Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 31 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee January 31, 2006 Committee Member Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Dan McShane None Carl Weimer Also Present: Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2006 -022) Fleetwood moved to nominate Councilmember McShane. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082) McShane stated the Council is simply considering whether or not to docket these items. He explained the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. It's a lengthy process that has taken nine to 14 months. Some amendments are simple, and some take a tremendous amount of work by the community, staff, Planning Commissioners, and County Council members. That all has to be taken into consideration. DOCKET # 2006 -B: CITY OF EVERSON UGA EXPANSION I Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is a request to look at adding a strip of land to allow for access. He indicated the location on an aerial photo. Roland Harper, Sehome Planning and Development Services and City of Everson consultant, stated this is to provide improved access and a second access to the southeastern urban growth area (UGA) for the City of Everson. The current road only has a 40 -foot wide right -of -way, which is not large enough to serve the area with a full street as they move to full urban development and infill. Add a strip of land to add road access and to accommodate residential development on one side as well. The reason for the width is because of the property owner's property line. Olason indicated the location on the map. When a city initiates a comprehensive plan item, normally the County automatically dockets the item. However, there are 31 Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 1 proposed amendments. They have to look at whether there is another way to accomplish it. The County is going to review all the urban growth areas next year. The County could look at this item at that time. Also, the area is in the 100 -year flood plain. McShane stated the main issue is road access in the area. The road is mainly along the UGA. Harper stated the strip added would be appended to the western edge of the existing urban growth boundary. McShane stated it extends a fair bit south of the current city limits. Crawford asked why the City wants access to the west when Highway 9 is to the east. Harper stated the Burlington Northern railroad is there and creates a barrier to crossings. Railroad right -of -way is typically 100 feet wide and it is just to the west of Highway 9. This property is to the west of that railroad right -of -way. McShane stated cars would be waiting at stop signs on Highway 9 and waiting on the railroad tracks. Harper stated that assumes they could even get a crossing from Burlington Northern. It's hard to get a crossing from Burlington Northern Railroad. Olason stated staff would like to go over the full list of docket items before voting on this item. (Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item was continued, below.) 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082) Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, handed out the five year work plan (on file) and 19 stated all the items are either mandated or already have staff and funding commitments. 30 Concurrency, open space, shorelines, regular rezone applications, and other items are 31 coming forward this year. The second handout is a matrix of the comprehensive plan 32 amendments (on file), Included is the estimated staff time and staff comments. This is 33 information to consider as the Council goes through the proposed amendments. Staff can 34 batch together some of the requests that overlap, if the Council is interested in docketing 35 them. They are trying to maximize staff resources and be more efficient because of their 36 workload. 37 38 DOCKET # 2006 -B: CITY OF EVERSON UGA EXPANSION I 39 40 (Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item was continued from above.) 41 42 McShane stated this seems to be an item that can be rolled over to next year. He 43 asked if that would be okay. Harper stated the City is interested in going forward this year. 44 The City will work with the County on the land supply analysis. There is a limited amount of 45 developable land in Everson now. The property owner is interested in gaining access for 46 urban development. 47 48 McShane moved to recommend approval of this item, with the idea it might get 49 bumped back a year. It seems timely. It provides access to the urban growth area, where 50 residential development should be directed. It's not a big time sync. It might shed light on 51 the analysis that goes on with that urban growth area. 52 Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 2 Weimer asked if there was something in the Growth Management Act about separation between towns. It looks like Everson and Nooksack are growing together. Olason stated staff has discussed that fact with Nooksack and Everson. The way they are laid out, it's difficult to achieve a buffer. The question is whether there are opportunities for finding buffers. Harper stated it is tough to undo what occurred in the 1920's, when the cities were created. The cities work together on a number of issues. There have been discussions about the cities coming together into one city. In this instance, they are not pushing the boundaries farther together. Weimer stated this amendment lays the way for a road to the south UGA. It could be confusing to people about whether they are going to Nooksack or Everson. It's not a huge concern. He has no problem moving this forward with discussion, in conjunction with the UGA of Everson. Fleetwood stated he will also support docketing this item, although every year the Council sees applications to convert agriculture to a