Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 20 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee May 20, 2008 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None Carl Weimer Also Present: Sam Crawford Bob Kelly OTHER BUSINESS Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he has been a long -time advocate of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan and its goals. He commended the Boundary Review Board of Whatcom County regarding the Chuckanut Mountain Parks District. He does not agree with its decision, but the Board did its job and gave him a fair hearing. Unfortunately, others in the watershed, such as the Sudden Valley Community Association, have not. There needs to be changes. He will support a moratorium as the Clean Water Alliance proposed in 2000, until there is funding for the total maximum daily load (TNIDL) study proposal. He's very sorry to have made that decision. He recommends supporting the Clean Water Alliance until there is funding for the plan and a schedule is in place. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS, MASTER FILE NUMBER OS2008 -2 (AB2008 -197) Erin Osborn, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report on this item and the next agenda item. There is a significant concern about one of the applications in this group of applications. The next item, AB2008 -198, was not contentious. Fleetwood asked for a brief summary of the contentious item. Osborn described the property location and application from Bander /Mirand. The applicant applied for a single - family residence building permit. The property has wetlands, so the applicant was required to do mitigation of the remaining wetlands. The site contains category two wetlands. Whatcom County was granted a conservation easement for the protection of those wetlands in perpetuity. The property owners applied for current use open space e. Staff processed the application, gave it an approving score, and took the application to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had issues with the application. First, there was confusion about the purpose of the classification, and whether it was to promote conservation. There was also confusion about whether those wetlands should be granted a tax reduction, since the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) already protected the wetlands. Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 1 She did quite a bit of research to understand the statute and how it applies. She talked to Department of Revenue (DOR) staff and other counties. The Open Space Taxation Act in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 84.34 does not distinguish cause and the preservation of wetlands. She and DOR staff interpret that to mean that lands can qualify for the assessment even if they are otherwise protected. The Planning Commission asked her to write findings that reflected their discussion. She did, but she stood by her original score using the public benefit rating system. At the same time, she came up with an alternative score that addressed the Planning Commission concern about there being less of a public benefit because the lands are already protected. The Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval for the alternative score. Caskey- Schreiber stated she worries about the precedent this could set. The County will receive a ton of CAO- required mitigation measures. Don't open the floodgate that would allow every single person who does mitigation to qualify for open space. She always wonders whether any properties less than ten acres should qualify for open space. It could be never - ending. Question what the program is really about. Open space on a one- or three -acre parcel is not significant. Osborn stated easily - developable land in Whatcom County has already been developed. Now, people are going to start developing other lands, including wetlands. Given the fact that property taxes are increasing, they could be seeing a lot more of these applications. She asked the DOR questions about how this program should be administered per the statute and rules. Nothing in the statute says that land protected otherwise doesn't qualify for the current use program. According to the statute, protected lands qualify for the assessment. However, the Planning Commission and Council have the authority to consider the tax shift and loss of revenue. The adopted public benefit rating system and those open space priorities are the assessment tools they must use to evaluate the property. Weimer stated the argument seems to be more about the public benefit rating system, and not so much the property. The property passes the rating system. The Planning Commission really wanted to consider tightening the rating system, such as Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber said. A question is whether the County should give benefits for doing what the law requires as critical areas requirements are tightened. Osborn stated she recommends that they review the public benefit rating system. The system has not been substantially modified since 1989. That process is time - consuming and labor intensive. Crawford stated he understands Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's concern. This is a five -acre parcel dependent upon its value as parcel with a single home on it. If they take every five -acre parcel with a home on it, and provide a tax break for the majority of the parcel not used for the home, the question is what the Assessor used to evaluate the parcel's original value to begin with. It was all one piece. This would start to chop up taxing portions of individual parcels, saying one part is useable and another part has a conservation easement. He's not sure he agrees with the Planning Commission's public benefit objections. However, the question is whether the person should be taxed less on the value the Assessor looked at for the five -acre parcel. The Assessor didn't divide the parcel up into smaller pieces. The Assessor looked at the parcel and identified the value of the one piece. It's a tough decision. