Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 8 20051 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee February 8, 2005 Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Dan McShane Also Present: Ward Nelson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LETTER REGARDING THE AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY (AB2005 -069) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee has a number of things it wants to work on. It is worried about the conversion of rural five acre parcels. Parcels under twenty acres in this zone are being subdivided and lost. A lot of raspberry land is in the rural, one unit per five acre (R5A) zone. Raspberries are an economical crop even on small acreages. Losing a twenty -acre parcel is a big deal. There is a limited supply of that type of ground. In other areas, there are secondary agricultural lands, such as dairy lands. The agricultural community loses full -time farmers regularly, but the number of cows never goes down. Maintaining acreage for manure application is an issue. That has caused competition in areas heavily farmed. Those land prices are high. The committee looked at things it can do to prevent the loss of that acreage. The primary suggestion was to remove the threshold if in the agricultural protection overlay (APO) and agricultural open space. If one wants to subdivide, the cluster requirement would apply. He read a power point presentation (on file). On the second slide, the areas highlighted gray will not be available for a future use. The acreage between ten and twenty acres are not protected right now. Acreage under ten acres can not be subdivided in R5A. Acreage under twenty acres cannot be divided in rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). The acreage they're trying to protect by reducing the cluster threshold are acreages greater than ten and less then twenty in the R5A zone. In the R5A zone, there are about 737 parcels totaling about 10,000 acres on which additional regulations would be added. Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 1 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Soils overlay parcels in many different configurations. There will be a higher total acreage of those parcels that have some soils in them. They can't protect just the agricultural soils because they have to work on a parcel basis. He displayed a map of parcelization, improvements, and agricultural soils. The map shows how things are developing. Figure out what is out there that they can have an effect on. There aren't many five -acre lots that don't have a house on them. They are going to look at how the cluster developments have been done, with the idea of making them better to get more agricultural resource protection. He continued to read the presentation. In the R5A zone, there are 26,000 acres where the parcel sizes are less than twenty acres, with no structure on the parcel. There are 10,000 acres that can be further subdivided and could disappear because there are no cluster requirements. Nelson asked the soil types in those areas. Olason stated they would be raspberry crops in sandy soils or upland wet soils. There are such areas west of the Stein Road, north of Custer, and anywhere with deep, sandy soil. It's also good cropland for potatoes. Nelson asked if this is the type of land on which they could spread manure. Olason stated they could on some of it. Nelson stated there is no real market for potatoes. Olason stated the seed potato crop is important. It's very specialized and does well in this area. A lot of it is in the west part of the county, which is in the R5A areas. There were two target areas in the purchase of development rights (PDR) program that were parcelized, but also pretty well farmed. The problem with potatoes is that they have to be rotated every four or five years. A farmer has to have four times the acreage available to keep the crop growing. Dairies are a good companion with that. Nelson asked if they are considering the types of crops that would make sense. Olason stated that properties with these soils and are designated agricultural open space are subdivided, make sure the development doesn't impact the future use of the land for agriculture. Some of the more specialized crops work well on smaller acreages. Fleetwood asked if the recommendation from the committee is unanimous. Olason stated it is. Roy asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee talk about anything like total zoning changes. This seems like a compromise on the spectrum of possible options. Olason stated the committee did talk about other proposals. Production agriculture is the mainstay in Whatcom County, not market gardening. To stay competitive, they have to capitalize resources to expand and take the next step. A concern of the industry is how a downzone, which strips the value of the land, affect their ability at the bank. Even if they don't want to develop the land, a Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 2 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. downzone has ramifications. Farmers want the ability to subdivide in their back pocket. That might not be possible for long -term agricultural protection. The committee talked about what they can do now. The land base is at risk now. Solutions may be limitations that no one wants, but this seemed palatable to the farmers. He continued the presentation on the potential acres that can be protected. When the County did the APO, it said 20 to 30 percent could be developed, with the rest in reserve. In practice, the cluster takes up 25 percent. However, it doesn't deal with the remainder parcel, which often includes the house and roads. The septic and wells are not in the remainder parcel. In total, 30 to 40 percent is in development. Certain cluster developments that have been done in a way so that the remainder lots can't be farmed. Lots are set up to meet dimension requirements, not landscape requirements. There is a disconnect between the purpose and the outcome. Ideally, the cluster would contain the residential lot that is on the remainder lot. A recommendation is siting criteria for a house on the remainder parcel, and limit the percentage to include all the residential development, not just the houses on the cluster. It would even be nice to maintain adjoining reserve tracts so they could eventually be consolidated, particularly if they don't have housing development rights. In addition, some cluster lots are tied to homeowner association covenants that don't allow agricultural uses. Consider adding the requirement for a covenant on cluster lots, such as the covenant added to the Homestead Plats. Fleetwood asked if that can be done. Olason stated it's not uncommon. Nelson asked if the committee talked about design criteria to make the agricultural land accessible. Olason stated it did. It will take some real thought and effort to design those criteria. Olason continued the presentation regarding the objectives for the cluster design ordinance that are parcel- specific. Nelson asked how this would apply over the long term. Olason stated they have to consider the ultimate build out of an area. One would use the development density in a matter that attractively fits the property. A question is whether the area would be redeveloped. Conservation easements may or may not be appropriate depending on future growth plans. It may be attractive to land buyers. The County would have to think about whether it wants conservation easements on these properties. Nelson asked that the Agricultural Advisory Committee to discuss what may happen in the future, and how they will handle it. Olason stated the committee didn't talk about conservation easements. Perpetuity is a long time. There are details to work out beyond a deed restriction or condition of a plat. Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 3 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Olason continued the presentation on off -site objectives for the cluster design ordinance and specific examples of cluster developments. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Olason continued describing the good and bad cluster examples of the Bailey, Grandview Hill, and Menze Mountain View cluster short plats. It wouldn't be possible to write code to administer cluster aesthetics. That type of thing has to do with proportionality, aesthetic, and personal judgments. In terms of long -term build out, however, it is better for the community. Ultimately, the Agricultural Advisory Committee asks for four things from Council, including direction on moving forward. The first is to remove the 20 -acre threshold from the APO. The urgency is high, the difficulty is low, and the staffing commitment is low. The second recommendation is the 25 percent cluster calculation to include residential and other infrastructure that is on the remainder parcel. That percentage may be tight. Fleetwood asked why the fourth recommendation, to require a right -to -farm covenant on all newly created and remainder lots within a cluster, is highly difficult. Olason stated the handout is incorrect. The difficulty on that item should be low to moderate. A fifth item not listed is the cluster design development, which has a high difficulty level. Nelson stated he is concerned about development criteria for future impacts. Olason stated they could use objectives. A preamble could be about future use. The first step is to cluster better. Fleetwood asked how soon staff could prepare an ordinance. Olason stated they could deal with the recommendations in pieces. Get the 20 -acre threshold reduced, which could be done quickly. They will have to do more work on the second recommendation to make sure they are not creating an impossible threshold. The third recommendation is residential siting criteria on the remaining parcels. That wouldn't be too hard to do. The first three recommendations would be pretty easy to do. Most of the work would be on the design standard development. They have to make sure the community accepts, the developers understand, and staff is supported. A question is whether they want a community review committee. McShane stated one issue is in laying out the cluster designs. A design review committee would need guidance on what its primary purpose is, which should be farmland resource protection. On some of the poorer quality source, they should also consider forest resource protection. Olason stated one question is Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 4 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. whether clustering should be a standard subdivision method so there is open, usable land after the density is developed. McShane stated that all they have for rural character are the five -acre lots. A question is whether they should protect other resources, in addition to the agricultural resource. There is a paradox between people who move to the rural areas for the rural character, and cluster developments. There is another issue of the cost of the buildout of the rural area. In addition, people in rural cluster subdivisions expect urban levels of service. They don't feel like they are living in a rural area. Proceed as staff sees fit. The agricultural community is in favor it. Going forward seems to make sense. Nelson stated many of the areas border on urban growth areas and could become urban growth areas in 50 years. He likes clustering because it makes urban growth development easier. He asked the applicability of first right -of- refusal when a farmer decides to sell a portion of the land. That is an issue to be worked out. The lot owners may decide to hold the reserve for a park, or decide to increase the density for investment purposes. Olason stated easements are outside the County's purview. A concern is with someone who buys and converts a lot of agricultural land. Nothing can stop cluster lot owners to ask the Land Trust to put on deed restrictions. That is outside the County's authority. Fleetwood stated growth management requires five -year reviews. Therefore, there is constant consideration of where the next layer of urban growth areas are going to be. Roy stated the issue is what they need to do right now to preserve agricultural land. They have to keep the land mass available for agricultural use. Olason stated this doesn't deal with density, which is a factor of the equation. Nelson stated they should be doing good planning. If the purpose of the reserve tracts is for agricultural uses, establish zoning so they don't have problems with development of those areas in the future. Olason stated zoning is transitory. Nelson stated zoning sends a stronger message to the community. Olason stated the density question gets to that concern. At some point, an owner has done all that is allowed with the property. Nelson stated that in the future, if something else needs to be done with the land base, the zoning can change. Olason stated that is correct. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that is true if there is not a covenant that runs with the land forever. Olason stated the staff doesn't advocate for that. A community group could do that. Covenants are changeable between parties. An easement is recognized Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. by the federal government and becomes a permanent thing that isn't affected by zoning. McShane moved to recommend that the Planning and Development Services Department continue to work with the Agricultural Advisory Committee, draft ordinances necessary to implement the Agricultural Advisory Committee's five recommended changes, and bring the ordinances forward for review by the Natural Resources Committee. Give some thought on whether they want to go with the option of developing design standards or the option of creating a design review committee. Bob Wiesen, 3315 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he likes the idea of the right -to -farm covenant. Expand the usage of something like that. It seems more enforceable than the right -to -farm law. An area west of Interstate 5 on upper ridges is high clay soil with lots of marginal wetlands. They get so set on making these rules that they can't modify, which creates a negative impact. Sites can't be changed for a better benefit. They are reducing flexibility by creating rigid rules. Decide the areas that are the best agricultural land. Some of those areas that have already been subdivided could be used to relieve the pressure on the agricultural land. Fleetwood asked if Mr. Wiesen anticipates a rigid rule coming from these recommendations. Wiesen stated the County already has rigid rules. Some of the marginal wetlands must have 100 -foot buffers. That takes away a lot of flexibility. Henry Bierlink, Agricultural Advisory Committee, stated he appreciates the committee is willing to work on this. It isn't easy. They can never design perfectly. They need an element of subjectivity. Think about continuing to support the Planning Department staff. They can't keep up with this without help. The community values people with creativity and an ability to wrestle with the rules. It's important to be able to design things with the big perspective in mind. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 7