more dense designation. Consider the notion of incremental conversion of agriculture to something else over time. Olason stated there is also the mitigation requirement they haven't looked at yet. The County hasn't done much UGA expansion in the last three or four years. It will be an issue to address. Motion carried unanimously. DOCKET # 2006 -C: CITY OF EVERSON UGA EXPANSION II Olason indicated the location on an aerial photo. The boundary UGA was set back a certain distance from the road, which divides a lot of properties. The applicants have a portion of their property in the city limits. The remainder is outside the city limits. It is a separate parcel. One issue is some flooding and floodway in the area. The question is whether or not the entire parcel should be included. A question is whether the boundary can go to the edge of the property line. The is agriculture now. They will have to discuss mitigation methods. It is all in open space now. McShane stated it's an overflow corridor for the Nooksack River to flow into the Sumas River. Olason stated flooding is a question that has to be evaluated on this property. Brenner asked if it is all in an aquifer recharge area. Olason stated (inaudible). Olason stated that the parcel is a split parcel that has some challenges with the floods. The property owner applied for this amendment. Fleetwood asked the City of Everson's standard residential urban zoning density. Harper stated it is 9,500 square feet for a single family residences. It is less than four units per acre. This property would be in a multiple use zone, which is one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet. Brenner asked the zoning for single family residential use per acre. Harper stated it is just under four units per acre. Some of the zoning designations specify minimum lot size, not density per acre. Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 3 Marvin Mickley, applicant, stated this one parcel right now is under two jurisdictions. Even though the City of Everson isn't initiating the amendment, they unanimously support it. This piece is close to the city core. The only way into the county portion is from the main street in the city. There is a large drainage ditch to the south, Johnson Creek to the east, and houses to the west. He asked that the property be under one jurisdiction. Fleetwood asked if the cities of Nooksack or Everson are involved in growth planning considering increased densities for the future, or if they anticipate expanding piecemeal over time as long as they can. Harper stated he believes the cities anticipate that most of their growth to be toward the southwest, out of the flood plain. He doesn't expect a lot of increases in the urban growth area. They have not undertaken a 50 -year analysis. Fleetwood asked if it makes sense they should resist the temptation to expand the growth area until the time the City of Everson has done an in -depth analysis of what their growth areas can accommodate. He asked if a proven need has been established. Harper stated the City Everson updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and found that its land supply was sufficient for the 20 -year growth period. As part of the 2007 UGA update, they will look at it again with updated growth numbers to see what the land supply is at that time. This is a relatively small addition. They are not talking about a wholesale expansion. It's a limited case for Mr. Mickley's situation. Weimer stated he has concerns about it being in the flood plain, about the disappearing agricultural land, and about this being in the UGA. He'd like to put it off until next year when the Everson UGA is looked at. 29 McShane moved to recommend approval. He concurs with Councilmember 30 Weimer's concerns. He is very concerned about floodway. It is a significant issue for the 31 County. The County has monitored flood overflows. There is a lot of concern of whether 32 water can pass through that area appropriately. To the south, a peninsula of the city limits 33 shoots out. That could be intensely developed. He is concerned about water passing 34 through that area also. Without that 2007 review, it's premature adding agricultural area in 35 a floodway into the UGA. 36 37 Motion failed unanimously. 38 39 DOCKET # 2006 -1: RURAL FORESTRY TO R1DA REZONE 40 41 McShane stated this is applied for by Whatcom County and the State Department of 42 Transportation (DOT). Without the change, they can't put in a parking lot for a cemetery. 43 44 Fleetwood asked if the DOT and Nooksack Tribe have been working on this. 45 Holbrook stated they have. He has also been working with the DOT. The area adjacent is a 46 DOT maintenance facility under conditional use and zoned rural forestry. The cemetery is 47 zoned rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). The amendment is conversion of resource land, 48 but the land is not used for resources at this time. 49 50 People are parking on the road now, creating a safety hazard. There are different 51 ways to solve the problem. This is one way. Another option is a zoning text amendment, 52 but it would apply countywide. He recommends this option as a solution. The DOT is still 53 thinking about what it wants to do. This is a placeholder once DOT makes up its mind. Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 4 Brenner asked what in rural forestry precludes parking. Holbrook stated parking associated with a cemetery use is not allowed in rural forestry. To allow parking in the R10A zone requires modification of the conditional use permit. There might be issues with allowing parking on DOT and the real estate office. They might want to do a boundary line adjustment with associated zone change. Brenner asked to get by without having to do another Comprehensive Plan amendment. Nothing in rural forestry prohibits parking. McShane stated it's clear to him that Mr. Holbrook has reviewed the zoning text, and parking is not allowed. That's why this is brought forward by DOT and Whatcom County. Brenner stated she also reviewed the text, which doesn't specifically say that parking is not allowed. Holbrook stated this has been going on for more than three years. It is the interpretation of Planning Department management that the parking lot is not allowed. He does not want another comprehensive plan amendment either, but this is a place holder in the annual process. He's all for another solution. McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. DOCKET # 2006 -K: SUDDEN VALLEY PROVISIONAL UGA RESCISSION Holbrook stated there is a sunset policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Incorporation of Sudden Valley has not been accomplished. In 2006, the provisional UGA will revert back to recreational subdivision zoning if incorporation has not been accomplished. Planning staff talked to legal staff. Even if a group filed for incorporation, the provision still sunsets if incorporation is not complete by the end of the year. Several policies in the comprehensive plan will also have to be revised with this amendment. Once this goes through, the final vote will still occur at the end of 2006. The timeline is the same. If they do rescind the provisional UGA and it reverts to recreational subdivision, the County will also have to look at the zoning there because it would be considered noncompliant. McShane asked if a recreational subdivision can be treated as a limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD). Holbrook stated he would research it. McShane stated he proposed that as an amendment to the text at the time. Everyone said to stay away from it. He asked if the County is now more comfortable with direction on that. Holbrook stated the County is not obligated to look at it, but it is good sense to make sure they are in compliance. McShane stated the previous recreational subdivision was much bigger than the current Sudden Valley. Natural Resources Committee, 1 /31/2006, Page 5 Fleetwood stated he knew the deadline was approaching for submitting applications. He was not on the Council in 2001 when the provisional designation was made. He became aware that a majority on the current Council supported rescinding the provision, so he put together an application. He recognizes no one in Sudden valley is likely to pursue incorporation. The likelihood of incorporation is minimal. He prepared the application to be cautious and reduce the likelihood that much more. He intended that this come forward as an emergency, which the Code allows. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Fleetwood continued to state that the County is in litigation on this very issue. He may not bring this forward as an emergency at the evening meeting. At this time, it doesn't make a great deal of sense because the final decision on this item will occur at the same time as the sunset date. He will pull the item. It may come forward as an emergency item tonight or at a later date. He withdrew the amendment. Weimer stated State law allows them to look at amendments out of order, so it wouldn't be an emergency. McShane stated the County Code requires emergency ordinance procedures apply outside the annual process. The Council would be in violation of its own code. Weimer stated this wouldn't be an emergency. It would be a regular Comprehensive Plan amendment, which State law allows outside of the normal time period. McShane stated the County Code doesn't allow that. Fleetwood stated he based the opinion that it needed to come forward as an Z9 emergency because there are enumerated, clearly expressed provisions under the 30 emergency section relating to resolving pending litigation. He didn't look any further than 31 the County Code. If there is a question about conflict between State and County statutes, 32 he will look at it. Now, he operates under the assumption that the County Code takes 33 precedence. 34 35 Weimer asked if it makes senses to leave it on the docket. 36 37 Fleetwood stated it only makes sense to go forward with it as an emergency. He's 38 okay with forwarding it through the regular annual process. It still can be considered 39 through the emergency process. 40 41 Holbrook explained the docketing process. The County can consider an amendment 42 out of order if there is an emergency. All other amendments require concurrent review at 43 the end of the year. 44 45 Weimer asked Councilmember Fleetwood to leave it on the docket until there is 46 review of Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.130(2)(b), which seems to disagree 47 with what Mr. Holbrook just said. 48 49 Fleetwood moved to hold in committee. 50 51 McShane stated there was a case where a county did not follow its own code 52 regarding UGA expansion, even though it followed the Growth Management Act (GMA). The 53 County code would prevail. Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 6 Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley, stated he would have advocated for docketing items K through N as a total body, to envision the watershed as a whole. Regarding UGA status, the term `rural residential" is not well defined under existing state law. Sudden Valley is currently platted at two units per acre, which is rural residential. The State won't deal with the rural codes this year. Under existing zones, Sudden Valley could have five units per acre. Also, Sudden Valley has the option of becoming a non - charter city, whether or not this passes. There are options within State statutes for getting to goal number one, which is buying back property in the watershed and for stormwater. Now, there are two great districts in the watershed. Come up with a model that makes the others obsolete. Look at "Sustaining Rural Character of Whatcom County," a presentation from planning Director Hal Hart. DOCKET #2006 -L: RURAL TO AGRICULTURAL REZONE I and DOCKET # 2006 -M: RURAL TO AGRICULTURAL REZONE II Olason submitted a handout (on file) from last year on these issues. Last year, there was a great concern about the amount of work involved. The issues are the same as last year. The counciimembers are familiar with the information. The real issue for staff is the number of projects it has and whether or not these docket items L, M, J, I, and Q can be looked at together. If the Council finds merit in forwarding these items, staff would be LId interested in looking at docket items L, M, 0, P, and Q as a total package. They all seek to 30 address the issue of eroding rural land base. It's a matter of staff resources and process. 