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County has 65,000 acres in the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone, which is about 15,000 lots. About 90 percent of them could qualify for Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 2 the same exemption. If the Council is allowed to consider the effect to the tax base, that would be her rationale for not including this in the current use program. Crawford stated he thought open space taxation had to do with larger areas of open space that would never be used in a way that required the owner to pay equally with everyone else, while the County could justify a benefit to the community to granting the property owner a relief from the taxes. Osborn stated the Open Space Taxation Act was enacted to preserve land and open space resources, including farmland and agricultural land,.timber, and wetlands, streams, shorelines, habitat, and recreational opportunities that have a public benefit. Crawford asked if it is an incentive to not develop. Osborn stated it is. That is the exact idea of the statute. Now they have other environmental regulations that protect these areas. Crawford stated that in this case, they have a parcel that is clearly developed to its maximum extent, unless there is a major upzone in the future. They've been required to set aside three -fifths of the parcel as a conservation areas. They want an open space tax exemption using a code that was intended to prevent development. Osborn stated she talked to the DOR about that. According to the DOR, the statute doesn't say that protected lands don't qualify. They do qualify. That's why it comes to the Council to consider open space resources and priorities, and also consider the loss of revenue. Do that by addressing the public benefit rating system as a whole. Caskey- Schreiber stated they do need to revisit and update the rating system and criteria. For this particular application, it's okay to deny the application. This is a misuse of the program and it's intended use. Weimer asked the minimum parcel size that can apply. Osborn stated there is no minimum. The public benefit rating system addresses parcel size for farm and agriculture. Fleetwood stated he's inclined to vote for the application. They are basing it on the current process. He agrees they should look at modifying the rating system. He asked if that same reasoning would apply to the Aspnes application, which is six acres. Osborn stated it would. Caskey - Schrelber stated that application allows public access. It is also larger than five acres, which should be the minimum lot size to apply. Her rationale is based on R5A lots under five acres going into this program. She's fine with anything larger than five acres. Weimer moved to recommend approval of all applications in this item except Bander /Mirand. Motion carried unanimously. Weimer moved to recommend approval of the Bander /Mirand application. He will go along with the Planning Commission recommendation because this is the system the County has used, but revisit the rating system to come up with a minimum acreage. Fleetwood stated he agreed. Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed. Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 3 1 2 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT 3 USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS, MASTER FILE NUMBER OS2008 -3 4 (AB2008 -198) 5 6 See the above item for the staff report. 7 8 Erin Osborn, Planning and Development Services Department, continued her staff 9 report. The Christianson property is currently classified as current use farm and agriculture. 10 The owner doesn't feel she can meet the revenue requirements of that classification, and 11 would like to reclassify the property as current use open space, sub - classification farm and 12 agriculture conservation. The owner intends to raise bees for honey and other associated 13 products. The owner would like to open the property to the public for education on the 14 importance of bees. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the application, but not 15 unanimously. 16 17 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's taking land out of production. Osborn stated the 18 applicant is, technically. The lands are used for pasture and hay. The owner hopes to put 19 the land into preservation status because she doesn't feel she can continue to meet the 20 $1,500 gross income requirement. 21 22 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they enforce that income requirement. Osborn stated the 23 State is requiring an audit of these. 24 25 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against taking this out of that status. They are 26 always trying to recoup viable, productive farmland. If someone doesn't want that type of 27 land, they should buy something else. Osborn stated the idea of the farm and agriculture 28 conservation classification is to conserve the land for the use of farming. 29 30 Caskey- Schreiber asked if nothing changes in terms of the owner's right to develop 31 any part of the property. Osborn stated that if the owner developed the property 32 inconsistent with agriculture and agriculture conservation, she would have to be removed 33 from the classification. 34 35 Crawford stated the Planning and Development Committee should get a joint 36 presentation from the Assessor and Planning Department staff on all the different 37 classifications and financial implications to the County. They should all have a refresher and 38 learn about updates and changes to the program. 39 40 He asked if the tax benefit is not much different between the two classifications for 41 this applicant. It sounds like the owner can't meet the revenue requirement and therefore 42 wants to get legal with a bee operation. Osborn stated that's correct. 