essential factors which the County Council believes are important in its ruling that the Interim General Protection classification should be amended now and replaced with permanent zoning classifications of RlA, R2A FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 16. Y and Forestry classifications. Because of the importance of these factors, the County Council chooses to reiterate them: (a) The existing provision of the General Protection zone is inadequate to implement the Rural land -use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. (b) Lands west of Cain Lake Road and north of South Bay Drive are con- sistent with suggested criteria for R1A zoning. (c) Lands east of Cain Lake Road and south of South Bay Drive contain poor drain soils and lot sizes that average 4.2 acres for platted parcels and 18.5 unplatted parcels. (d) No public sewers are planned for the area. (e) Major capital investments would be necessary to provide fire, police and transportation facilities for po- tential suburban densities. (f) A large number of existing vacant lots - 1,200 - have already been committed for development. (g) The major timber companies have expressed a desire to continue timber management practices which would be more compatible with Rural one acre and two acre zoning densities than with Potential Suburban densities of five (5), seven (7), and twenty (20) unit /one -acre densities. OFFICIAL CONTROLS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Thus, the Whatcom County Council adopts the Plan- ning Commission recommendation fully. The Whatcom County Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 17. Map shall be amended from General Protection Zoning to: (a) RlA District: Only those areas situated west of Cain Lake Road and north of South Bay Drive as shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. (b) R2A District: In those areas east of Lake Cain Road and generally south of South Bay Drive as shown on Exhibit "D ". (c) Forestry District: As shown on Exhibit "D ". 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone request is for the following area: A portion of land located in the south half of the Southeast Quarter of 20, the south half of Section 21, a portion of land in the Southwest Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 22, a portion of land in the Southwest Quarter of 23, a portion of land in,the Northwest Quarter of 26, and certain land in Section 27, 28, 29 and 32, Township 37 North, Range 4 East. 3. This rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, and /or welfare of the citizens of Whatcom County. DATED this $� day of June, 1980. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNIL WHAT C COU TY, W',SHINGTON (k. - JL , SHIRLEY VAW ZAN EN APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: Joan Ogden Auditor & Ex- officio C e of th Council J 1 � By PHILIP A. SER Deputy Deputy Prosecuting Attorney FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 18. Y , WlAl SIT c ,crC,f;,r-� ! !/ IOUR I, North 0 on Louiltv 16 C PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS A K r ..... ...... i A A A i 4 z. 1 A, ✓► A i .... .... .. ov, .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . A ............ ......... .......... ........ ai i y3 A A .......... . LL ..... 40' ow, spa 4 Sao A At ohm A Al V14 1 SIT ;m -6 . 6 i