Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 8 20021 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 8, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson Sharon Roy COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. PROPOSED WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD 12 ACRES TO THE FERNDALE URBAN GROWTH AREA (OLSON /NELLE SITE) (AB2002 -084D) McShane stated there is no recommendation from the Planning Commission on this because of a tie vote. He asked if the Council would need to have a public hearing. He will figure out before tonight whether the Council needs to have a public hearing. Brenner asked if the City of Ferndale has voted on this. Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, stated the Ferndale City Council has not yet voted on this. A vote is scheduled for October 16. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County has ever expanded an urban growth area (UGA) without a city's support. She asked if that is unusual. Olsen stated it is not unusual. Anyone can request an expansion of a UGA. The issue is whether there is enough evidence for a recommendation. In this case, there is no background yet to verify whether the UGA should be expanded. Caskey- Schreiber moved to hold this in committee for two weeks so the Council can get the vote from the City of Ferndale on its recommendation. McShane stated they will wait to see what the Ferndale City Council says. The staff recommendation is to docket the item for next year. Olsen stated the Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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. recommendation at that time was for denial. There was not firm evidence of any reason to expand the Ferndale UGA. Charlotte Olson, application owner, stated the Planning Commission didn't want to make a recommendation until it went before the Ferndale City Council. This property should be in the UGA. It is an island. Ferndale had it designated to be in the UGA, but it was left out. The property to the north was brought into the UGA. This 12 -acre property is a gap between the UGA and the City of Ferndale. The property has all the utilities required, including police and fire protection. (Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the motion, but the committee, with Fleetwood absent, concurred to hold in committee.) OTHER BUSINESS John Sitkin, attorney, stated he represents clients who are concerned about lot consolidation issues in Geneva and the criteria staff will look at regarding the Water District 10 sewer line. He may come back for a clarifying amendment to the initiate the process on an accelerated basis. In Whatcom County ordinance 2002- 055, the Council allowed lot consolidation relief if the lot is serviced by public water and public sewer. Someone would be able to get lot consolidation relief from the downzone to the rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) zone from the urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3) zone. His client has half -acre lots, and wants to connect to sewer when the sewer trunk line is in. The water district has formed a utility local improvement district (ULID) for financing that sewer line. By December, landowners have to make a decision whether or not to opt out the ULID of they don't want to bear the cost of hooking up to sewer. His client is making a decision in December on whether or not to participate financially. Actual construction and service may be some months away, but there will be no doubt that his clients will have service. Once his clients participate in the ULID, the clients will get service. The question becomes what "service" is defined as. He will meet with the staff and try to interpret the ordinance in a way that a person who is financially committed will be considered to have "service." He will try to solve it administratively first, but he may come back to the Council asking for a clarifying amendment to the ordinance that says someone participating in a ULID is considered to have service. That way, his client won't step up to participate by purchasing two sewer connections on a lot that was consolidated. Brenner stated it seems simple that if someone who paid for service and is guaranteed service would be considered to have service. Sitkin stated the literal interpretation of "service" is having the sewer line to the property. The financial commitment would be made, but the physical service isn't there. The intent was to provide the relief for people who have public service. People who step up to pay should have an opportunity for lot consolidation relief, however the interpretation isn't in the ordinance. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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 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. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM RR2, R2A AND RSA TO R2A, R4A, RF AND CF WITHIN PORTIONS OF THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED AND AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN ENCLAVE TO RURAL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED (AB2002 -084F) Amy Peterson, Planner I, stated this area has a long history. The Chuckanut /Lake Samish Subarea Plan background document from 1984 includes a descriptive inventory and an analysis of existing conditions, and outlines recommendations for permanent zoning. It provided the framework for the subarea plan adopted in 1986. The Lake Samish Subarea Plan was the first permanent zoning for that area. After the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997, the rural amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) were adopted to provide jurisdictions with the ability to recognize limited areas of more intensive rural development. Whatcom County had to include a rural element in the Comprehensive Plan. The difficulty is that rural areas didn't fit the definition of rural character. The GMA was amended to allow communities to draw a line around those areas. This area is an interim stormwater special district, a water resource special management area, and a water resource protection overlay district. It's clear that the Council recognizes Lake Samish as a critical water resource area to protect and