43 44 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the amount of taxes the County would collect on the 45 property would change much with the new classification. Osborn stated the lowest rating is 46 the farm and agriculture classification. The owner may pay a little more. A rating of 100 47 percent would be similar to the farm and agriculture valuation on the property. 48 49 Caskey- Schreiber asked if her purchase of this property is contingent upon this 50 change. Osborn stated she doesn't know. The applicant is a contract purchaser. 51 52 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 53 Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 4 1 Crawford stated he is in favor of the recommendation. The applicant is trying to do 2 the right thing. She will end up paying more. 3 4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is okay with that. She asked about the two Baumgart 5 applications. They are currently classified as forestland. She asked to what they are being 6 reclassified. Osborn stated they are requesting a transfer to current use timberland, which 7 is a five -acre minimum. Designated forestland has a 20 -acre minimum, so they did a 8 division. If in separate names, it no longer qualifies as designated forest. 9 10 Caskey- Schreiber asked what changes. Osborn stated not much changes. The 11 designated forest and timberland classifications are similar. The value of the land is based 12 only on the land. The value is associated with the ability to grow trees for merchantable 13 timber. When the timber is sold, the State and County will recoup the value based on 14 excise tax, or stumpage fees, of that land. The intent is to encourage preservation of these 15 types of lands for the purpose of growing fiber. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 19 Weimer stated he is in favor of Councilmember Crawford's suggestion to get a 20 presentation on the current use program at some point. 21 22 The committee concurred. 23 24 3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PARKS, 25 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (AB2008 -213) 26 27 Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, gave a staff report and 28 discussed the work done on the plan so far. It's important to move forward with the plan so 29 they can apply for grant funds. The plan must be approved to submit grant applications. 30 Also, this goes hand -in -hand with impact fees and modifications to the County 31 Comprehensive Plan. 32 33 The Recreation and Conservation Office requires this plan to receive grants. The 34 plan provides a framework to put together a capital improvements plan. It's an inventory of 35 community private and public resources. It provides justification for recreational and open 36 space levels of service. It provides funding strategies. It gives a list of areas the 37 community would like to see preserved and protected for future recreation and open space. 38 The plan isn't intended to be a detailed planning document. The County will use the plan for 39 capital improvements planning, for impact fees, calculations, the Comprehensive Plan, and 40 to support future planning efforts. This plan also supports local, community planning 41 efforts. This plan has a shelf life of six years. Once adopted, they can begin working on 42 amending the next one. The last plan the county adopted was in 1989, so the County is out 43 of compliance with State requirements. 44 45 Caskey- Schreiber stated an email from Bellingham City Council Member Stan Snapp 46 refers to adding cabins to the Hegg property. McFarland stated that's not the Hegg 47 property. This plan captures everything discussed and proposed in other plans, in the event 48 those projects become available for grant funding. There is a qualifier for all the lake 49 Whatcom properties that indicates all development must be sensitive to the watershed and 50 various rules and regulations for watershed management. All the projects come before the 51 Council for approval. There isn't a park plan for that site. They listed all possible 52 improvements discussed over the years for that property. 53 Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 5 Weimer asked the damage of removing the third paragraph of the Lake Whatcom South park plan at the end of the draft plan. If it is in the plan, it could have a life of its own at some point. McFarland stated the City participated in the planning process. It's fine to remove that paragraph. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Weimer moved to remove language on the Whatcom County Park Plan for the Lake Whatcom Park -South (Hegg Park and Zobrist and Richards properties), " n and other family and greup retreat exhibits, McFarland stated one reason for the language was because of past discussions on the acquisition of Wildwood Campground. That included recreational vehicle (RV) camping. The County would have turned that into a public campground. Having meeting rooms and cabins was considered as an option for other camping at that location. Those are not eligible expenses under grant funding development, so they can take that language out. When going through the planning process for these properties, they can reinsert the language if someone feels strongly about including it. Crawford stated that area is not served by sewer. The facilities required to create a community drainfield system would be extensive. It's a wet area. It would make sense to remove that language at this time. If there is an idea on how to develop a future park for overnight stays, someone would need to address how to deal with onsite septic issues. This area will probably not ever receive sewer service, which would be a significant issue. The property is directly adjacent to the Middle Fork diversion water that comes into Lake Whatcom. Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber asked about community frustration with how the current Sunset Equestrian Farm is run. The owners are unfriendly and non - accommodating to the general public. McFarland stated he hasn't heard about any issues. It's operating on contract. They can change that. The general public does use the facility. Private events also occur out there. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard that people are being turned away. Weimer stated have a pubic hearing on this plan. McFarland stated they are down to the wire for qualifying for $1 million for Lily Point acquisition, as a result of not being compliant. The delay on this product occurred because of Planning and Development Department review and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination. This can be amended at any time. Mary Dickinson, Lummi Island resident, stated her family has owned property on Lummi Island since 1880. Her family -owned property was taken out of the County Comprehensive Parks Plan two years ago. Once property is included in a planning document, it becomes published in travel guidebooks and real estate agents think the land is available for sale. Her family has dealt with this intrusion for a very long time. She wasn't aware that their property could be again included in planning documents. Now, every parcel her family -owned corporation owns is listed in the parks plan, including Lummi Mountain and Inati Bay. There is a now a Lummi Island trail developing along all their Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 6 property on Village Point and Legoe Bay. Last summer, they had to deal with people trespassing on their property making beach fires. She asked that all her family's property be removed from the plan because of the resulting nuisance. They don't plan to sell their property or development rights, which they've held for over 100 years. Dorrie Lundberg, Lummi Island resident, stated her family has been harassed by islanders and others who think her property should be for the public. People trespass onto her bluff and leave trash. People have harassed her, even though her property is posted as private land. Remove her property from the parks plan. She does not plan to donate or sell her property. Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island Land Company President, stated the Council took their properties off the acquisition list in the past. Now it's back on. No one bothered to talk to the owners. They have a lot of trespassers and problems similar to Ms. Lundberg. People trespass on their land and beaches as soon as these places are on a list. A number of people on the island think that they don't deserve to own the property because they've never developed it. Remove the following: • Chapter three, plan page 107, item 17, the Lummi Island Trail • Chapter three, plan page 80, item 12, Village Point -Lummi Island • Chapter three, plan page 29, item 18, Lummi Mountain -Lummi Island Natural Resource Conservation Area (NRCA) • Chapter three, plan page 73, item 29, Bellingham Yacht Club • Chapter three, plan page 74, item 35, Lover's Bluff • Chapter three, plan page 62, item 47, Reil Harbor Beach • Chapter three, plan page 62, item 48, Lummi Island Beach 220 • Chapter three, plan page 65, item 67, Lover's Bluff • Chapter three, plan page 64, item 66, Bellingham Yacht Club The Village Point location is a horrible place for a boat ramp. It gets three of the four prevailing winds. At full rush tides, the tide runs at five knots. They couldn't keep the ramp in. The area on Lummi Mountain has somehow been listed in nationally - published guidebooks. They've had equipment vandalized and stolen. The Bellingham Yacht Club does not own the property at Inati Bay. The Council took this off the acquisition list previously. He owns it and leases it to the Yacht Club. He owns the tidelands and bedlands. His ownership goes back to pre- Statehood land patents. They've.done extensive research on this. The State owns Reil Harbor Beach and Lummi Island Beach 220, but he owns the property in- between. McFarland stated this is a list of inventory areas, not potential acquisition areas. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is ultimately in the Dickinson's benefit to have these places listed so they are more valuable. David Dickinson, Lummi Island Land Company, stated he receives calls from people all over the world who want to buy these lands. He is the property manager for this company. There are unintended consequences of a list like this, such as recreational trespassers and real estate agents who bring potential buyers onto the property without permission. He was glad when the Council voted to remove their properties from the list a few years ago. Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 7 I Caskey - Schreiber stated she applauds the Dickinson family for valuing and hanging 2 on to the land. She asked why the County listed these private properties, and if it is 3 common practice for the County to include acquisitions it wants. 4 5 Jim Dickinson stated he can't speak for what his future generations will do. At this 6 time, they want peace. The minute this is published, his family will be inundated. It has 7 happened before. People have been belligerent. They would like to be left alone. 8 9 David Dickinson stated they are good stewards of the land, as is Dorrie Lundberg. 10 Please remove these properties from the plan. 11 12 Loralee Dickinson, Lummi Island resident, stated the future generations of this family 13 have an interest in this property. They are very involved. This list may just be an 14 inventory. She asked why private property not for sale comes up on an inventory list of this 15 type when the property owners have not been contacted about it. It becomes impossible 16 for the family to enjoy the property they own privately. They are harassed by people. Once 17 a list like this comes out, people assume that the items on the list will be acquired at one 18 time or another. People in the community take the next step and trespass and harass her 19 family. Remove these properties from the parks plan. She would like to know how they 20 were listed without being informed. Her family should be advised before a list like this 21 comes out. 22 23 Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands the need to have vision and know where 24 they want to grow recreation areas. She also understands the Dickinson and Lundgren 25 perspective. She asked to add bold language that indicates the property is private and not 26 for sale. McFarland stated there are a number of owners in those general areas. In many 27 instances, properties are areas that have multiple owners. Some owners have contacted 28 the County to potentially sell land for park or public access purposes. 