HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 14 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 March 14, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9
10 Present: Absent:
11 Seth Fleetwood None
12 Carl Weimer
13
14 Also Present:
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
19
20 1, RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
21 AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082)
22
23 Dnrkat 4 7nnr, -Q, Amami rliictar ra fnr anririiltiiral�fnractry and riiral lanric
24
25 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this proposed amendment requires clustering in
26 rural, resource, and agricultural areas. The remainder parcel would be fixed with a
27 permanent deed restriction. In practice, this amendment provides permanent protection for
28 those areas developed under the cluster rules. The cluster requirements in the agricultural
29 protection overlay (APO) are looked at now. If done correctly, it could leave 75 percent of
30 the land base usable for agriculture or other purposes. When they buy development rights,
31 they are paying for the 25 percent of the land base that isn't protected by the APO. They
32 are removing the development rights and their impacts. The idea is to get 75 percent of
33 that protection for the right to cluster develop and use the develop density that is
34 authorized under zoning.
35
36 This proposal looks at rural, agriculture, and rural forestry zones that allow
37 residential uses and considers clustering in those zones. The proposal establishes a more
38 permanent landscape out there. This would work well with the purchase of development
39 rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR) program. The proposal would
40 sequester the development rights.
41
42 The ability to cluster would allow for re- platting the road exemptions on five -acre lots
43 in the agricultural areas to provide flexibility. The number of parcels out there available to
44 be developed are a few thousand. The impacts of those parcels, if used for residential, is
45 big. If they look at how those residential lots affect the overall land base, because they are
46 spread around, the impact is even worse. When they look at the other rural uses, they
47 have to find a balance between honoring development rights and having some remainder
48 land.
49
50 McShane stated this is another one of many tools to deal with existing platting that
51 may not be good for preserving farmland.
52
53 John Belisle, applicant, stated this covers a large area of land. Many rules are for
54 specific items. All land in the county is at -risk from one of many issues. The way things are
55 going, they should look at the entire picture, which is what this does.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 1
Fleetwood moved to recommend that this be docketed.
Weimer asked what the deed restriction would look like. Olason stated it would be
similar to a conservation easement, which limits the use of the property for further
subdividing. There would be statements that describe the values and functions of the
property. For this to function in the manner it's intended, there must be a very good design
ordinance, and it must require a review of the property for it's use.
McShane stated this would be good to fold into the other agricultural resource land
proposals.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket # 2006 -S: Amend to create Bellingham UGA study area designation for 2400 acres
Troy Holbrook, Assistant Director, stated this acreage is mostly zoned rural forestry
or commercial forestry. The proposal is to rezone the acreage to rural, one dwelling unit
per ten acres (R10A) and make it into a study area for a future urban growth area (UGA) for
the City of Bellingham. Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.10 lists the criteria the Council
must consider. First, the Council must consider whether the acreage is in an urban growth
area (UGA). It is not. Second, consider whether the County has set a future date for
examining the area or issue. It has not. Third, consider whether the proposal removes
designated resource lands and the effect from that. This proposal does remove land from
the designated resource land supply. The Comprehensive Plan says non - federal forest
resource lands total about 223,000 acres. Conversion data since 1997 shows 2,137 acres
have been converted from forest resource lands since then.
Fleetwood asked what it means to dedicate it as a study area, in terms of County
staff. Holbrook read the purpose of a special study area from the Comprehensive Plan,
page 2 -85.
Fleetwood asked if it is necessary for land to be zoned R10A to be a study area, or if
it could remain in the forestry status. Holbrook stated it could remain in the forestry status.
Weimer asked if the City of Bellingham is interested in this being a UGA. Holbrook
stated he hasn't ask Bellingham staff. If docketed, County staff would work with the City of
Bellingham on this item. The City would provide utilities and infrastructure.
Fleetwood stated the City of Bellingham and the County have done growth planning
the last several years. The growth planning has been done based on the assumption that
the playing field involves the five -year review areas. He asked if adding this would change
the way the planners evaluate the present issue. Holbrook stated he doesn't think so. They
need to move forward on the current UGA status now. First, they must look at the areas
with available urban services and infrastructure. Those are the five -year review areas. This
area is more of a long -term study area. There aren't infrastructure or utilities there now.
When nearby UGA areas build out, those services will become available.
Mauri Ingram, Trillium 'Corporation, stated the community is struggling with growth.
She hopes to look at the county in its entirety, not just project -by- project. This property is
an opportunity to do that. This is the first step in engaging the community in this
discussion.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 2
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he doesn't object to the study area, but
don't break up the property into ten acre tracts. It will destroy the planning capability for
those properties. When property is broken up, it is hard to develop in a reasonable way.