manage. In February 2002, an interim ordinance imposing the moratorium on acceptance of new subdivisions was adopted. Shortly thereafter, the Council initiated the proposed rezone amendments. The proposed amendments are based on the rural changes to the Growth Management Act. Under the rural element, the County is required to define and protect the rural character, define and map rural services, and develop land use regulations. Amendments to the GMA allowed recognition of areas of more intense rural development. It allows the County to recognize and infill, develop, or redevelop existing commercial, industrial, and residential areas. An existing area is defined as one that was in existence on July 1, 1990. She submitted an aerial photograph of the Lake Samish area from 1991, which is the closest information that the staff has. Based on the aerial photo, critical area maps, and existing development, staff characterized the area and tried to delineate the boundaries. When identifying existing areas, the County has to adopt measures to minimize and contain those areas. The areas must be clearly identified and confined within a logical outer boundary based upon the built environment. Those areas shall not extend beyond the logical boundary and facilitate sprawl. The Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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. logical outer boundary must consider the existing rural character, physical boundaries, and prevent abnormally irregular boundaries. Staff looked at the 1991 aerial photo, Samish Water District service boundaries, and the ULID boundaries. Staff tried to avoid critical areas to the south, north, and west. Caskey- Schreiber asked why the area at the south end is proposed for rural, one unit per two acres (R2A), which is inconsistent from the proposed zone for the neighboring areas. Pederson stated there are a few lots to the south west and at the south end of the lake. Those areas are predominantly platted at two acres, and developed that way. That's why staff recommends leaving the zoning at R2A. The locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan specify that R2A shall be used for infill while recognizing existing patterns of development. Pederson stated the property being proposed for commercial forestry is a parcel that is split by a zoning line. Staff proposes that the portion of the lot that is zoned R2A be changed to commercial forestry, consistent with the rest of the parcel. McShane stated the parcel that is divided by the zoning line has Olympic Pipeline running through it. Pederson stated the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed rezone with the condition that the areas being rezoned be eligible for participation in the transfer of development rights (TDR) program once it becomes effective. Brenner asked if the property owner of the parcel being rezoned to commercial forestry approves of the rezone. Pederson stated the owner was notified, but staff has not heard from the property owner. Caskey- Schreiber asked how the Council could include these areas in the TDR program when there is not a TDR program right now. Pederson stated there is a TDR program. The Planning Commission wanted to make sure that Lake Samish is included within six months. The Planning Commission understands that the TDR program would not be up and running in six months, since the County has to work on the TDR program. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Planning Commission's intent was to designate Lake Samish as a sending area and make some modifications to the TDR program within six months so it would be an effective program that actually works. That is very ambitious. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is unrealistic to expect that program to be ready in six months. Goodwin stated it is not unrealistic. If there is a staff person to work on the TDR program, it would move forward faster. There is not a staff Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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 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. person working on it right now. Staff can't start on it until it finishes the Lake Whatcom downzone and the seasonal land- clearing ordinance. If 20 more Comprehensive Plan amendments are docketed, then staff will never get to it. It would be more realistic if the Planning Department received funding for the staff position it asked for in July. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the Planning Commission voted in favor of the rezone, but afterward a number of the commissioners questioned their decisions. This could have been the sample case for Lake Whatcom. The Planning Commission didn't spend enough time on it. The entire area does not need to be downzoned, and it could have been handled more specifically. Put this aside and look at it more thoroughly. The County needs to have a TDR program in place for something like this. Lake Samish doesn't have water now, so not a lot of development will happen in the next few years. McShane asked about the Planning Commission's struggle with this issue. Wiesen stated the Planning Commission got diverted to the TDR program. First, the Planning Commission voted this down. Then the Planning Commission considered allowing this rezone if the areas were included in the TDR program. The fact is that the County doesn't have a TDR program that works. It's important to develop a TDR program that works for the County, particularly when the County downzones. The County needs to figure out a receiving area. If there isn't a receiving area, none of this will work. Not all of these places need to be downzoned. Lake Samish is a densely developed area. The people who live in the densely developed areas say they don't want any more neighbors. McShane asked Mr. Wiesen for specific areas that the Council should look at more closely. Wiesen stated the Planning Commission and County Council should have a joint work session to pinpoint areas that should be denser. The Lake Samish residents are drinking unsafe water but refuse to bring in water because it may bring in more development. Don't blanket downzone the area. McShane stated it seemed that the Planning Commission discussed the value