Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 20 20011 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee February 20, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Connie Hoag Sam Crawford Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2001 -041) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are County Code criteria for Council to consider when deciding on whether to initiate Comprehensive Plan docket items. The Council will look at whether the amendment relates to a site in a city's urban growth area (UGA), modification of a city's UGA, or amending the Comprehensive Plan relating to a city's UGA. That is one of the criteria. Another criterion is if the amendment relates to agricultural land, forest land, or mineral land. The Council is to consider the long -term trends and loss of resource lands. The last criterion is whether the County has already set a future date for examining the area or issue. 2001 B SUDDEN VALLEY URBAN GROWTH AREA Goodwin stated the application is to make Sudden Valley a UGA. It is a now a Resort Recreational Subdivision. The area is about 1,545 acres. It is not a UGA. The request is to make it a UGA. It would not affect agriculture, mineral, or forest land. It will be reviewed at a future date. The County is supposed to review UGA's every five years, and the next scheduled review is in 2002. At that time, the County will have population data and will reevaluate all UGA's. Maps show that the area is in an existing Resort Recreational Subdivision. The zoning is Urban Residential (UR), three units per acre, and some Urban Residential Mixed, 12 units per acre (UR -M 12), and Resort Commercial. The density would not be affected by the amendment. There are wetlands, wildlife, habitat areas, and aquifer recharge areas. Most of the wetlands are in open space tracts, such as the water features of the golf course. There is some wildlife habitat conservation areas along stream corridors. Half of it is an aquifer recharge area. There are some steep slopes. There is also an alluvial fan hazard area along the creek. There are no seismic hazards or pipelines. The Sudden Valley Community Association provided a letter about their wish to incorporate and the preliminary cost benefit analysis of the revenues that would come in versus the cost of running Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 a city. Their reason for wanting to become a UGA is to allow them to consider incorporation. McShane referenced the letter discussed taxing issues and revenue generation in this area. He questioned how much of a role that plays in assessing whether an area should become a UGA, rather than simply becoming a city for their own information. He questioned how much the Planning Commission or the Council would take that into account. Goodwin stated it is very important. The only reason to make Sudden Valley in a UGA is to become a city. The County doesn't want to encourage additional growth in the Lake Whatcom watershed unless it is for the purpose of incorporation. The two would be closely tied together. If the cost - benefit analysis doesn't indicate that it would be a viable city, there is no reason to designate it as a UGA. McShane asked if that has been done in other UGA's that aren't associated with cities. Goodwin stated it probably hasn't been because there aren't policies in other areas encouraging no additional growth and that are designated as a water resource protection area. Other UGA's not associated with cities were done because the urban density and zoning were already there. It was thought that being a UGA would help those areas move forward on improving their economy and look at future issues. At that time, they didn't plan to become a city. They probably still won't. Sudden Valley's main reason for asking to be a UGA is to incorporate. Nothing in the GMA says that an area has to incorporate to be a UGA, it is just to facilitate the future formation of a city. Hoag asked if the only way Sudden Valley can become a city is through being a UGA. Goodwin stated that was correct. Hoag asked if there is a way to allow Sudden Valley to do the things it wants to do to control the things that go on, and have their own revenues to address those situations, without creating more growth in the area. Goodwin stated they talked about that when it came up before. The County could form an interlocal agreement between the new city and the County at the time it incorporates that would set up density and zoning increases in the area. Once there is a city, they do have their elected city council that might not always do what the County wants them to do. The County would lose some control once the city incorporates. None of the other ways of dealing with the issues, other than becoming a city, has been very popular. The County could take over the roads, which don't meet County standards and are steep and narrow. It would be expensive for the County to maintain them. The County could provide some financial assistance to the Sudden Valley area to help them with some of their expenses, and then maintain that County control. There are a lot of open space and parks in Sudden Valley. There could be a role with the County Parks Department to manage those resources. There are other options besides becoming a city. Once Sudden Valley becomes a city, it elects their own elected officials who make the decisions on zoning within their city and their authority through the interlocal agreements. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Hoag questioned whether there could be a concomitant agreement that would limit what comes in. Goodwin stated they could not. Concomitant agreements only deal with the things that the County has the authority to influence. Once the area incorporates, there is a city government that would make decisions. The Council has to look at what the County has that the city would still need as a city. Sudden Valley is assuming that it will contract with the County for sheriff services and for building permits. As a Council, if that is the case and the city is still financially tied to the County, the Council would have a considerable amount of authority over what would happen within that city. Hoag stated the County would not have authority if the city decided to hire their own police. Goodwin stated Sudden Valley would have to come up with that revenue. The County would always face the possibility that Sudden Valley would rezone major sections to give them a commercial tax base. Sudden Valley has indicated that it doesn't intend to do that, and she believes them. The land is already platted to be mostly residential density. There is not a lot of land left. Without County concurrence, they could not expand their urban growth area and, therefore, the city. Nelson asked if the process would be that Sudden Valley becomes an urban growth area. Sudden Valley would not necessarily be a city at that time. Goodwin stated that was correct. Nelson stated that if Sudden Valley went on to the next step and incorporates, it would also have to complete a comprehensive plan that would be acceptable to the Hearings Board. Goodwin stated they have to make a comprehensive plan, and it would only go to the Hearings Board if it was challenged. They would also have to do a shorelines management plan and critical areas ordinance. Nelson stated it would take a financial investment to go on to the next step. Sudden Valley is held in limbo now between being a subarea of Lake Whatcom and a resort. They don't have the opportunity to take care of their own needs. The Council should understand that Sudden Valley would have to go through the same process as other cities to develop their comprehensive plan that meets the needs of the County Comprehensive Plan, and then develop the interlocal agreement. There are many restrictions to just becoming a city. Hoag asked if there would be a threshold to the size of the city limits. Goodwin stated there would not. It is only a requirement of the County. Dawson asked if they could develop their own road standards. Goodwin stated they could. Dawson stated she supported the road system Sudden Valley has now. They need help maintaining the roads. As a city, Sudden Valley would have more access to funds. She asked for an explanation of how the funds would be generated. Goodwin stated the residents pay into the County road tax fund. If Sudden Valley Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 was a city, they wouldn't pay that amount to the County. Instead, they would assess a local city property tax. Therefore, the property owners wouldn't pay additional taxes. They would instead pay the taxes to the city. Hoag asked if there has been interest in having the County help out with the roads. Goodwin stated some citizens asked if it would be an alternative. The Public Works Department is not interested in taking over those roads because they don't meet County standards. Hoag asked if the standards could be waived. Goodwin stated these conditions might be beyond what the County Engineer would waive. Some roads are too steep for County vehicles. Sudden Valley doesn't have the snow removal equipment to cover that many roads with that grade. It would create challenges for the County. Hoag asked if another organization could buy out the association in the future if it becomes a UGA. Goodwin stated one could. Political decisions are always based on who is in office. Depending on what the majority of the people want, they elect someone to represent them. If everyone had a pro - growth attitude and elected a pro - growth Council, they could take the open space parcels and zone them commercial. There is nothing the County could do but work on an interlocal agreement to firmly influence Sudden Valley's future once it becomes a city. Brenner stated she thought the County is restricted from doing certain things due to the Growth Management Act (GMA). Sudden Valley couldn't just change open space to commercial zoning. Goodwin stated they could if Sudden Valley became a city. They would be subject to the Hearings Board appeals. Hoag asked how much density is developed and how much is available for development. Goodwin stated people from the association could answer that question. Hoag asked if it could be built out all the way without being appealed to the Hearings Board because it wouldn't be a change in zoning. Goodwin stated that was correct. If it remains in the County, that is likely to happen over the next five to ten years. It probably will continue to develop. Sudden Valley has a density reduction program to reduce 1,400 lots. They are more than halfway there now. Under the current zoning, there can be a considerable amount of growth there whether or not it becomes incorporated. Nelson asked if it is a closed community. Goodwin stated it is not gated. Nelson asked how they could use taxpayer dollars to benefit the closed community. Goodwin stated that if the community chose to dedicate the roads as public roads, it is something the County could do. There has not been a lot of discussion to do this. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Roger Bull, Sudden Valley Community Association Board Member, stated that Sudden Valley is completely open. There are no gates and no barriers to anyone coming in. Some facilities are restricted to fee payers. The golf course has green fees. It is not a gated community. The last time a developer tried to buy them out was ten years ago. There are only two developers remaining who are behind in dues, and they are not allowed to build anything. They only own less than five or six percent of the lots in Sudden Valley. They are currently negotiating with those developers to surrender their property in return for freeing up the small number of lots. Sudden Valley is not a community of developers. It was once, but not now. Their argument in favor of Sudden Valley becoming a UGA is that it frees them to work toward becoming a city. They have clearly defined boundaries. All the land is platted except the old airport, which they are reserving for