31 32 Fleetwood asked if it would take time and consideration to cull through applications 33 and find out the best of each, then rewrite an application so there is one general statement 34 of their intentions. He asked how formal they want to be. Olason stated that if the Council 35 dockets the items in March, they won't be done in September. A question is to what level 36 the Council wants to involve the public process. They are talking about a 100,000 -acre area 37 that includes a number of interest groups. Having thorough discussion with the community. 38 will take time. He looks for direction from Council on how much of that additional effort to 39 which the Council will commit. A question is intensity versus duration. If there are smaller 40 goals to accomplish over time, it becomes a work program. The likelihood of appeal also 41 really affects staff time, commitment, and cost. The more upfront they can be to create 42 something acceptable, the better it is. The proposals are considering incorporating fairly big 43 changes. 44 45 Fleetwood stated he appreciates the staff resources and limitations. The applications 46 get at what they want the rural and agricultural areas to be in the future. The Council has 47 to make some decisions on the level of priority it is going to give this. A year ago, there 48 were concerns about staff limitations. The question is whether it's time to get on with it, 49 given that the councilmembers think it's a high priority. He is inclined to wrap these 50 together as either a Comprehensive Plan item or a dedicated work program. Either way, 51 get on with these things in 2006. 52 Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 7 1 Brenner asked if they could include development standards and design standards in 2 the program. Olason stated they could if they do a comprehensive program. Docket items 3 L and M are about re- designating land space. Docket item Q is about establishing additional 4 requirements on clustering. The next phase beyond that is design standards. This is not a 5 map change. These are programmatic changes to doing business. 6 7 McShane asked about Whatcom LaBounty soils. He may not be ready to include 8 docket items O and P. He asked if they are considered high quality soils. Olason stated 9 they are prime soils according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). They are 10 farmed. They are wetter. They are not quite as deep and are cooler. They work well for 11 forage. They are in a lot of the outlying areas. There is not much internal drainage. 12 LaBounty soil holds water better and produces sufficient farm forage, which is grass and 13 hay. There are issues in the county with water rights. The soil tends to hold water longer. 14 The big issue with the soil goes back to the original cluster process, and what is subject to 15 cluster rules. A lot of areas with Whatcom LaBounty soils weren't actively farmed. It's not 16 the best soil in the county. 17 18 Fleetwood asked the number of acres added to agricultural protection overlay (APO) 19 if they include LaBounty soils. Olson stated at least 2,000 to 3,000 acres would be included 20 in the APO. 21 22 There are two purposes for identifying the best soils. One is that the best soils are 23 identified, separate from the APO. The second purpose is that it indicates that clustering is 24 required if there is 50 percent or more of the soil. The issue is that they are already in 25 agricultural /open space designation. The overall amount not under APO is not that great. 26 The issue is about things like the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. It does 27 have an impact. 28 29 Fleetwood asked what happens if they fold together several amendments. Olason 30 stated they would become either a new application or a work program. A number of 31 amendments are somewhat related. The issue today is if they are going to look at these 32 two items and put them on the docket. Decide whether or not the committee wants to 33 move forward with these two amendments. 34 35 McShane stated his application is a draft. He doesn't have answers. Mr. Olason is 36 aware this is big and will take a big process that may take longer than one year. He is open 37 to changing his proposal by the end of the year. Many minds should be brought in by the 38 end of the year. There are many things they can do here that aren't just about agricultural 39 issues. It's also about forestry and gravel resources. 40 41 Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated don't treat these items 42 as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It puts the County in a procedural box. At the end 43 of the year, the Council will have to either pass something forward or deny the amendment, 44 and will have to re- docket it again for another year. If these are issues, discuss them in a 45 more informal format that is more conducive to achieving the solution they want. All the 46 related amendments are pieces to the entire puzzle. Don't deal with them through the 47 Comprehensive Plan docket process. A dedicated work program item would fit the issue 48 better. Bring in people who are truly impacted. People may consider these amendments 49 downzones and won't support them. Rather, talk about the issues through the work plan to 50 fit all the pieces together. If the proposals are addressed as Comprehensive Plan 51 amendments, people will think the Council is trying to take away property rights. It's not 52 going to lead to a productive conversation. Instead, get people vested in the discussion. 