of the sending area and demonstrating lost value in order to qualify. He asked if the Planning Commission had that discussion. Wiesen stated there had been little discussion. To make the TDR programs work, reduced density of view areas around the lake may have more value than allowing one development lot in a lower valued place. A person who gives up five development rights for expensive view property might have to be given eight or nine transfer development rights for a lower value area. They still need to develop a receiving area, but the County can't depend on the City of Bellingham to provide those receiving areas. Crawford stated the Planning Commission vote was based on approval of a TDR program, and there would be opportunity for people to have some compensation, however the Planning Commissioners realized that there was not a viable TDR program, so this item should be put off. He questioned what the compelling reason was for the Planning Commission to approve the downzone. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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. Wiesen stated there were two votes on the issue. During the second vote, the Planning Commission talked about the potential for giving some value if there was a downzone. That is what changed the vote. McShane stated the Planning Commission didn't have enough votes to make a recommendation either way. Crawford asked the general reason why the Council would downzone Lake Samish. Wiesen stated the argument is because the residents are taking drinking water out of the lake. Now the residents have put in a sewer system that improved the water quality of the lake, but the residents refuse to add water with the sewer system because it will allow development around the lake to continue. The community wants no more development in the area. This is about local control. The residents would continue to drink water out of the lake. However, they are drinking the most unsafe water. Crawford asked if the contaminated water is a compelling enough reason to have a downzone. Wiesen stated he didn't believe so. The water is already contaminated. The water in the lake does not meet safe drinking water standards. It has to be treated. McShane stated the Health Department has always taken the position that people should not drink surface water, whether or not it is contaminated. Surface water is risky for picking up bacteria. Gary Simon, Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish President, asked the audience members who are Lake Samish residents and are in favor of the rezone to raise their hands. There is an increasing amount of support for this item. There are many reasons for the rezone. Traffic is one reason for the rezone. Water quality is another issue. The proposal as brought forward was initiated by residents on or around the lake and who realize that Lake Samish is at a critical juncture in its development. It's disturbing to hear the term "downzone." The residents call it a rezone because the area around the lake was improperly zoned in the first place. One councilmember stated he or she would not vote for any downzone for any reason. He hoped that councilmembers would view Lake Samish and any rezone petition on a case -by -case basis, based on its own merits. There is no other remediation to solve the problems that exist in the watershed. The residents support the position. His group is sponsored and backed by the residents of Lake Samish. The Comprehensive Plan states that a rural area should have local control. Kathy Ploeger, 631 E. Lake Samish Drive, stated Mr. Wiesen didn't read the information that the citizens put forward. She focused on impervious surfaces in the information the citizens provided. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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 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. Ploeger continued to state that experts agree that ten percent of impervious surfaces is the limit. If there is an amount over the ten percent, the health and diversity of watersheds rapidly deteriorate. Lake Samish is the kind of lake that is especially sensitive to the influx of nutrients, specifically phosphorus and nitrogen. Lake Samish has many of the same issues as Lake Whatcom, but they are more critical due to the limited amount of available groundwater. The recreational uses of Lake Samish are being threatened due to increased blue -green algae blooms. If they don't do something soon, Lake Samish could become like Lake Sammamish. Brenner asked the percentage of the overall watershed that has impervious surfaces. Peterson stated staff didn't do a watershed -wide estimate. Nelson stated that paving over everything that is proposed wouldn't meet the ten percent limit. McShane stated the ten percent rule is designed for streams, not lakes. Once ten percent impervious surface is reached on streams, they see impacts to the flow regime of the creek and there will be more rapid erosion. Lakes are big bodies of water that can store and tolerate huge sediment loads. In some cases, lakes can't tolerate anything. The ten percent rule is for streams. Once ten percent is paved, they begin to see stream incision. The ten percent rule shouldn't be applied to lakes because every lake is different. Lakes are complicated and depend on the individual circumstances of the streams. The influence of the lake will come from each stream going into the lake. Lake Samish is made up of many small streams that go into the lake. Bob Funkhouser, 1826 Samish Lane, stated Mr. Wiesen made a comment that the Planning Commission had changed its mind, but there was actually only one negative vote at the time. It's not true that people changed their minds. Mr. Wiesen also made statements about the reason residents of the area did not vote to have water. It's also not true that people voted down water to keep growth out. He has lived on the lake for 40 years. The traffic problem is horrendous. The boating problem is much better, but getting worse every year. Lake Stevens has the same acreage as Lake Samish. Lake Stevens has a five -acre aerator in the middle of the lake to try and keep it from going bad. The middle of Lake Stevens looks like a sewage treatment plant. He would not like to see that at Lake Samish. Lake Stevens residents waited too long. The houses are built from the edge of the lake to the top of hills. The Council has an opportunity to do something for Lake Samish for generations to come. Kim Herronkohl, 321 Summerland Road, stated she agreed with the previous three speakers, and was disturbed by Mr. Wiesen's comments. There was a good public process at the Planning Commission. There were two hearings where many people spoke in favor of the Planning Department proposal. In addition, a large number of letters were written from people living at Lake Samish. When they talk about local control, the local inhabitants of Lake Samish have spoken. Hundreds are in favor and only four have spoken against the proposal. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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 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. Regarding the concern about the water quality, it is an issue and is a reason for the downzone. All the reasons for the downzone are covered in the Planning Department staff report. In the last year or year and a half, there has been the threat of a public water system coming to Lake Samish, which has elevated the concerns of the residents to preserve what the lake offers everyone. It would be very difficult for the County staff to try and break out all of the individual parcels that should be zoned a particular way. The Planning Department staff has done an excellent review of what growth Lake Samish can bear based on water quality, topography, and road conditions. Administratively, she knows how stretched the dollars are. They have to think about what will provide the most benefit without overtaxing the services that they have already. Support the proposal. Cal Leenstra, 720 - 11th Street, stated he opposed any kind of downzone. It is not justified. He was here when the area was zoned urban residential, three lots per acre (UR -3). Many people worked on and put a lot of input into that discussion. This is not a mistake. It was a plan, and is a good plan that should be retained. The Planning Commission vote was an even vote, which would indicate a negative recommendation. There are legal and fairness questions about why the vote was overridden. The larger landowners haven't contributed to the problems everyone is discussing, but the County is looking to the larger landowners to solve the lake's problems. That's not right. The County can't downzone a property by 90 percent and say that downzone will fix the problem. A 90 percent downzone of everyone in the county will fix all the problems in the county. However, the County can't do that. People in the real estate industry try to provide affordable housing, which is becoming more difficult to find. A recent house bill instructs counties to provide an element of economic viability in the Comprehensive Plan, to project growth, to determine what jobs will be required, and at what price ranges the houses should be in to supply the demand for these new jobs. He asked how the County Council could downzone this property, which has public sewer. He asked where housing will go if not here. The County has to take a look at the big picture because it can't keep downzoning everything. He can't afford to develop a five -acre parcel with sewer. A five -acre parcel must have at least 300 feet of frontage. That requires 300 feet of water, sewer, storm sewer, sidewalk, and street. That's over $300 per lineal foot. This is exclusionary zoning, and its elitist. There is no way that anyone can afford a five - acre parcel that has sewer and other urban amenities. It will cost several hundred thousand dollars. That's not affordable housing. This action is similar to forcing people to sell 90 percent of their Microsoft stock to preserve green space and preserve the lake. He questioned why the Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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. Microsoft owners should be forced to pay for the green space. This action is the same thing. The Lake Stevens argument is a red herring. There is no way that Lake Samish can be developed to the density that Lake Stevens is, even with the current zone. This is not a popularity vote. He has lots of money invested in his property. He's paid for the sewer at a density of three lots per acre. After that, the property was immediately downzoned to two lots per acre. He hasn't polluted the lake one bit. All of the problems are not of his doing. They are of the neighbors' doing. If the neighbors want the problems fixed, he needs to be compensated. It is a sham to avoid just compensation. There is not a workable TDR program. It is not compensation. Don't support this downzone. He submitted a letter from an attorney who owns land but who could not attend (on file). McShane read the letter from Mr. Cammock. Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association Government Affairs, stated the night the Planning Commission vote was taken was chaotic. He questions whether sensibility prevailed. He also questions whether or not the downzone is in compliance with the GMA. There is no provision to protect landowners in the watersheds for compensation or reallocation. One of the highest priorities in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the rights of property owners. James Wilson, 921 West Lake Samish Drive, stated he speaks for many of his neighbors, who are comfortable having their property rights reduced to the level it should have been in the first place. There are large property owners in the area who agree with the rezone. Ninety -three percent of 200 people surveyed around the lake are in favor of the rezone. Mr. Leenstra commented that a large frontage of property does not promote development. It is not costly to do that. This lake has a perimeter of 8.3 miles. If the area, which is one - quarter mile wide and 8.3 miles long, were looked at for development purposes, it would be described as sprawl. The proposal is to define lines that don't promote sprawl. Admittedly, there are areas around the lake that are built out to maximum density. The lots in those areas fall within a natural boundary, which is a requirement of the GMA, and