Jeff Hegedus, 37 Tumbling Water Drive, stated this is premature. They have good
urban planning in process. It's too early to consider this area for further development.
Fleetwood asked if the Council could amend the application. Holbrook stated they
can, with concurrence of the applicant.
McShane moved to recommend approval. They are reviewing the Bellingham UGA
soon. He's waited to see what comes forward through the process. It seems the City of
Bellingham planners and Planning Commission decided they want growth to go a certain
direction over time. When that comes to the County, he will ask why the City has made
that decision. There should be no areas off the table around the city. He asked about the
availability of services versus the direction they want to grow. Holbrook stated that when
looking at putting in higher densities, they must consider cost - effectiveness. Start by
infilling where it's most effective. No matter which way the city grows, it will impact some
type of resource. They must try to preserve the resource lands while providing
infrastructure. The land use decisions must come before the infrastructure decisions, but
some infrastructure is already in place.
McShane stated it's worth a conversation. He'd like to know why the City decided to
go the direction it did.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has no problem with this being a study area.
Eventually, it will be one of Bellingham's choices for growth. It's a viable choice, but she's
not prepared to change the zoning. They are working out a concurrency agreement and
mitigation fees for loss of forest and farmland. They can work with the City to look at this
area without the R10A zoning. This request may eliminate options for planned unit
developments. She would support docketing an amended version of this application.
Bob Tull, stated Comprehensive Plan and Urban Fringe Subarea Plan has said the
County and City must look at these areas. It is adopted policy. They are not being reckless
and shortsighted. It is driven from the County's plan from 1983 or 1984.
McShane stated he is interested in how Bellingham's UGA will impact county resource
lands. That is an appeal of this proposal. It goes beyond the UGA issue.
Fleetwood stated he has mixed feelings about this item. He's received many calls
-r.L from citizens about this issue. He recognizes that people enjoy that land at the goodwill
42 and permission of the owner, which can be revoked. One benefit of considering this is that
43 it creates the prospect of permanent public dedications in the location of spectacular
44 scenery. The question before the committee is not approval of the request, but whether it
45 should be considered as a long -term study area. The Council is not approving it one way or
46 another. He will support docketing this item for consideration.
47
48 Weimer stated he won't support docketing the item. One reason is because the
49 Council has docketed so many items that staff is overworked this year. The main reason is
50 that there isn't a clear sense from Bellingham whether or not they need all the UGA areas
51 they have. Last fall, the Council got a clear sense from people that they want to contain the
52 areas and not open up other areas. He doesn't even want to open the area up as a study
53 without finalizing the discussions on UGA expansion.
54
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 3
McShane stated that if the Council amends the application, the applicants may
withdraw their application.
Ingram stated she doesn't oppose removing the request for the R10A zoning
designation. She has not made application for zoning changes. Their intent was to include
some corresponding residential zoning designation in the proposal for purpose of discussion.
She has no intent of developing at that scale. The proposal does not include any
agricultural IarLds, just small forest resource lands that don't have a high yield. There are
limited wetlands on the property.
Fleetwood moved to amend the application to docket as a study area, but not
docket the request for a rezone to R10A.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
McShane referenced docket item # 2006 -A. There are specific proposals before
the City Council. He asked what would prevent the County, other than possible resistance
from the City, from folding this into that discussion when it comes before the Council.
Holbrook stated there are no services to this area. It may be outside the subarea. It may
be in the Lake Samish subarea. As they go into this, there are a couple of different
proposals. There are concurrent processes happening, including the Bellingham Urban
Growth Area and Comprehensive Plan and the Subarea Plan, which is different. The Growth
Management Hearings Board decision on suburban enclaves in rural lands leads the County
to fold that analysis into the Subarea Plan. They can roll part of this discussion into the
Subarea Plan, but not necessarily the Urban Growth Area discussion.
McShane stated he likes that idea. It gets to a more long -term view of that area. As
they look at those long -term resource protection areas, they may have more value than
trying to deal with the R5A zone area near Mission Road. It's a messed up area. There may
need to be real shifts in how the City looks at its future growth area. Holbrook stated they
could roll this into the Subarea Plan. He will consider different approaches.
Motion to recommend docketing item #2006 -S as amended failed 1 -2 with
Fleetwood in favor.
McShane stated he appreciates that this proposal was brought forward. It made him
think of much more than just simply what is brought to the Council by the City planners. It
should be part of the Subarea Plan conversation. The Council doesn't need to docket it.
The Council must think about more than well - positioned property owners around
Bellingham.
Weimer stated discuss how this fits in long -term, but he is not comfortable with
docketing at this point. Resource lands have value as resource lands, whether or not people
are allowed to recreate on them. They serve as a buffer and as important resource lands.
