HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 8 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 8, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Acting Committee Chair
Sam Crawford in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Absent:
Connie Hoag
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.83 AND 20.38
REGARDING NON - CONFORMING LOTS AND LOT CONSOLIDATION
(AB2000 -075)
McShane stated the documents in the packet reflect the changes they
previously made.
Brenner stated they talked about whether they were going to deal with a
two -acre limit or one -acre limit.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they decided on two
acres. It is on page 348 of the Council packet in section (f)(i).
Crawford questioned the history on that amendment. Goodwin stated it
came out of Planning Commission as a two -acre limit. The Council eliminated it
altogether and just specified that no one could be consolidated unless the County
could prove the owner couldn't get water and sewer. This version of the ordinance
goes back to consolidation if the lot is less than two acres and they meet the other
criteria. The applicant would have to demonstrate he or she could get water and
sewer.
McShane stated this was the ordinance that was vetoed.
Brenner questioned why it is coming back to the Council when they already
approved it.
Crawford stated it was brought up at the previous Planning and Development
Committee meeting.
Goodwin stated the Executive vetoed the legislation. It came back to the
Planning and Development Committee, who approved this revised language.
Nelson questioned the reason for the veto. Goodwin stated she
recommended the veto. She had some concerns about the ordinance. In the
ordinance that the Council adopted, no one would have been consolidated unless
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
the County could prove that the lot was incapable of water and sewer. That would
be virtually impossible for the County to do because any lot, no matter how small
or wet, could be served by some type of system. She believed it would be better to
put the burden on the applicant so he or she would show they could get a County -
approved water and sewage disposal system. The other concern was about the
language that said any portion of the lot outside of certain areas wouldn't be
consolidated.
Brenner stated she made that motion. It wasn't "any portion." It was "any
buildable portion." Goodwin stated that is poorly defined. There is no definition for
"buildable portion." They need to specify that the lot has to be large enough for a
building site. Preferably, each lot would be buildable.
Brenner stated that is what her amendment was about. If either of the lots
were buildable and outside of the hazard area, they wouldn't be consolidated.
Some people may have a very big lot with a portion big enough to build a house.
The 50 percent limit is a one - size - fits -all measure. That isn't right. Goodwin stated
a lot larger than two acres wouldn't be consolidated at all.
Brenner stated a quarter acre or half acre is still fairly big. She questioned
why the County would care if a lot owner built on a property if it is not in a hazard
area. Goodwin stated they might want to take another look at it if the zoning is
incompatible and is in the flood plain. They could use the administrative approval
process. If the applicant could show there is a buildable site outside the flood plain,
then it wouldn't be consolidated.
Brenner stated this is discriminatory against people who were honest enough
to put their lots in the same name. They would be punished. Other people who
have been through this process, and are smart enough, would put their lots in
different names. It is not going to affect them. The County should be fair to the
people who played by the rules.
Crawford questioned whether the issue of build - ability was undefined.
Goodwin stated it was undefined as it was written. If the language just said that no
buildable portion of the lot is outside of the flood plain, there isn't a definition of
how large the building pad would have to be. It also didn't define whether there
needed to be a building site on both lots.
Brenner stated the buildable lot is defined according to zoning. Goodwin
stated the zoning code defines minimum lot size, but if an owner meets the
minimum lot size, they wouldn't be consolidated in the first place.
Crawford questioned whether the zoning code defines the buildable portion of
a lot. Goodwin stated it doesn't.
Brenner stated she thought there were building requirements such as
setbacks. Goodwin stated there are setbacks. If one has a five -acre lot, the
setback might be 25 feet. However, that still gives the owner a lot of land. They
wouldn't assume that the rest of that must be buildable. She provided several
options. One option would be to define a minimum building footprint around 1,500
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
square feet, and require at least that much located outside of the alluvial fan
hazard area.
Brenner stated she would rather do it that way. They are going to run into a
lot of buildable property that isn't in any hazardous area. As it is, it is punitive for
people who are playing by the rules.