a school. More than half the land has been built on. There are 1,400 lots that are part of the density reduction program. This has been vetted by the County, who exempted Sudden Valley from the transfer of density rights (TDR) program as a result. They have a lot evaluation overview that is applied to the lots they acquire. They consider slope, hydrology, and other factors. They are trying to restrict additional building to flat lots that are well clear of any environmental concerns. They have all the public services. There is Water District 10 and a fire district. They have a small retail business center. A resident could live off the stores. The return from the one percent sales tax in 1999 was $3,500. The majority of the people are young people with jobs. There are more than 700 children. Five hundred of the children attend schools in Bellingham. The Sudden Valley Association has a budget of over $2 million. They manage roads, a youth center, golf course, marina, and other facilities. They provide their local security with support from the Sheriff's Office. They promote and enforce environmental programs, stormwater retention, forest and wildlife stewardship program, architectural guidelines, and they are in the process of introducing a burn ban. They have investigated the financial and legal implications. It is a reasonable idea. Until they go into the details to find out the parameters, they cannot say that they would positively go forward. There are nearly 200 signatures on the petition in favor of this. They realize that they would have to have an election. There is no way to know if the citizens would vote for a city, because they haven't been asked. Sudden Valley doesn't intend to change. They would build more houses gradually. They have restrictions due to location on putting in big industrial or commercial areas. They are prepared to enter into interlocal agreements with the County. Hoag asked what guarantees that the lots in the density reduction program are permanently taken out of circulation. Bull stated they are encouraging people to buy the lot next to their existing property and merge the two through a covenant to bind. They have taken 96 lots off the tax base. Every year, Sudden Valley buys lots in the tax sale. The County and Water District 10 share that cost. Those lots get put into trust. At the moment, they are in the process of the lot evaluation, which looks into six criteria to establish whether a lot can be built on. The idea is Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 that those lots less suitable for building will first be taken off the table. They would also take off the table those lots that adjoin parks, roads, or have another public and social value. The idea is that the 1,400 lots that are least appropriate for building are the ones they will try to remove. Sudden Valley is in an area of unstable slope lands. That is one reason they are involved in the issue of logging. Hoag asked on whose authority is the covenant to bind, and who has the authority to remove it. Dave Wilson, Sudden Valley General Manager, stated the covenant to bind couldn't be removed once it is put on. It is a binding covenant with the County. The lots are bound permanently. Regarding the 96 lots they removed from the County tax roles, those lots also had permanent covenants put on them. There is a plan to purchase as many as 200 more on the current numbers they hold, which is a total of 872 lots that have been applied to the density reduction program. The total build -out is 4,800. They plan for a density reduction of 1,400. They have 872 out now. Doug Lindstrom, Sudden Valley resident, stated he moved to Sudden Valley two years ago because it is not in the urban growth area. He had been involved in the planning process in other smaller communities. There is not a feasible tax base for Sudden Valley to become a city. The responsibilities to be assumed over the next few years will result in a drive for commercial and industrial zoning to pay the bills. There are many silent people in Sudden Valley who feel the same way. He would be more in favor of a plan where the County assumed control of the roads or other responsibilities that are creating the financial problem for the community association, which isn't geared to be a municipality. Hoag asked what the Sudden Valley would have to take care of that they could not afford. Lindstrom stated there is no court system or other things that have to be put in place. The amount of money they are looking at for taxes would not pay for everything the city has to do. Hoag stated residential development doesn't pay for itself. She asked if Mr. Lindstrom saw a problem with Sudden Valley becoming a UGA if it does not become a city. Lindstrom stated that it has not been voted on by the membership. The City of Bellingham could annex them. Hoag asked if that was correct. Goodwin stated the City could if it included everything between the city limit and Sudden Valley, and do a tubular annexation that went around Sudden Valley. They would have to have urban density all the way out to Sudden Valley to justify it. They would be in court for years, but it could happen. Bull stated it is their intention to keep the community association and continue to have people pay dues and supplement with city taxes. The initial analysis shows that the taxes collected could total $800,000 per year, less than what is budgeted. That is close to what they generate in dues. They would hope to Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 have enough additional revenue to tackle some of the problems they are aware of in the watershed, particularly with Austin Creek and the logging that took place. Hoag asked if they've looked at the different costs of becoming a city. Bull stated they've done some preliminary studies. There is no point in spending the money to hire experts to do the work. In other communities, they've established that there are certain sources of revenue that would be open to them if they incorporated, but are not closed