53 They will end up with a much better result. Do not docket the items. Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 8 Marty Mayberry, 816 Loomis Trail Road, stated land use issues are a big concern of the agricultural industry, which is grappling with this issue. They all feel more housing in the agricultural zone is not positive, but they need to look for win -win situations. Don't take care of the issue of density by stripping away significant value. Many farmers that own these properties have not subdivided their properties. They may have bought it for higher value for the zoning, but have no intent to zone. If the Council rezones, it will reward people who have subdivided and penalized those who haven't. The best protection of agricultural soils is the farmers. Not many farmers want to sell their land for development. The Agricultural Advisory Committee hasn't recommended the downzone. It recommends that the cluster requirement go down to ten acres immediately. Once word gets out, there will be a rush of people who will try to divide their property zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). If the Council puts this on the docket, it could lose agricultural land quickly. There are other issues the Council needs to think about. If there are no five - acre parcels available, the rich will buy ten -, twenty -, or forty -acre parcels that won't be used for agricultural. Much of the ground in the agricultural zone doesn't have water rights. There is not a resolution on water rights issues. The only leverage the agricultural community has against the Department of Ecology and the tribes is the densities of their properties. The Department of Ecology and tribes may not like their agricultural use, but they like housing even less. Another concern is whether the surrounding properties will also be downzoned. The agricultural community is concerned about downzoned and then being surrounded by a residential land use. The agricultural community wants to maintain their property values. They want to discuss how to do this. Their bank loans and other things are affected by their 19 property values. 30 31 There are ways to accomplish the Council's objectives, which the agricultural 32 community also holds. The Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Agricultural Protection 33 Committee (APC) believe the Council has to accomplish these objectives instead of create a 34 taking. Come up with a compensation system that is equitable and fair. Many of the 35 requests to upzone are in the agricultural zone. That's quite different from taking value 36 away. There are mechanisms in place to have a very thorough, thought -out process. 37 38 Fleetwood asked if those mechanisms are the advisory boards. Mayberry stated they 39 are. 40 41 Fleetwood asked if there is an orderly process where those advisory committees are 42 working on recommendations for the Council that are counter to what he and 43 Councilmember McShane propose, so they can look at and implement those 44 recommendations. Mayberry stated there is. 45 46 Olason stated the advisory committees have a work program. The issue of rezone is 47 sensitive. To get the advisory committee members to work on it, there must be a higher 48 level of motivation. They must feel something is going to happen, so they will respond. An 49 APO update is going to the Planning Commission. It addresses clustering and siting of 50 homes in agricultural and rural areas, but it doesn't get at density, compensation, or the 51 issue of displacement. The docket process isn't the process for these kinds of multi -year 52 efforts. The Council may get frustrated with getting it done. It requires dedicated staff. 53 The Council and administration will have to discuss it. It is a huge work program. Natural Resources Committee, 1/31/2006, Page 9 McShane stated that is the fundamental issue. The Comprehensive Plan, as written, is all about protecting those areas. However, he hasn't seen a lot come forward. What may come forward is scary for people, but maybe people should be scared. People should come to the table and tell their stories so the Council can figure out how to do this right. There are alternative methods for compensation. He has some ideas. Mayberry stated farmers sometimes don't have the resources or expertise to bring forward unusual recommendations. McShane stated the Council clearly supports making changes. It needs a commitment to make those decisions. He would like to continue this discussion. He agrees this will take a long time. Last year, the Council docketed a Comprehensive Plan item that was carried over to this year. He asked if that is easy to do. Olason stated subarea plans take longer than a year, for example. Part of the process is developing the product. In this case, they don't have a product. They have an idea. It's different. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Olason continued to state these are very conceptual ideas. There is a lot of work that hasn't started yet. They may not be items that should be docketed, but should be work programs. This item was not discussed. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m. --- ...Vun ur Jill N1 ;SF1,'4gMutTj`�r fN;ion Ono _.� ATTf • p C0�"� • va F Dana BroGApj�rGis,4yC�glxfi i erk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON C Dan McShane, Committee Chair