Nelson questioned whether the two -acre minimum lot size is also for the
Lake Whatcom watershed. Goodwin stated it is.
Nelson questioned whether they could do a lot consolidation for platted
property. Goodwin stated they wouldn't do it if the plat was done after 1959. They
are going to change the date to 1955.
Nelson questioned whether two lots would be consolidated if a seven -acre
piece of property located in a rural one unit per five acres (R5) zone and is platted
into a five -acre parcel and a two -acre parcel. Goodwin stated they would be
consolidated.
Nelson questioned the purpose of lot consolidation. Goodwin stated the
purpose in the first place is to try to bring old, undeveloped platted areas into
conformity with the existing zoning. These were plats done before the County had
any zoning and prior to the existence of County subdivision regulations. After
1955, when the County had subdivision regulations, they looked at issues such as
water, sewer, and road access. They are not as concerned about those plats.
When the plats were done prior to 1955, the County didn't have standards to see if
there is buildable land, if the land can perk, and if the land is too steep or in critical
areas. There are a lot of paper plats out there that may not be developable or have
access available for each lot.
Nelson questioned whether there is an appeal procedure. Goodwin stated
there is an administrative appeal, and then there is an appeal process that goes to
the Hearing Examiner.
Nelson questioned whether a five -acre parcel and a four -acre parcel, owned
by the same person, would be consolidated. Goodwin stated it would not.
Nelson questioned whether those lots would be consolidated because they
don't meet the current zoning. Goodwin stated they would be consolidated if the
lots are both in the watershed. The Planning Commission concern was to protect
the watershed and reduce density. If someone doesn't comply with the current
zoning, then that is one area they should be consolidated.
Nelson questioned how the development of a four -acre parcel is different
than the development of R2A. Goodwin stated it is not different. If one has a four -
acre parcel and a five -acre parcel that were consolidated, only one house would be
allowed on the two parcels, instead of two houses being allowed. Two houses are
twice the impact.
Nelson questioned how the size was determined. A four -acre parcel is a
large piece of land. Someone may have purchased it to fund retirement. He
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
questioned what they have solved by adopting this legislation. They have reduced
the density in the watershed. If the reason is to protect the watershed, he was
unsure there was demonstrable proof that a four -acre piece is more damaging than
what is going on in Geneva. Goodwin stated this was added in the watershed
because of those lots in Geneva. They may not need to worry about the parcels
outside of the urban growth area. If they are concerned about not consolidating
the rural lots larger than two acres, they would remove the words "Lake Whatcom
watershed" from section (f)(ii) on page five.
Nelson stated that would make better sense. Goodwin stated the rural lots
are bigger, although there is still some RR2, half acre lots.
Nelson stated anything under two acres would be consolidated anyway.
Goodwin stated that was correct.
Nelson stated he was concerned about the effects in the rural area where
there are not as many impacts.
Brenner stated no one is guaranteed the ability to build their house because
they have a lot. She didn't understand why the County has to force consolidation
to ensure that something that is not buildable is not buildable. This punishes those
who have played by the rules and expect certain things. The County has an
obligation. The way to deal with it is through incentives, such as the overlays. She
didn't support the ordinance.
Goodwin stated she could recommend that, if they want to make it so no one
is consolidated, they repeal the ordinance. The ordinance would have made sure
that no one was consolidated, but staff would've had spend a lot of time reviewing
the consolidations, only to conclude that no one would be consolidated. A repeal of
the ordinance would save staff time from looking at stuff that wouldn't be approved
more often. In her opinion, there are some areas where lot consolidation is
appropriate. If it isn't well defined enough, they could work on it more. If the
intent is to not consolidate anyone, they should get rid of the regulation altogether.
McShane moved to recommend the ordinance as it is to the full Council.
Goodwin pointed out a scrivener's error on packet page 349, "(7) ...on -site
water and sewage disposal system approved...."
Crawford stated he liked the idea, with the removal of the Lake Whatcom
watershed from item (2)(f). He proposed that as a friendly amendment.