Even if it totals only one percent of the forest lands, that is how they lose resource land
incrementally.
McShane stated they will grow into the resource lands no matter what. Look at how
to balance that and how to work with cooperative landowners that can give something back
to the community. That is more important than availability of services.
Docket # 2006 -T: Amend Hazardous Material Policies
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 4
1 McShane stated he received a letter dated Thursday, March 9 from the applicant, Mr.
2 Steele. The letter lays out what the application gets to. The application will lead to a
3 requirement that these few companies that are required to have a hazardous materials plan
4 would have to also submit an evaluation of whether the materials are necessary. He is
5 opposed to the proposed amendment. It asks these companies to give something to the
6 County that the County has little ability to evaluate. It's a very technical matter. The
7 County doesn't have the ability to review the evaluations.
8
9 Olason stated it is an adjunct to the federal and State requirements. The County
10 would be able to audit the evaluation and see if the company followed the recommendations
11 of the evaluation. However, it wasn't clear about what happens if the company didn't follow
12 the recommendations of the evaluation. It would have to be clearly assigned to County
13 staff, who would evaluate the information. The question is what the County has authority
14 and responsibility for. He doesn't know that the County has any authority.
15
16 Fleetwood stated nothing allows the County to enforce this review. That is
17 problematic. Until it's got some teeth, he won't support it this year.
18
19 Weimer stated there is a benefit to it. No where else is this information available to
20 anyone. The federal government is rapidly removing information on hazardous materials
21 from the public. This amendment forces the industry to report what toxic materials it uses
22 and indicate which alternative nontoxic materials are available. There is benefit, but he
23 won't support it. Other statutes get at these issues. Compared to the cost, there is no
24 huge step forward.
25
26 McShane moved to recommend docketing.
27
28 Motion failed unanimously,
29
30 Holbrook stated there is a request that AB2006 -082 be removed from the full Council
31 agenda. He would like to come back in two weeks with these divided into a work program.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
34
35 McShane stated many of the proposed amendments were brought forward by
36 Planning staff. He looks at the items not brought forward by staff. He has concerns about
37 delaying the decision on the resolution.
38
39 The committee reviewed the status of all the docket items presented to the Council
40 committees.
41
42 McShane stated there are many items related to agriculture. He preferred to not
43 withdraw the resolution to docket the amendments (AB2006 -082) from the Council agenda
44 at the evening meeting. He asked if the Council can indicate in the resolution that some of
45 the docketed items will take two years. Holbrook stated it can.
46
47 McShane stated all the resource lands items should be worked into the two -year
48 work plan. The administration will have to put resources in place to review these items.
49 It's a big commitment. It is better to let the administration know where the Council wants
50 to go now, rather than to wait for two weeks. He is inclined to push for getting these
51 resources in place that will make this happen. If lack of resources frustrates the Council's
52 ability to set policy, then the Council will need to discuss the resources during the budget
53 cycle. If it's a problem, which it hasn't been in the past, the Council might get to the point
54 where it will need its own staff, like most other county councils in the state have.
55
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Fleetwood asked the reason for holding for two weeks. Olason stated staff needs to
know exactly what the Council docketed. Also, he had a question in terms of what the
Council expects to review. They could look at the item in more detail even this afternoon to
really know what they have in mind.
Fleetwood stated they will have time in the Planning and Development Committee to
have a discussion on this item. Olason stated they need to talk about process and
expectation this afternoon.
Holbrook stated staff needs to know the expectation of the end product.
Weimer stated he agrees about sending a clear message to the administration. He's
not sure that docketing tonight versus in two weeks will make a difference.
Olason stated that if they decide they won't have a decision on those docket items
by the end of the year, staff can pull those items and work on them the next year. These
docket items are getting at the broader issues in the county. Every subarea plan will take
about two years to get done.
John Belisle, 231 Ten Mile, stated the committee talked about putting his cluster
proposal, docket item 2006 -Q, in with the agricultural work plan. Clustering takes place
now in agriculture. This proposal doesn't have anything to do with agricultural. It is the
only place it happens. He is talking about the rest of the resource areas. Don't delay
docket item 2006 -Q and tie it up with the rest of the agricultural issues. All of the county,
including agriculture, needs design standards. It doesn't have to do with agriculture,
because it already exists in agriculture. It's for areas other than agriculture.
Fleetwood stated his application proposes they consider appropriate places to
downzone land from R5A to R10A and to expand the agricultural designation. It's not to
rezone land from rural to agriculture.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
```�gttttnHNi���
ATTEA••
? O:O``
Da
•, s XTiE_O "I
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
r
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 6