to them as a UGA. They believe that there would be reasonable revenue. They know the appraised value of Sudden Valley, the turnover on the property, and how low the return from sales tax would be. The previous speaker may be more in favor of it if he had more information and was more in the loop of information. The minimal costs of becoming a city, including the cost for planning, would be about $350,000 more than now. They looked at the costs for providing services such as police and courts. One of their members used to work for the Sheriff's Office and has discussed policing with the Sheriff. It seems they can do what other communities have done, which is to have 20 percent of a team of sheriff deputies and equipment. It would be an additional cost of about $90,000 to $100,000 per year. The roads are in excellent condition, but they are too curvy, narrow, and steep to meet County criteria. Dawson asked what the City of Nooksack does with courts and police. Bull stated they arrange to have a court day. Their small amount of court cases is mostly traffic - related. They arrange to have the judge visit once per week. They are contract judges. Nelson stated the County's Hearing Examiner does that. Hoag asked if that happens with the jail. Nelson stated the jail is a different story. It depends on whether they are contracted with the County to use the County jail. It would have to be worked out through an interlocal agreement. Hoag asked if they would get a portion of the 1 /10th of one percent criminal justice tax. Nelson stated they would. Bull stated they have come up with reasonable figures. They think that $25,000 per year would cover the cost of a contract judge. Sudden Valley now hears people on internal traffic offenses monthly. They've allowed $33,000 for adult detention. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Bull continued to state that many services would be contracted out. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Nelson asked what is next if they find out it isn't feasible and once they are a UGA. He questioned whether Sudden Valley could stay as a UGA or go back to being a Resort Recreational Subdivision. Goodwin stated there would be a couple of options. The Council could identify Sudden Valley as a provisional UGA. It would be most expeditious for the County to initiate a rezone to put Sudden Valley back as a Resort Recreational Subdivision community. Nelson asked if the only way to get these questions answered is if the Council makes Sudden Valley a UGA. Goodwin stated the Council could initiate the studies on its own, but it is difficult for Sudden Valley to budget if they are uncertain whether they can becomes a UGA. Bull stated they might find that the residents don't want to do it, in which case they would see if there are other ways to get County support. Jim Cates, Sudden Valley resident, stated there are other advantages to becoming a UGA, such as the statewide burn ban in all UGA's. Sandy Cameron, former chair to the City Committee and Sudden Valley resident, stated they've looked at this for over a year. People are worried about growth. Sudden Valley is a dues paying community. It would be impossible to grow and retain dues to a new area. There are growth restrictions. Sudden Valley has financial problems. If they relieve themselves of 1,400 dues paying lots, they need replacement money, so they must have agreements with the County or become a city to take advantage of the taxes that the community members now pay as property taxes, as well as the sales taxes, to become a viable community. There would be no further growth. All they are asking is to become a UGA. They would have to explain becoming a city to the residents and let them vote. They cannot do that until they become a UGA. He asked for the Council's support to allow Sudden Valley take that step. Hoag asked if there are any staff concerns. Goodwin stated not really. The earlier concern about the viability of the future city regarding financial feasibility is still a concern. Sudden Valley did a thorough analysis of cost benefit. She wanted to hear from the sheriff about whether Sudden Valley could contract with sheriff services. Those are questions to be answered when looking at the UGA. There is also a concern about how much the appeal to the decision would cost if it was appealed. A UGA in the watershed may be appealed and would be expensive and time consuming. Sudden Valley meets criteria for a UGA if it weren't a drinking water watershed, and it would be an easy decision. Hoag asked if community dues would be allowed to continue. Goodwin stated they would. Hoag asked the result if Sudden Valley remained a UGA and did not become a city. Goodwin stated that in the zoning code, the zoning is one unit per five acres outside of a UGA. There could be no further subdivision. There are a few tracts Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 that have Urban Residential Mixed (UR -M) zoning that have not yet been subdivided, and could be eligible for subdivision if in a UGA. They are small. She indicated the locations on the map. Hoag asked how many potential new lots there could be. Goodwin stated that if they became a city, the city would dictate its own zoning. Bull spoke about the creation of additional subdivisions. There is an airport that they are saving for a school. There is an RV storage location that no one would want to build on. The campground cannot be converted. There are 850 acres of a total of 1,600 acres that are green space. They have already done the subdividing. They don't have a rural situation with houses on five acres. Houses are now being built as if they are in an urban area. Hoag asked what is located in areas that are currently zoned UR -M 12. McShane stated those are the condominiums. Bull stated there are nine clusters of condominiums, for a total of 235 units. All those locations are fully developed. Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council to docket Sudden Valley for review. He did not support the Sudden Valley request to be designated as UGA without a review. The issues are far - reaching and complex. Going thorough the proper process, which they are attempting to do, will give them the information and resources to make a decision. McShane suggested making it provisional, so they would incorporate within five years. He questioned whether they could do that. Goodwin stated it is not a provision for the Council to modify a citizen application. The Council could send direction to the Planning Commission on what it would like to see. The Council could ask the Planning Commission to consider that as an alternative. McShane stated he would like the Planning Commission to consider a five - year time limit and also other alternatives of how Sudden Valley could deal with these issues while under County jurisdiction. Hoag asked if those lots zoned UR -M 12 are developed. Goodwin stated some of the lots do have condominiums. Some have stored recreational vehicles (RV's). Hoag asked how much is truly available for development. Goodwin stated she didn't have a clear answer. She could provide information for the next meeting. Cameron stated that they cannot take the golf course or any common properties purchased by the residents and develop them, according to the covenants. They are owned by all of the residents. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Wilson stated one area of UR -M 12 is too steep for developing. It is from the original platting. Several areas are already fully developed condominiums. One area is not owned by Sudden Valley. It is private and for sale. They have no control over it. Goodwin stated that property would allow about five or six lots. Wilson stated another area is a parking lot and retention tank. Cameron stated Sudden Valley would not do any large developments. Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed. Hoag stated she was concerned about the area coming out of the County's control when it is a drinking water source for Bellingham. 2001 C LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED DOWNZONE Goodwin stated the proposal is to change zoning. There is not a complete application, because it is the wrong application. The applicant was notified in early January about the wrong application. There is limited detail in the application. The application is to rezone property currently zoned Rural Residential, one unit per acre (RR1) and Rural Residential, two units per acre (RR2) to Rural, one unit per two acres (R2A). The area is in the Lake Whatcom watershed. There are all RR1 and RR2 areas around Agate Bay and South Bay. Brenner asked how many properties are involved. Goodwin stated she didn't know. Many lots are already platted. Brenner asked if the applicant was supposed to provide that information. Goodwin stated the applicant could have, but didn't. Hoag asked if the County heard from the City. Goodwin stated the County hasn't gotten any comments. Part of it is in the UGA, none is in agriculture land or forest land, and there are no plans to look at the area at a future date. The notice was sent to the city in January. Nelson asked if the property owners have been notified. Goodwin stated they would not be notified unless it is docketed. Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated he sent notice to all the cities on January 12, and requested comments by February 2. They did not get any comment from the City of Bellingham. Nelson asked how much of the area is built out. Goodwin stated staff didn't do research on build out. That information would be in the staff report if docketed. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Hoag asked if the County has looked at this option in the past. Goodwin stated the County looked at all options, including a downzone, two years ago, but adopted the overlay zone instead. The pros and cons two years ago were the same as now, which includes property rights versus existing patterns. The biggest issue is the fact that people have expensive property zoned two units per acre, and had expectations to develop it. Taking that away without compensation could be a Takings challenge. Those were the issues the Planning Commission and Council discussed for several years. McShane moved to recommend approval. Hoag stated the Council should initiate it if that is what they want to do. She had a problem with people who miss deadlines or submit incomplete applications. She asked if this is something the Council wants the Planning Commission to look at. If so, the Council should initiate it. Crawford asked the fee paid for this application. Goodwin stated no fee is paid until it is initiated. Then the fee would be $400 for the Comprehensive Plan, and an additional $1,200 for the zoning and $400 for a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review. That won't come close to the cost of mailings and public hearings. Motion failed unanimously. McShane moved to recommend denial to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 2001 D LYNDEN UGA Goodwin stated there are two amendments. The applicant came forward last year, and was told that their property could not be added at that time. They've gone to the city and asked to be added to the city UGA, which was approved. Now, the applicant is coming back to the County asking to be added to the County UGA. If the City of Lynden sent the request forward, it would be automatically added to the docket. However, these are individual applications. The first request is to add land to the Lynden UGA. It involves the removal of 26 acres of agricultural land. Both properties are 100 percent agricultural zoning and agricultural soils. The soils are Lynden sandy loam and Pangborn muck. Crawford asked if the land to the west of the southern site is already designated Urban Residential, four units per acre (UR -4). McShane stated the Council packet map may have been pulled from a map change made last year. Goodwin stated that was correct. When they added the land to the west, they changed the zoning. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 48 Hoag stated the map in the Council packet doesn't match the map being displayed. Crawford stated the southwest corner of the map in the Council packet indicates another type of zoning. Goodwin stated the map in the Council packet indicates that the area is already in the UGA. It still is agricultural zoning. She didn't think that the smaller area to the north was in the UGA, even though that is what is indicated on the map. She would research it further. Arlene Blankers- Sanders, 1409 Marietta Avenue, stated she represented the Blankers family timber trust. They tacked on the Van Dragt parcel on the east end of the City of Lynden. They were involved with the County and City of Lynden in trying to get all of the urban growth in line. They were left out when everything was adjoined. An island was formed. She indicated on the map where the urban growth line is now, where it was when it was amended, and where it should be. The ideal situation is to stay with the topography of the land. That is why she made application to be in the UGA. Hoag asked the use of the land to the west. Blankers- Sanders stated it is unused vacant land. There is probably some flood plain in the parcel. There could only be 60 percent that they could use. They want to make sure those areas are protected and that they stay within those guidelines. Hoag asked why they would give up the agricultural soils. Blankers- Sanders asked how much land was taken out of UGA when the line was amended. Goodwin stated a fair amount of land was taken out. Blankers- Sanders stated the request is only to bring in a third of what was taken out of the UGA. About 80 acres were taken out of UGA this year. They are only asking for 25 acres to be brought back into the UGA. Hoag stated there is a letter of concern from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) about losing agricultural land. She read from the letter. The question is whether it makes sense to give up the agricultural land. She didn't think it made sense. Blankers- Sanders stated the property is on the border of the City of Lynden and the fairgrounds. It is a few blocks from the downtown shopping area. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Blankers- Sanders continued to state that a proposed park borders this property. The area would be useful for housing in the future. They need housing for future generations. Because land was taken out of the UGA, this is a fine opportunity to put some land back into the UGA to maintain the City of Lynden's growth. It is important to look at this at this time. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 Hoag asked if she was saying that land was not available in Lynden to provide those things. Blankers- Sanders stated she was not aware of the rest of the City of Lynden. This land is close to the City of Lynden to do what it needs to do to provide for the future. It is right in town. It is prime development land because it has views and is appealing to everyone. Hoag asked if Ms. Blankers- Sanders was aware that much agricultural land was put into the UGA when the Comprehensive Plan was established. Blankers- Sanders stated there are a lot of things going on at the northeast side of Lynden. That is far into the farming district and where people complain about the dairies. This is land that can't have a big dairy farm because people will complain. Brenner asked about amount of the land in the flood plain. Blankers- Standard stated a third of the land is in the flood plain. Brenner asked if it would be better to have the UGA boundary follow the flood plain. Blankers- Sanders stated she was told that it is difficult to use topography as a boundary. That is why they came to a common understanding about what line to use. Brenner asked if staff was more comfortable if they moved ahead with this boundary, rather than following the topography. Goodwin stated the flood plain is more than about 60 percent of the property. It looks more like ten to fifteen percent of the property is not in the flood plain. All of the rest is in the flood plain, according to the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) maps. Staff previously used the flood plain as the basis for the Comprehensive Plan boundary. The problem is that it isn't surveyed. It is difficult to draw a legal description of it. It would be difficult to have only a portion of the property annexed in the city. The city can only annex what is in the UGA. The entire parcel should be in or out of the UGA. Hoag asked for more information in the future about the soils. Goodwin stated the striped area on packet page ten is what was the UGA when they started. They worked with the city, modified it, and took out a portion of that UGA. The UGA followed the flood plain, not the property line. That area used to be in the County UGA. The County took it out because it was not in the city UGA. The City added it, and the request is to add it back to the County UGA. According to this map, it is not in the flood plain. The UGA boundary map on packet page ten is what was the UGA before the Council recently changed it. The County UGA zoning used to be the boundary of the UR -4 zoning, which is the flood plain. That area was taken out of the UGA because it has a conservation easement so it can't be developed. The owner said he didn't mind it being taken out of the UGA, which the County did, and rezoned it to agriculture. The little lot to the north was also taken out. She would provide a correct map. The city said there was no reason to put it in the UGA because there wasn't adequate access. Now, the Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, 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 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 applicant found another access to the property and convinced the city to agree with him. Hoag asked if the city commented. Goodwin stated they didn't. Blankers- Sanders stated the City of Lynden commented by approving the areas for inclusion in the Lynden UGA. The City of Lynden wants this. They've approved it. Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Brenner stated she was concerned about putting flood plain area in the city. Goodwin stated the city has a flood plain ordinance requiring flood plain development to be elevated, the same as the County does. Brenner asked if it would be feasible to only put in the areas that are not in the flood plain. Blankers- Sanders stated she would have to consult with the other property owners. They would like to be able to enhance the flood plain lands and also sell the lower parcels as two- or five -acre parcels, and let people still have some sort of agricultural activity, such as horses, since it is close to the fairgrounds. Because it's in agriculture zoning, they can't subdivide any smaller. They can do that if it was in the city. It would enhance the fairgrounds and its potential. Hoag stated the County is dealing with flood monies to buy up property that is constantly flooding, and not allowing building in the flood plain. On the other hand, they are talking about making this a part of the urban growth area. It isn't appropriate. She wanted the two proposals separated. They are different. The County is losing its agricultural soils. McShane stated he had a concern about meander limits along this stretch of the river. Until the work on meander limits is done, he was concerned about increased development. Brenner asked if the Agricultural Preservation Committee commented. Goodwin stated no. They would not comment until the item is docketed. Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor. 2001 E FERNDALE UGA Aamot stated the proposal is to add ten acres north of Grandview, near the freeway. It has gone to the Ferndale Planning Commission, which is working on an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan. The Ferndale Planning Commission recommended approval, and it is going to the Ferndale City Council this evening. Last year, the applicant submitted a rezone proposal to the east, which is already in the UGA. The area that is already in the UGA is applying to be rezoned to Light Impact Industrial (LII). This ten acres is part of the same site. The Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 14 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 applicant amended their application to rezone this ten acres to LII. The other area is on hold right now. The application for the parcel to the east is being amended to do a site - specific rezone and a binding site plan together. Site - specific rezones go to the Hearing Examiner. Brenner asked why the area to the east is not in the UGA. Aamot stated the applicant doesn't own the parcel to the west. This ten acres is part of the same parcel that is to the east and already in the UGA. Heather Whalen, project representative, stated that the parcel to the east is 72.1 acres. The lower section of the parcel is zoned General Commercial. The boundary is there because it is a quarter section line from the Assessor's maps. It was drawn there probably due to a mapping error. It is all one parcel, and it is not a separate section. McShane stated the parcel that the applicant wants to add is part of the 72.1 -acre parcel to the west. Whalen stated that was correct. It is not a separate piece. Aamot stated there are no agricultural, forest, or MRL lands. The area will be studied with all UGA's at the five -year interval. There are agricultural soils called Edmonds Woodlynn silt loam. Hoag asked the historic use of the land. Whalen stated the owner has had different farmers use it for hay or peas, as a form of maintenance of the land. Aamot continued to state that it is an aquifer recharge area. There are some wetland buffers. There is a stream running through the main parcel. At one time, they were working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to move it. Whalen stated they are putting together a formal application and plan now. Their plan was designed by a fisheries biologist. The stream has been a drainage ditch. McShane stated it drains the wetland. It is an old farming drain. Whalen stated it drains across I -5, through a culvert, and down the side of Portal Way and the Arco AM /PM. It collects the drainage ditches and runs back around. Aamot questioned whether it is going to be moved onto the ten acres. Whalen stated that was the intention. Aamot stated there are no major pipelines or flood plains. McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 15 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 Hoag stated that even land being used for pasture takes the pressure off the price of property for farming and farmers, particularly dairy farmers. Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed. 2001 G POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA PLAN Goodwin stated there are two separate, but related, proposals. The first one is a staff initiated proposal to look at the Point Roberts subarea plan update, to amend the text and maps of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and the Point Roberts zoning maps, consistent with the completed subarea plan. Staff has had a committee working on it over the winter. They have a fairly complete draft. The consultant will write up the final draft for citizen comment. There will be a Saturday workshop on March 17 to consider public input. That is supposed to be the last meeting. They will then forward the plan to the Planning Commission. If this is docketed this year, the plan will be complete. They will just have to schedule the Planning Commission hearing after the draft plan is complete. The area is not in a city UGA. There are not any agricultural, forest, or mineral lands. There is not a plan to look at it at a future date, other than the periodic five -year review of the Comprehensive Plan. The preliminary draft is not to make Point Roberts a UGA, but to retain it as a small town in the center of the peninsula, along Gulf Road, and some at Tyee, concentrate commercial and urban development on the Gulf and Tyee corridor, and to retain the