McShane did not accept the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated he shared Councilmember Nelson's concern about land
outside of the urban growth area. He would be hard - pressed to make a judgement,
not knowing how much or how little potential there is for lot consolidation in the
examples that Councilmember Nelson gave.
Brenner suggested the staff determine how many lots would be affected.
Goodwin stated they might be able to do that.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
Nelson stated he understood the concept of lot consolidation around areas of
development, not in the rural area. He did not want to punish people where it
doesn't make sense.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford stated the ordinance would be forwarded with no recommendation.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -065)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are eight items on
the docket for the year 2000. The Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services Department docketed several of the items. There is a summary of who
docketed each item. The Council decides which items will go forward to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing. They will schedule public hearings over
the spring and early summer, and bring the items back to the Council in the fall.
She didn't have any specific recommendations at this time.
Crawford questioned the docket regarding the consideration of putting the
watershed protection overlay on the Lake Samish area, not the rezone of the Lake
Samish area. Goodwin stated the watershed protection overlay is a zoning text
amendment. That is currently before the Planning Commission. There will be a
public hearing on that item on March 9. That item was on the 1999 zoning docket.
It wouldn't change the Comprehensive Plan or the map. It would just add an
overlay that would have restrictions similar to Lake Whatcom. Proposal 2000 -B
would actually change the zoning from Rural Residential two units per acre (R2A) to
one unit per two acres or one unit per five acres. That would require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and an accompanying downzone.
Crawford stated they would go through each item individually.
2000 -A Capital Facilities
Goodwin stated the Capital Facilities Plan has to be updated annually. That is
a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. They also need to look at the capital
impact of the other amendments. The plan is a six -year program. They add the
new projects on, then look at the County's ability to finance them. It will be
docketed every year.
2000 -C Point Roberts
Goodwin stated this is a request from a citizen who owns 30 acres and wants
the zoning to go from Rural one unit per ten acres (R10A) to Urban Residential,
four units per acre (UR4).
Nelson questioned whether the docketed items from the citizens were
required to move forward. He questioned whether the Council retained the
privilege to remove items docketed by the citizens. Goodwin stated the Council
retained that privilege. Unless the County Council moves them forward, there is no
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
public hearing and they do not charge a fee to the applicant. They will collect a fee
from any item that the Council puts on the docket that is a fee -based item.
Brenner questioned the map on packet page 256. It looks like the property
in question juts out into Rural one unit per five acres (R5A) zoning. On the
northwest side, there seems to be some heavy development. She questioned
whether that area is still zoned R5A. Goodwin stated that area is zoned UR4. The
area to the east, north of APA Road, is zoned R5A. The area north of APA Road has
not been developed. Part of the issue is that there is not any sewer in the area.
Brenner questioned why they would entertain a rezone at this time, when
there is no sewer. Goodwin stated they are entertaining the issue because there
was a citizen request. Sewer is a big issue on Point Roberts. Until there is sewer
available, the development potential is limited.
Brenner questioned why they would spend time on this if there is no sewer.
Goodwin stated there is a group of citizens working on trying to develop sewage for
Point Roberts. The Planning Department will look at the Point Roberts subarea plan
this year. At this point, there is not sewer in that area. The area that is zoned UR4
has a community drain field.
Brenner questioned whether they would allow a community drain field with
this request. Goodwin stated that if the Council approves the rezone, and the
developer came in with a proposal for a community drain field, the staff would
probably approve it.
Brenner stated the water table at Point Roberts is right at the surface. She
was not interested in another community drain field.
McShane questioned whether there are going to be any other docketed items
during the year. Goodwin stated this list is all there would be. The deadline for
submitting items was December 31.
Crawford stated Councilmember Brenner had a good argument. He would be
reluctant to move it forward. He is sympathetic with how much time it takes the
Planning Commission to do all of these items.
2000 -D Reese Hill Road
Goodwin stated this comes from an application made by a private citizen.
