HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 22 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 22, 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 Dan McShane
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2005 (AB2005 -084)
Docket #2005- I:Rural to Agriculture Rezone and Docket #2005 - ]:Rural to
Agriculture Rezone
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, read a power point presentation
(on file). Almost half the county would be affected by these Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Nelson asked about a built area. Goodwin stated the area is developed, but
it is zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) or rural, one unit per ten acres
(R10). The proposal is to analyze or consider downzone of all rural lands ten acres
and under in the county. When analyzed, staff likely won't recommend downzone
of devleoped areas. Larger parcels or areas being farmed may be more
appropriate. However, the application is to look at all rural lands.
Roy stated item 2005 -I talks about the soils. In order to qualify, they have
to be prime agricultural soils.
Fleetwood stated Councilmember McShane came up with a specific proposal.
His proposal came out of the growth forum and the idea that the cities are doing
their part to increase densities. It's the County's obligation to try and curb the
potential for density expansion in the county area. His application is simply to
start a discussion and contemplate it this year. Goodwin stated staff would look at
agricultural soils, parcel sizes, and tax status for whichever proposal is docketed.
It's part of the analysis that staff, the public, and the Planning Commission would
consider.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, 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.
She continued the presentation on the tax status shown on a map of the
county. In the western part of the county where the soils aren't as good and
where farming is comprised of grasslands, hay, and small hobby farms, many of
those people have the open space agricultural tax designation. They would be
subject to this proposal.
Roy asked if one could get the open space tax designation without the land
being in agriculture. Goodwin stated the operation has to have a minimal income,
but it's very small. It's not a big amount.
Nelson stated there are other types of open space classification, such as for
forestry activities.
Goodwin stated one can also have regular open space that provides public
access. This proposal is just about the open space agriculture designations. She
continued the presentation. Many of the lands have already been divided and are
not in large tracts, but areas are peppered with parcels that can still be divided.
Even though there isn't one area in the county that is predominantly 40 acre
parcels. They are spread out. However, if there is a downzone, many areas
wouldn't be further subdivided.
Roy asked if all the parcels subdivided now would not be affected. Goodwin
stated they would not, unless the County also changed its lot consolidation
policies, which are pretty liberal in Whatcom County. Several contiguous parcels in
one ownership are not generally consolidated unless they are very old and don't
have a septic tank site. If the intent is to reduce density, the Council can look at
lot consolidation and accessory dwellings.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that where lots are subdivided legally,
the majority are legal lots of record. If they are five -acre lots, they are typically
done through gift exemption or short -plat. They exist legally and are not subject
to aggregation.
Nelson asked the specific language that says rural areas have a certain
density. Goodwin stated that language is in the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the
areas are in the flood plain. Most of floodplain is already designated agricultural.
Goodwin continued to read the presentation.
Nelson asked if the parcels zoned R5A and R10A are undeveloped. Goodwin
stated some have houses.
If adopted, about 42,000 acres wouldn't be further subdivided. She
continued to read about the Growth Management Act (GMA) provisions. Nothing in
the GMA clearly says five acres is the ideal area in the rural zones. However,
several growth management hearings board cases talked about five acres being
rural, and anything smaller isn't rural. Therefore, under the GMA, five acres and
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, 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.
over is a rural density. Rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) and rural residential
(RR) zones are not acceptable as rural densities unless they are designated as a
limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD).
Nelson asked if there are any R2A's left that are not in a LAMIRD. Goodwin
stated there are no designated LAMIRD's in Whatcom County, but there are R2A
zones. They haven't been designated as suburban enclaves or recreational
subdivisions.
She continued the presentation on GMA Provisions. The larger the parcels
and fewer number of people out there, the greater the protection is for critical
areas, scenic views, and resource areas. As they consider the downzone, they
must consider other things that would be affected, not just agriculture. Some of
these lands are not agricultural lands, but they may have other valuable attributes.
Fleetwood stated the definition of rural character says that the County
defines "rural character." Goodwin stated that is correct.
She continued the presentation on the Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies. Proposal 2005 -J from Councilmember Fleetwood would evaluate and
consider amendments to the definition of rural in the Countywide Planning policies.
The GMA said that two acres is not rural. It's something they may need to look at
over time. Councilmember Fleetwood's proposal is that they look at the 20 -acre
rural designations also. That's not currently provided for.
Fleetwood stated that designation existed in Whatcom County for years.
Goodwin continued the presentation on the zoning acreage of rural land,
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, and Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8.
Olason referenced the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommendations.
The committee took a look at how much time these proposals will take. The
committee is concerned about making sure there is a public process to include the
folks in the agricultural area. Discuss the goals with them. Come up with a way
for people to not lose their development rights. Look at some of the areas that are
in agricultural use that have significant capital outlays the owners have to make.