rest of the residential areas as recreational subdivision. Make a zoning change to take it from Urban Residential to Rural Residential, one unit per acre (RR1) for a lot of the un- platted areas that are currently Urban Residential. There is also a recommendation in the draft plan to look at the feasibility of sewers. That is the reason for the next application. They also have a proposal to provide sewers in areas that are designated Small Town or Recreational Subdivision. Hoag moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Bruno Morris, Point Roberts Voters Association president, stated that staff's comments on the subarea plan are premature. The public hearings have not been held. To suggest that the committee is making that decision is not the case. They have made the application to change Point Roberts to an urban growth area (Amendment 2000 -H). Ms. Goodwin stated that sewers are needed at Point Roberts, which qualifies for UGA status. The people of the community and the Voters' Association feel that funds and investment to proceed with building a sewer system will be easier if the area is designated as a UGA. Dawson stated that Mr. Morris is not on the subarea plan committee. She asked if the goals of that committee conflict with the Voters' Association. Morris stated Ms. Goodwin suggests that is the case. His delegate to the subarea plan committee is supporting the position of the Voters' Association. There are six delegates on the subarea plan who support his position. The vote on the plan may be an impasse. In that case, the County Council will have a dilemma. Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 16 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 Hoag asked if these are two different things, and the first suggestion from staff is just to develop a subarea plan. Whether or not Point Roberts becomes a UGA, they still have to develop a subarea plan. Goodwin stated that was correct. The amendments are separate but related. When the Council adopts the subarea plan, if the subarea plan says it should be a UGA after all the public hearings, then it is unnecessary to do a separate request. If it is not intended to be a UGA, and after the Planning Commission hearings, and the Council decides it doesn't want to be a UGA, then the Council having another hearing on whether it should be a UGA would be a redundant exercise. When the subarea plan is done, it is either going to be a UGA or not. In her opinion, the Council would combine these two and look at a UGA as one option under the subarea plan. Hoag asked if the subarea plan is where they look at the options and develop a plan. Goodwin stated that was correct. Hoag stated that the second item asks the Council to docket it as a UGA when they haven't gone through the previous process. It doesn't seem to make sense to proceed with the second one when they haven't done the subarea plan. Goodwin agreed. Hoag stated that if they are going to do a subarea plan, then do it. Proceeding with the subarea plan and a UGA at the same time is going in two different directions. Nelson stated the subarea process could lead them to the UGA process. Goodwin agreed. Hoag agreed. George Wright, Point Roberts resident, stated it is important to keep the two issues distinct. The subarea plan has been put together by a lot of very energetic people. Many people have put in information. Mr. Morris does not represent all of the registered voters in Point Roberts or a majority of residents. He speaks for himself and his few associates. He is speaking for a lot of the working people in Point Roberts. The majority of people in Point Roberts love the place as it is. It is quiet, beautiful, and safe. There is a low crime rate, a reasonable cost of living, and reasonably priced real estate. He lived in Silicon Valley a long time ago, and watched the area lose its productive fruit growing area at the expense of a lot of farmers who put years and generations into the land. They were zoned out of business. He didn't want to see that happen in Point Roberts. They don't have a lot of big farms there, but they have a lot of really good gardens. The soil is perfect for gardening. It drains well in certain areas. There are areas on the Point that don't perk well. That is also a natural barrier to development. He was not opposed to growth as a concept, but he was opposed to growth that takes advantage of people and is simply for the purpose of making money. He was opposed to development putting economic pressure on people. He wanted to see more amenities in Point Roberts, such as a cultural center and other things that could Planning and Development Committee, 2/20/2001, Page 17 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 enhance the community as a whole. If he was going to put something in at Point Roberts, it won't first be a sewer. It would be something that takes care of the people. His lot perks. He lives on Gulf Road, and is close to Marine Drive. He would gain by development of a pier, but he didn't want Point Roberts turned into another suburb. The Port of Bellingham has helped the people do research. The Subarea Planning Committee has done a lot of work in putting together a plan. It isn't necessary to tie these two proposals together. Point Roberts is rural. They have a lot of wildlife. Many people in Point Roberts don't want to see the area become a suburb. Hoag stated she would like to do the two items separately. She moved to recommend approval of the Point Roberts subarea plan to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 2001 H POINT ROBERTS UGA Hoag moved to recommend denial to the full Council. The subarea plan needs to take place first. This item is premature. Motion carried unanimously. 2001 F BELLINGHAM UGA This item was held in committee. 2001 I MAPLE FALLS RF TO R5A This item was held in committee. 2001 J WATER & SEWER AMENDMENTS This item was held in committee. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:20 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, 2/20/2001, Page 18