The request is to rezone 41 acres from Rural Forestry (RF) to Rural one unit per five
acres (R5A). The map is on packet page 357. There is Rural Forestry to the north
and to the west. There is R5A to the south and to the east. It is along Reese Hill
Road. There is a fairly steep slope that goes up from Reese Hill Road.
Crawford stated he would be in favor of forwarding this item.
Brenner stated the property is a good buffer of Rural Forestry. That is what
the Council said they wanted. They never made any promises to change forestry to
R5A. The area is very steep. She didn't see any change that warrants
reconsideration. Because the docket is so full, they should not deal with this item.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
Crawford disagreed. The Point Roberts item is a matter of practicality. The
practical situation exists that they are not going to have sewer for a while. He
would like to see the Point Roberts request move forward if they did have sewer.
However, there is not that same practical element with this item. If the citizen is
willing to pay the fees to have their rezone heard, then it should go forward to the
Planning Commission.
Brenner stated the area does not lend itself well to a rezone because it is
steep.
Crawford questioned the number of acres. Goodwin stated there are 44
acres. Currently they can put in two houses. With the proposed changes, they
could put in eight houses.
Crawford stated he would be in favor forwarding this to the Planning
Commission.
2000 -E Lynden Urban Growth Area Boundary
Goodwin stated the Planning Department docketed this, with concurrence
from the City of Lynden. They've had some ongoing confusion. The city's
boundary is slightly different than the County's urban growth boundary. It has
created a problem for a few annexations. The city's concern is that the County's
boundary followed the flood plain in a few areas, but much of the boundary doesn't
follow the flood plain. The city's boundary follows property boundaries. The
County's boundary cuts across lots. The previous boundary followed some flood
plain areas along another portion. This item would keep the two boundaries
consistent. It would make the County's boundary consistent with the city's
boundary. In a couple of areas, the city agreed to move its boundary. If the
County Council approves docketing this item, the Planning Department would hold
public meetings in Lynden.
McShane stated there are some very small areas right next to the urban
growth boundary and also the city limits. He questioned whether they would
automatically be put into the city limits. Goodwin stated they wouldn't
automatically be annexed, but they could be annexed if either the city or the
applicant requested it. There has to be a petition from the citizen for an annex to
occur. Some people do not want to annex yet. When they do, they would be
approved.
2000 -F Unincorporated UGA /STPA Policies
Goodwin stated this is just a zoning text change. As they worked on the
Drayton Harbor urban growth area recently, there was a lot of language in the
policies that deal with the criteria from going to a long -term to short -term planning
area. They only really pertain in incorporated cities, not to unincorporated urban
growth areas such as Birch Bay and the Columbia Valley. This item would add a
new set of policies that add criteria for short -term and long -term planning areas in
an unincorporated area.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
Nelson questioned which areas it would pertain to. Goodwin stated it would
apply to the Kendall /Columbia Valley and Birch Bay. There are only two areas.
Nelson questioned whether Acme was included. Goodwin stated Acme is a
small town. It is unincorporated.
Nelson questioned whether there are policies for the small town designation.
Goodwin stated they have some policies, and the boundaries are all set.
Nelson stated the small town policies and the unincorporated urban growth
areas policies should be similar. Goodwin stated there is criteria in the Growth
Management Act for the small town boundaries. The County has some policies that
go along with that.
Nelson questioned whether there should be a distinction between the two.
Goodwin stated there should be a distinction because the small towns that don't
have services are allowed to infill consistent with the surrounding development.
The urban growth areas are areas in which they will strive to put in urban services
and have growth.
McShane stated the short -term and long -term urban growth areas have the
potential for significantly larger populations than the little hamlets. Goodwin stated
that was correct. They want to look at the point in which they go from five acre
zoning to four units per acre, and at what point they extend services.
2000 -G Forestry Lands Map Clarifications
Goodwin stated map 20 in the Comprehensive Plan shows which lands are
considered forests of long -term commercial significance, recognized under the
Growth Management Act. That map isn't very clear because the County only
designated the commercial and rural forestry zones. It doesn't ever say that both
are considered forests of long -term commercial significance. In a few areas now,
there are small pieces of forestry that are within urban growth areas. They want to
make it clear that if it is an urban growth area, it is no longer a forest of long -term
commercial significance. It is intended for conversion to urban use at some point in
the future.