Maintain the values of their real estate so the farmers can stay competitive.
The committee also wants to make sure this isn't an agriculture versus
housing process. There are many other things in rural areas other than agriculture
that are valuable to the public, such as open space. There is a cost to converting
that land. People will have to pick up the price tag for services that are provided.
He submitted the recommendations (on file).
The two proposals may need to be melded, rather than separate. Have a
collaborative effort to fine -tune the proposal. The committee recommends moving
forward cautiously.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, 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
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.
Roy asked if the recommendation from the Agricultural Advisory Committee
includes any other items that are up for docketing. Olason stated it does. The
committee provided input on four or five proposals.
Goodwin continued the presentation on transfers of development rights
(TDR's) and staffing and budget issues. They would need a little more than one
full -time person to work on these proposals. If the Council is going to do this, she
will need to put Mr. Olason or Matt Aamot on the proposal half -time for a senior
staff level of oversight and to have public involvement. A lot of the work can be
done by a Planner I or intern. Some of the work needs to be done by a higher
level of staff. If they do this without a lot of analysis and public involvement, the
Council will have many people storming the Council meeting in opposition. The
proposals needs good public involvement and outreach. Narrow down areas to
specific areas that make sense.
Roy asked if they can docket it for more than one year. Goodwin stated
docketing for longer than a year would make sense for this item.
Goodwin finished the presentation on other options. The Planning
Commission is booked this year. It won't have time to consider this unless the
Council puts off other work items.
Nelson stated he is concerned with both proposals and how they are
worked. The Council needs a cost evaluation of the impacts to people who own
those properties. Five- and ten -acre parcels belong to people who have already
made some decisions about their property's future. The County wants the public
to preserve the property for certain things such as beauty and the ambiance of
open space, but the County is taking away a financial value through that
preservation of open space.
Roy stated property already subdivided would not be affected.
Nelson stated they're dealing with perception. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee says that they must develop a program to allow landowners to retain
their current development rights. In addition, people may have gotten financial
extensions based on the value of their potential development rights. Take that
away, and there will be a huge uproar in the county. Focus on areas they need to
protect for forestry and mineral resource lands. Have a more comprehensive
approach.
Roy stated the purpose isn't for ambiance. It's in the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plan. It's up to the County to maintain rural character. There are
specific policies, but they don't have a specific plan yet.
Crawford asked the reasoning for the proposal.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, 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.
Fleetwood stated the proposal grew out of planning that is occurring at the
City that has direct bearing on the County in terms of density reduction. It's the
City's job to accommodate density. It's the County's job to create areas with
lesser density. The proposal is not solely for 20 -acre classifications. There is
density potential in the county that is too great. The rural designation on the
Comprehensive Plan map was drawn too large. Some rural areas can have an
actual agricultural designation. This is a worthy conversation for the community to
have. It is time to stimulate a policy discussion. The cities are growing fast. He's
sensitive to folks who are planning their properties and to staff issues. Hal Hart
told him they can docket it in 2006.
Crawford stated that in terms of the Council's role, the docketing process
normally occurs from constituency groups or individual property owners.
Fleetwood stated there clearly is a delineated process by which the Council
can propose an amendment for docketing.
Crawford asked when that has happened in the past.
Fleetwood stated it's permissible and written in the plan. Councilmembers
can bring forward Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Crawford stated Whatcom County, through home rule, has taken on a role
as being responsive to concerns of constituents in the community.
Fleetwood stated that's what he's doing.
Crawford asked where all the folks from the rural areas are who will be
affected. Go to the land owners who can be affected. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee is not even saying this is a good thing, just that they should make sure
there is a public process. The Council has been through countless hours
designating an agricultural zone. It's clearly delineated. It's not all being farmed.
He doesn't understand why the Council would tell the folks in the rural areas that
the Council will change their zone, or why the Council would commit staff
resources to work on this. He asked where the community uprising is from people
who want to turn their land into an agricultural zone and restrict their ability to do
what they want with it. The philosophical purpose of planning is to allow people
the ability to do whatever they want without negatively affecting the neighbor.
There are many regulations that make sure actions don't impact the neighbor. The
County even has to protect some of those regulations, such as the Right -to -Farm
Ordinance, because of all the rules that protect the neighbor. As development
occurs in the county, the County is going to have a cost for infrastructure planning
and development.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, 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
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.
Crawford continued to stated that those property owners should bear that
cost. There should be a regulatory structure in place that allows them to bear that
cost. However, why reanalyze it now, and try to pacify them with a TDR program.
Nelson stated Councilmember Roy made a comment that they don't have a
specific plan. He agrees. That's a problem. This is too broad in scope. Too much
information is unknown. It will be very difficult for the public to see the impact
and understand the intent. Staff will have to spend a lot of time and money
figuring out what the Council wants. It will be a detriment to the Council and staff.