29 30 This is a public visioning process. It was incumbent upon the consultant, steering 31 committee, and staff to include what the community asked for. Some of the areas identified 32 are on -road routes or combinations with off -road routes. There is a safety concern with 33 narrow roads and traffic. Groups identified that they would like bike routes from one point 34 to another. That doesn't mean the County is going to purchase property in those areas. 35 The Trust has off -road trails if they want to open for biking. As those roadways undergo 36 public works changes, they become designated trail systems. 37 38 This isn't detailed to level of identifying specific parcels for acquisition. However, he 39 can understand the concern of people living in that area. Previously, the residents were 40 concerned about the County Comprehensive Plan maps, not park maps. Those maps were 41 much more detailed and a bigger scale. He can remove any reference to acquisition. Some 42 of the descriptions cover an area, not a specific parcel. That's the difficulty. The Council 43 can remove any of those references. It's not a huge issue. 44 45 Fleetwood asked the difference between the inventory and the acquisition list. 46 McFarland stated the inventory is a list of what's out there right now. The private sector 47 gets credit for providing a service. 48 49 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a way to include strong language to make it clear 50 that these are not public access lands. McFarland stated they could do that. 51 52 Crawford stated that item 30 on page 124 of the draft plan doesn't exist. McFarland 53 stated that information came from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 8 1 2 Crawford stated that trail wouldn't have existed for at least 40 years, before the 3 Toad Lake plat. He questions the accuracy of the information from the DNR. 4 5 Caskey- Schreiber stated they must resolve the issue about private property. 6 7 Fleetwood stated all the acquisitions in the plan would be of private property. He 8 asked how they remove everything. 9 10 Caskey- Schreiber stated don't remove the references, but add language indicating 11 that public access is not allowed. 12 13 Fleetwood asked if the nine or ten items the Dickinson's listed were all acquisition or 14 partly inventory. McFarland stated he would have to look at each one. One is a road -based 15 trail around the island. 16 17 McFarland stated allow the plan to go forward with approval, and he will come back 18 with an amendment to the plan to address the Dickinson's concerns. The final printed plan 19 will include the amendments. 20 21 The Committee concurred. 22 23 Lundberg stated the public get mad at her when she doesn't let them come on her 24 beach because it's private. 25 26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 27 28 Fleetwood stated Ms. Lundberg can work something out with Mr. McFarland. 29 30 Weimer asked if the final printing of the online addition can black out the private 31 lands. 32 33 Crawford stated it is a public document. 34 35 McFarland stated he doesn't recommend that they black out language. People 36 considering buying property in an area want to know approximately where those areas are 37 and the levels of service for those areas. 38 39 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council, and that Mr. 40 McFarland work with the concerned citizens to address their issues. 41 42 Motion carried 2 -1 with Weimer opposed. 43 44 Weimer stated he voted against the motion because this is too big of an issue to deal 45 with at the last minute. There is not chance to review it. 46 47 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Weimer left the meeting.) 48 49 4. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAT 50 COUNCIL AUTHORIZE CONSULTANT RESOURCES FOR A STUDY ON CLUSTER 51 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE RURAL FOREST ZONE (AB2008 -211) 52 Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 9 1 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this is to look at 2 alternatives to cluster prohibitions in the rural forestry zone. The Planning Commission had 3 a discussion and moved to recommend that the County consider alternatives to clustering. 4 The motion passed unanimously. They felt that not having 20 -acre parcels across the rural 5 forestry area would have unforeseen consequences that are detrimental to forestry 6 resources. The Planning Commission hasn't reached any conclusions, but they want to 7 study the issue. They hope to use consultant resources to study those alternatives. If the 8 Council approves, the staff can amend its RFP to include a review of the alternatives. If not, 9 the Council can send it directly back to the Planning Commission. 10 11 Caskey- Schreiber stated they should also address clustering on agricultural lands. 12 Stalheim stated he plans to look for one consultant for both subjects. 13 14 Caskey- Schreiber moved to authorize consultant resources for a study on cluster 15 development standards in the rural forest zone. 16 17 Motion carried 2 -0 with Weimer absent. 18 19 20 ADJOURN 21 22 Tp�e_meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 23 24 25 26 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 27 28 Y C 29 ATT QG 30 W KA tC •r�fi .' 31 .� �. o� WAft 3 do 2 .. . '� . 33 34 _. 35 Dina s I @ vi� Vinci��lerk 36 �',,, '.!SUNG •.• ��. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Fle9twood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 10