Crawford stated he wanted to hold off deciding on docket items 2000 -B and
2000 -H because they are contentious.
Dawson suggested they hold off on making any decisions until the public has
spoken.
Tom Murley, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), spoke on the Reese
Hill Road proposal. If this proposal would have a benefit, they should take a look at
it. However, they should not if the end result will just be another subdivision that
will chip away at forestland. He didn't mind taking a look at it, because it may have
it's own circumstances.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
Crawford stated he agreed. The Planning Commission is a good forum for
analyzing that. The Council can't make that judgement right now, based upon a
20 -word paragraph.
Brenner stated she wanted to hear a good reason why they would proceed on
this, if it is very forested and steep. It does chip away at forestland. The whole
purpose for Rural Forestry is to buffer residential uses from commercial uses. She
was supportive of rezones if they are appropriate. However, they should not put
everything through the process to find out if it's appropriate. The purpose of the
process is to push forward those things they already believe are appropriate.
McShane questioned whether a fee would be charged if the Council opts to
not forward this to the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated no fee would be
charged and there would not be a hearing. The applicant could bring it forward
again in a year.
McShane questioned the fee if the item is allowed to go forward. Goodwin
stated the Comprehensive Plan fee is $400, and the rezone fee is approximately
$1,500.
McShane stated that, if the Council is not inclined to approve the rezone, it
would be better to make the decision now since the applicant would spend nearly
$2,000 to go forward to the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated that fee may or
may not cover the costs of the staff time and the public notice costs, depending on
how complicated it is. Some of these rezones have a lot of public notice and
posting requirements, so $2,000 would be a drop in the bucket compared to the
expense of processing. This one would probably not be particularly expensive to
process.
2000 -B Lake Samish
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Commission wanted the Council to
decide whether or not this should go forward.
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated the Planning Commission
moved this forward without dissention, but with two abstentions. He stated he
would testify as a citizen and not on behalf of the Planning Commission. He
attended a Lake Samish meeting concerning development. There were hard
feelings on both sides. Situations have changed, and this issue needs to be
resolved. When he initially suggested this, he didn't include R2A or R5A zoning. He
included that at the insistence of Sylvia Goodwin. He would encourage the Planning
Commission to look at this situation and come up with alternatives to this. This is
one of the options.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Pros continued to state that suburban enclaves are comprised of rural
residential areas, which are not urban or likely to develop into urban areas during
the planning period. That was fine prior to water coming to Lake Samish. About
five years ago, there was a vote on having water come into the area. The vote was
resoundingly defeated, by 85 percent. From the people he's talked to, they voted
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
against water because it meant the area would then be developed to two houses
per acre. There are approximately 500 acres involved with this project. That would
be 1,000 additional houses. Currently there are 167 houses on these streets.
When one looks at change one looks at, for example, a 30 percent increase. This
change would be an increase of 159 percent. Under the current zoning, there
would be a 598 percent increase in the density along those roads. That is a
catastrophic change that will totally destroy the atmosphere of the community. He
received information from County attorney Dave Grant. That information shows
that there are two times when changes should occur to existing zoning. One time
is when there are changed conditions. The second time is when there is public
interest. Now that there is water, there is a changed condition. He read from the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW), section 36.70A.130, which said that each
comprehensive land use plan and development regulation shall be subject to review
and evaluation by the county that adopts them. Dave Grant told him that
comprehensive plans are not regulatory in nature. They are blueprints for
guidelines for managing future growth. Comprehensive plans are not static, and
should be perceived as dynamic and responsive to change. Thus, the Growth
Management Act has incorporated a mechanism allowing comprehensive plans to
be changed in response to the realities of the world. Such changes are permissible.
The situation has altered dramatically. There is no vote for water to come in.
Water can come in at the whim of any developer. The situation is in flux. He
requested that they docket the Lake Samish item.