He would rather see this come back with specifics they want to accomplish.
Fleetwood stated there are many people who have observed that, right now,
with the growth rate and population projection, a large percentage of the new
population should go into the cities. Yet, they have policies in place where every
single person that comes into the county for the next 20 years can live and
subdivide in the county, which is what they don't want. There is a policy gap they
need to close. He is trying to stimulate a conversation to develop more adequate
policies. It's sufficiently stated in the proposal. Contemplate more clearly
identified criteria for why they want certain rural designations, why they would
consider expanding the agricultural designation, and possibly come up with
redrawn boundaries. It's a discussion that needs to happen. The question is
whether it has to happen this year.
Roy stated maintaining the rural character of this county is a huge issue for
a lot of people. The people who want to retain the rural character probably do not
own five -acre lots they want to build on. There is a built -in conflict. In a recent
Bellingham Herald article, people were asked about their concerns. The
predominant concern was about the increasing population. The question is when
to have the discussion, decide what to do that is reasonable, and learn what this
community wants. She has mixed feelings about these items. They are not
avoiding or addressing low- density sprawl.
Nelson stated they are addressing those issues in many ways. They talked
about low density and trying to protect forest lands. He fought against downzing
next to forestry lands. He's a strong proponent for maintaining and encouraging
best management practices for forestry, or else the land will convert to high
density development. The same thing will happen with agriculture. The best thing
to do to preserve agricultural land is to preserve and protect agricultural practices.
Changing in zoning will not do that. The proposals are noble, but the Council
needs to identify exactly what it is trying to do. One doesn't need to have 20 or
40 acres to have a viable farm. One can farm on ten acres.
Fleetwood stated his proposal is not to amend anything. It's to analyze the
situation. Docketing this item would start a policy conversation on something that
is important.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 6
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.
Roy stated McShane's proposal is much more specific than Councilmember
Fleetwood's proposal.
Fleetwood stated that is intentionally so.
Roy moved to recommend to the full Council to docket 2005 -I, but she is
opposed to the motion. It's got a built in solution to a problem they need to first
define.
Motion failed unanimously.
Fleetwood stated Councilmember McShane's proposal is a subcategory of his
proposal. It will still be considered through his proposal.
Roy moved to recommend to the full Council to docket 2005 -J.
Nelson asked if a consultant or staff would do the analysis. Goodwin stated
staff recommends bringing in a consultant to find out the cost of conversion in
terms of infrastructure and taxes. The rest of analysis is as efficiently done by
staff.
Nelson stated this has two parts, including an analysis to look at agricultural
designations and adding a new designation. Goodwin stated that is correct. The
analysis is an option. The 2,000 estimated hours of staff time required would be
able to do all the analyses. If they do it over two years, staff can do it with
existing staff or extra help.
Nelson asked if it would take more time to look at the rural areas for
agricultural or forestry. Goodwin stated it won't take more staff. It is one more
option to look at.
Nelson stated some of the areas they will have to look at are surrounded by
forestry, not agriculture. If they are going to look at resources and open spaces,
they should include forestry as well.
Fleetwood stated he was thinking about just agriculture.
Nelson suggested a friendly amendment to consider 'rural agriculture
and forestry." Olason stated this goes back to the discussion of what is rural. The
fact is that rural is not designated resource lands. For a 20 -acre resource land,
whether forestry, mineral, or agriculture, there is a higher level of restriction that
can cut both ways. Questions are where to put things like mitigation banking for
wetland or where to put the next park. Rural land has a tremendous potential to
meet those needs without the complexities and problems of converting resource
lands back to rural for certain uses. Rural land is adaptable that can fill many
uses. As they deal with growth, they need to think about parks and other
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 7
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.
features. Whether the Council limits development rights on -site, the community
can participate in the value of maintaining that through the TDR program.
Roy stated she does prefer Councilmember McShane's proposal because it is
tied to high quality agricultural soils. In all the rural areas, that's not what they
are looking at. If they decide to, they can move it forward.
Fleetwood accepted the friendly amendment.
Roy suggested a friendly amendment to docket for two - years.
Fleetwood accepted the friendly amendment.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated this is a huge
issue. A number of rural landowners that are farmers of larger lands are
concerned. They have purchased property that included the rural development
rights. They are concerned that the development rights will be stripped from
them. The only protection of rural lands is not a rezone. The County has an
agricultural protection overlay (APO). Any discussion of how to use the rural lands
needs to include how the APO fits. A number of things are not allowed in the
agricultural zone that are allowed in the rural zone, including public schools.
Docketing for a short time will not allow the public time to comment. Docket with
a two -year cycle for that discussion to come into play.