would not be affected by this downzone. The information the residents presented was detailed. He encouraged the councilmembers to look at it. It is double jeopardy for people who attended and testified to the Planning Commission to have to come again before the County Council. The residents already went through the public process to get to this point and bring this forward. Caskey- Schreiber asked staff to discuss the issue of needing 300 feet of road frontage to develop five -acre parcels. Goodwin stated a developer doesn't need 300 feet of frontage. Mr. Leenstra is saying that if someone has a five -acre parcel Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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. with 300 feet of frontage and is paying for the sewer along that road, and if water comes in, the developer would pay for the frontage of the water. That becomes expensive. It's not a requirement that someone must have 300 feet of footage. That is just what Mr. Leenstra has. McShane asked if there is a cluster provision. Goodwin stated there is a cluster requirement in the area. One could do a number of one -acre lots with a reserve tract, which is probably what Mr. Leenstra would want to do on a steep parcel, leaving the steeper part of the parcel undeveloped. That would be most logical. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to come up with something that allows Mr. Leenstra to develop his five five -acre lots. She asked if the Council must accept this proposal as a whole, or is allowed to tinker with it. McShane stated the Council could amend it. A public hearing would be required. Caskey- Schreiber stated a zone of R2A would provide for 12 homes for Mr. Leenstra. She asked if that would make Mr. Leenstra's property financially viable. Leenstra stated a zone of R2A would be less disastrous, but it would still be disastrous. It is very expensive to develop. People can't afford a larger lot with all of the infrastructure. The density was affordable at three lots per acre. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County needs to reduce the density around all of the lakes. The biggest risk to lakes is the human impacts that infiltrate the entire area. However, she is trying to find a compromise for Mr. Leenstra. Leenstra stated he would be in favor of the downzone if he was paid for the property. It's the public that would benefit. Nelson asked the impacts to the sewer district. Pederson stated the sewer district commissioners have not commented. She contacted the water district for additional information, but she has not received a response. Nelson stated investments have been made into the water district. He's concerned about how this impacts the water district's planning. McShane stated one investment is the sewer line investment, of which 80 percent was paid by a grant. There has been a feasibility study for running a water line. A development company, Mercedes Holdings, paid for the study. Nelson asked if the downzone would have impacts to the water district. McShane stated the district hasn't paid for the water line yet. He has a question regarding the sewer treatment facility. It was an issue if there was a lot more development. The facility would have to be upgraded if there were a lot more development. Currently, the facility is okay. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, 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 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. Nelson questioned whether the property owners have volunteered to do density reduction and lot consolidation on their own properties. Pederson stated voluntary consolidation is not something the Planning Department has done. The lot consolidation regulations apply to specific properties. The parcels in Lake Samish are not subject to lot consolidation. Nelson asked why the Planning staff has not pursued voluntary lot consolidation and density reduction since the Comprehensive Plan land use planning policies are to look at all other incentive based programs before a rezone. He doesn't support downzones because many times the staff hasn't tried other programs and simply goes after property owners to bear the burden of past errors. Of course that creates future errors. Consistency about land use is one of the things that the GMA was trying to establish. He worries about inconsistency, even with upzoning. He recommended that this committee consider other options as an alternative to help landowners and others impacted in that area. McShane stated that Mr. Leenstra already has the option to have smaller lots in a cluster. Pederson stated clustering is required. Nelson stated the County is still trying to work on the TDR program and other programs. He asked where the density will go and where the receiving areas will be. If the County does not do a TDR, then a downzone forces the issue. People who want to locate in these areas may find it more difficult. The County will have to find alternative areas in the southern Bellingham quadrangle. He asked where the alternative areas would be. Pederson stated one of the issues with voluntary lot consolidation is that the majority of the areas being proposed for rezone are already larger parcels. Lot consolidation wouldn't necessarily do anything in this instance. Lot consolidation would address smaller, substandard lots. Nelson asked if there is a tool to have a voluntary rezone. He asked why the County doesn't allow for a voluntary rezone. Pederson stated anyone can come in at any time to request a rezone. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Nelson stated he is concerned about whether the Council and staff have explored all the other avenues and the impacts to the water. Quality of health issues have been raised by constituents in the area and by the Health Department and Department of Ecology (DOE). He asked if County staff has determined the number of water withdrawal rights that are available out there. Pederson stated she contacted the DOE. There are 378 water permits, certificates, or claims in the Lake Samish watershed. That equals 406 total water rights. Permits are not being used yet. There are about 45 permits not being used. Someone with a certificate has put in the infrastructure and is running at capacity. There are few claims. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 11 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. Nelson stated the total potential is 406. He asked the impact if the Council does a downzone. He asked whether or not the water system could still go in. McShane stated it could still go in, but it would be a different financial scenario. He's not sure how the water district to the south is funded. Nelson asked if the chance is poor for a water line to go in with a zoning change. McShane stated it probably is in the short -term. Brenner stated that the Council always established commercial forestry zoning when the landowner volunteered for it. She's concerned about turning any property into commercial forestry zoning. That completely takes away development rights from property that is zoned rural, one unit per two acres (R2A). When commercial forestry zones were first established, the property owners who agreed were mostly lumber companies. The County has never forced anyone to have a commercial forestry zone before. Pederson stated a timber company owns the area proposed for commercial forestry in this proposal. It is tied to the parcel right next to it that is currently zoned commercial forestry. It is actually one parcel. She can check with the property owner. McShane stated that because of the contiguous ownership, the zone line would be drawn through a property and not follow a property boundary line. They typically try not to draw zoning lines through properties. Pederson stated that is correct. Brenner stated she supports limiting density around Lake Samish as much as possible. She liked the concept of asking the property owners who would be willing to voluntarily downzone. If the Council is going to move ahead with the downzone, she would like to insert some kind of hardship clause. She wasn't comfortable with the zoning as it ended up. Some people may be willing to voluntarily downzone. Goodwin stated it would be very impractical to put a hardship clause in zoning. Anyone with a desire for a greater financial profit could be viewed as a hardship case. Everyone is in the same boat. She would not recommend putting a hardship clause in. If the Council is not comfortable with all this area being rezoned to R5A, it doesn't have to make a decision on this today. The Council can't adopt any of these Comprehensive Plan amendments until they get through the entire docket in November or December. The Council may have a work session to look through the area parcel by parcel. Brenner stated she would rather the onus be on the property owners to show whether a parcel can handle the different zoning. If someone shows that his or her property is more suitable to R2A zoning, then allow the person to have that zoning without going through a rezone. Goodwin stated she recommended that the property owner go through the rezone instead. The Council can waive the fees or Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 12 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. accelerate the project as a Council- initiated rezone. There are only four people who have spoken against this proposal. It would be more expeditious to leave the decision open and give people more of an opportunity to come forward to the Council now rather than leave it open -ended so people can come back to the Council. Brenner asked if the Council could extend the moratorium to see who would be willing to do a voluntary downzone, and then see what they've got left. Crawford stated that is what Ms. Goodwin is suggesting, which is to hold off, find out who the dissenting property owners are, and see if there's a workable plan that takes their densities into consideration. McShane stated that if the Council wants to amend this at all, it has to hold a public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the Leenstra project area that is 25 acres and proposed for zoning at R2A. Mr. Leenstra's property is not as steep as some areas they've downzoned. Goodwin stated that might be considered a spot zone. One parcel surrounded by R5A could be considered a spot zone. The committee might want to go with a bigger area. Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend the zoning area of the cove in the southwest portion of Lake Samish to change from the R5A zone proposal to the R2A zone. The area is the southwest portion of the lake from Leenstra's property toward the south. There is locational criteria for what land should be zoned R2A or zoned R5A. If there isn't a pattern of existing development and smaller parcels, the Comprehensive Plan locational criteria says that the parcel should be zoned R5A if the average lot size exceeds ten acres. Staff can take another look at the existing parcel sizes in that area. Zoning of R2A is certainly an option. McShane stated the Council would have to set a public hearing. He restated the motion to change the zoning of the area of the Leenstra property south in the southwest portion of the lake, and it would be zoned R2A. Goodwin stated other individuals have asked for an R2A zone instead of an R5A zone. Staff can bring forward a map that shows the locations of the property owned by people who have asked to be zoned R2A instead of R5A. Fleetwood stated keep the process going so they can still vote on the rezone in November or December. He has concerns about the TDR provision. He would agree to hold this in committee for two weeks. Caskey- Schreiber moved to hold this in committee for two weeks. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 13 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 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. McShane stated there seems to be a lot of focus on water quality. Another issue needs to be emphasized. This area has been designated a suburban enclave. The current zoning is suburban. The question is whether they should create a suburban isolated area. Some of the most difficult problems Whatcom County have come from the type of zoning that occurred in the 1970's. Peaceful Valley, Sudden Valley, and Glenhaven are pockets of suburban development where there are infrastructure problems. It's not all about water quality. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 14