Mark Herrenkohl, 321 Summerland Road, represented the concerned
neighbors of Lake Samish. He was also a commissioner of Water District #12,
although he didn't represent the commission while testifying. He requested that
the Council docket the Lake Samish item. They don't want Lake Samish to become
another Lake Sammamish in King County. The current suburban enclave
designation allows for the addition of more than 1,000 homes in the Lake Samish
watershed. This would ruin their quality of life. Residents of Lake Samish rejected
a recently proposed subdivision that was trying to maximize its density. Residents
collected 350 signatures against that development. Four hundred to five hundred
residents get their water from Lake Samish for drinking and other uses. With more
development, water quality would be severely compromised, forcing residents to
pay for another water distribution system from another source. Their roads cannot
handle any more additional development. As it is now, residents have to dodge
vehicles when walking or biking around the lake. The roads are narrow and without
any sidewalks. It would be more expensive to upgrade the roads because of the
narrow rights of way around the lake and the close proximity of those roads to the
lake. The high dwelling density would greatly excel the eutrophication of the lake
as more and more stormwater is produced and routed to the lake. With recent
development and clear cutting around the lake, there has been a dramatic increase
of stormwater flow during winter months, a decrease of stormwater flow in summer
months, and erosion of sediment into Lake Samish. This has impacted fish
spawning in the wild, as well as the success of the salmon hatchery on Friday
Creek, which Lake Samish discharges into. Additional development and clear
cutting would devastate the fisheries. Tim Muller, regional habitat program
manager with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, sent him a letter that
recommended the Lake Samish watershed be designated a fish and wildlife
conservation area.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
Cal Leenstra, 1802 Lakeside, stated he was vehemently opposed to this idea.
They went through this once before after they paid for the sewer on West Lake
Samish Drive. The downzone followed shortly thereafter, making the subdivision
not economical. Now that they've paid for the sewer, along with the interest on the
sewer and the land, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the
property. Their environmental impact statement refutes the statements made by
the previous two speakers. The average density now is two to five homes per acre,
which is substantially more than what their property is zoned, which is two homes
per acre. That is a low density for an area that has sanitary sewer and Skagit
County Public Utility District (PUD) water nearby. The Growth Management Act was
about developing where there are facilities that can serve subdivisions such as his.
There is no economic viability of this proposal. It isn't right to keep one's neighbors
from developing in this way. If the County wants to take land, it should be paid for.
The Fifth Amendment says that a taking requires compensation. They've had the
land for over 20 years and have paid all their taxes. They haven't developed it yet,
but would like to at some time. They are not in agreement with this proposal.
Steve LaCoque, 673 N. Lake Samish Drive, stated the zoning changes should
be for the betterment of the entire community. He questioned whom this would
benefit. It doesn't benefit Whatcom County in general. There is growth all around
and it has to happen somewhere. Lake Samish has been designated as a
residential development area through the Comprehensive Plan and through growth
management. He questioned whether this was a small interest group that is trying
to change the zoning that affects all the people. There are a lot of people who will
receive a negative impact on their property if their zoning is changed. In the Lake
Samish area, the vast majority of the land is zoned commercial forestry. There is a
small percentage of property that is zoned residential. Even if there was 100
percent build -out, it is a small percentage of property in the watershed. The
density in the overall watershed is incredibly low. There haven't been any studies
that show there is degradation in the lake. Environmental protection of the
watershed is damaged by Interstate 5 (I -5), the major contributor of pollution. If
they wanted to look at protecting the lake, they should be dealing with the runoff
from I -5, not a small parcel of property that has the potential to build -out over a
long period of time.
The limited water has been a drawback to development around Lake Samish.
A number of years ago, there was a proposed water system through Water District
#12. Soon after the vote, the water district commissioners distributed a letter that
said 43 percent of the owned property and 44 percent of the property owners voted
it down. It takes a 40 percent vote to vote down the water system. That water
system had some inherent problems. Therefore, some people voted it down based
on the defects of the system, not based on bringing water to Lake Samish. This is
a bad idea. It is not a benefit to the community.