Darlyn DelBoca, Ferndale, stated her comments apply to this and the
following docket item, 2005 -0. They are losing farmland and character at an
alarming rate, and the ability to be a self- sustaining community. To support the
current county population, they need 212,760 acres. Nationally, they are losing
two million acres per year. They have only been able to save one million acres.
There is an emergency management level of emergency. Update the
Comprehensive Plan related to the agricultural resource lands and economy.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs Director,
stated she agrees with Ms. Starken burg- Kroontje. They need more time. They
will have to do an economic analysis. The County has latitude on implementing
policy. However, agricultural open space is State law, so they are getting into
State taxing law. There are Washington State constitutional issues.
There is a problem beginning to develop with the TDR program. There are
not a lot of receiving areas. The urban residential, mixed use (UR -MX) zone is to
work on that problem. However, the City Council is not willing in some instances
to accept TDR's. Staff is working hard already on critical areas. Work on this
proposal will take a long time. There will be an outcry from the public, and
farmland will be hurt because people will panic and take land out of open space.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated this is a big deal. The
public process has not been good on the big issues. He asked who decides what is
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 8
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.
rural character. They've gone through the visioning process. The rural people are
marginalized because staff had a goal. This is a flawed process that did not reflect
the wishes of the total community. Over the last several years, the Council has
been making policy that has destroyed the American dream. People should be
able to select where they want to live and afford a house.
Farmland has shrunk. People don't want to farm today. The County has to
encourage and provide the potential for people to farm.
The Council has taken out many acres for habitat protection already. If they
are going to keep the community in agriculture, identify the few kinds of
agriculture that can survive, and make them successful.
TDR's won't work if there isn't a receiving area. The City of Bellingham is a
problem. There are no lots in Bellingham, so people go to Lynden, Ferndale, or
the county.
Fleetwood stated this proposal is about having a policy discussion. The
visioning process was done 13 years ago, before the big growth boom. He asked
what is inappropriate about having another discussion to define what is rural.
Wiesen stated it appears to the public that the Council is going to look at
everything, not targeted areas. The proposal needs to target specific areas. They
keep doing a lot of little things, and are not looking at the big picture.
Debra Benner, Sumas, stated the government should not be making these
proposals.
(Clerk's Note: This discussion continued, below.)
Docket #2005- 0:Aariculture to R2A. Van Dvk Road
This item is held in committee.
Docket #2005- P:Agriculture to MRL, Pole Road
This item is held in committee.
Docket #2005- Q:Agriculture to Industrial, Jones Road
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, identified the location of the proposal on a
map. The site is permitted either by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) or Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). They've had several
changes over the years. Primarily they pump and pressurize the line. Staff
suggested that they look at the area as an industrial area, not an agricultural area.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 9
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.
The area is not being used for agriculture. There are three pipelines that go
through the parcel. Staff suggests looking at changing that designation from
agriculture to some sort of industrial zone. The facilities provide the infrastructure
needed for bulk transmission of petroleum product.
Deborah Hart, Williams Pipeline, stated that as part of going through this
process, they removed two parcels from the proposal. Only keep the parcels that
have active compressor stations. The parcels leased for agriculture have been
removed from the request and will remain agriculture.
Crawford asked about the accurate aerial map. Hart indicated the location
on the map.
Olason stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee commented that they
should try to reduce the footprint of the proposal to the smallest size possible.
They also may want to look to the east at the Arco pump station. They are putting
in a gas power plant. They will need to find a place for an additional pump station.
That site would be a good location.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council that this item be
docketed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket #2005 -R: Resource Lands Comp. Plan Text Amendments
This item is held in committee.
Docket #2005-]:Rural to Agriculture Rezone
(Clerk's Note: This item continued from above.)
Jack Petree, Sunset Drive, stated docket this item for as long as possible.
The City is out of compliance with GMA right now. What the City does will impact
what happens in the county. Eighty percent of the City's developable land is multi-
family housing, which is less than two people per unit. Three - quarters of the
single family housing is being built out in the county, in the farmland. More multi-
family housing in the city will create pressure for more single family housing in the
county.
Fleetwood stated the reality is that Planning staff is booked in 2005. The
discussion needs to happen. If docketed, it won't occur until 2006. If there is the
will to do so, it could be brought forward in 2006. He will vote against docketing
this item.
Roy stated she is also concerned about docketing the item and then creating
a panicky situation.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 10
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
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.
Fleetwood stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee offered a series of
recommendations that the Council can begin working on this year. The Council
can still address this issue this year, just not within the context of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Motion failed unanimously.
Goodwin stated that if the Council wants staff to look at this through the
work program, staff will need some direction from the Council.
Fleetwood stated his vote is based on the reality that they just don't have
time to do that this year.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:01 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/22/2005, Page 11