Kathy LaCoque, 673 N. Lake Samish Drive, stated the Lake Samish area has
been designated a residential area for quite some time. It has been zoned at two
homes per acre for awhile, which was a down zone from its previous zoning of three
homes per acre. It is good residential property for development. It has good
access to urban services, it is not far from Bellingham, the sewer system exists
around the lake, and the potential for the water system is there. The water system
would benefit those around Lake Samish because it would lessen the impact on the
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
lake. There is a lake management district that monitors the outflow of the lake.
There is fire protection. The services are in place. Growth will have impacts, and
they need to have regulations that will minimize those impacts and improve the
services as needed. It is good residential land because it is not farming land or
agricultural land. There are not a lot of critical areas. There are not any extremely
steep slopes. It is not in a flood plain. The shoreline protection area has already
been built up, so the areas to develop are away from the lake. She didn't
understand what has changed or what the crisis is that has brought this forward. A
water system coming in will make it easier for development, but it was already
zoned for that kind of build -out to begin with.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, 1401 Astor Street, spoke
specifically on the Straighter Place subdivision. It came to his attention that an
individual citizen brought this rezone request forward. The person requesting the
rezone ought to pay for the application. He was surprised this came forward
without any findings or conclusions from the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission doesn't operate that way normally. The plat map is incorrect. If they
are going to propose a downzone in the Lake Samish area, they need to take out
plats that have vested rights. It is clear that the County considers the plat of
Straighter Place a vested plat that is alive and moving forward. The citizens who
signed the petition do not have the authority to reject a plat. If this is moved
forward, the map should be revised.
In order to bring forward a downzone of this magnitude, the public process is
very important. It has been violated at this point, just by the fact that the Planning
Commission had very little dialogue about bringing this item forward. The citizens
of the area were surprised about this proposal. There is deception going on. They
are talking about downzoning an area that the Comprehensive Plan designated for
housing. There is no water problem like there is at Lake Whatcom. The County
doesn't pay for the street improvements, the developer does. It is inappropriate for
this to come forward as it has.
Brenner questioned what the citizens of the area are surprised about.
Campbell stated there was a lot of dialogue at the time the Comprehensive Plan
was put together. People were properly notified that there would be changes to
land use the time it was put together. There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan
that says there would be a downzone in the Lake Samish area. It is out of call for
the Planning Commission to bring this forward. If there is a private citizen group
that is proposing this, then they should be honest about it. He heard that the
Planning Commission had two abstentions, and it was unclear where the Planning
Commission support came from.
Tom Murley, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated they should talk
about whether the proposal should move forward for a public debate. It is timely to
review the future of the Lake Samish area. They need to look at the impact to
public resources, including salmon. They can't have the debate once the
infrastructure is in place.
Tom Pitt, Lake Samish, stated he didn't want to lose his property value
without a fight. If they are going to do it for the Lake, they need to decide it for
the entire lake.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
48
49
50
51
Chuck Randall, 283 W. Lake Samish, stated the county is going to grow and
they need to look at the county as a whole, not just Lake Samish. The majority
isn't always right.
Frank Monks, 951 West Lake Samish, stated he was opposed to any change.
Any new building owner has to sign an agreement that he or she won't oppose a
new water system if it comes in. Folks in the area have accumulated their property
for their retirement income. This would take that away, which isn't fair.
Rob LaCoque, Smith Road, stated he supported the previous downzone from
three units per acre to two units per acre because he believed it was best for the
lake. He is the owner of the Straighter Place subdivision. He and his brother have
spent $100,000 going forward with this. He will sue the County if they downzone
his property. Mark Herrenkohl is trying to railroad this through. Herrenkohl has
tried many different methods to stop his development.
Craig Cammack, Lake Samish resident, stated he was opposed to this going
forward. It would create a disproportionate set of lots. There are no changed
circumstances. If water quality is a true issue, it should be addressed when they
discuss the watershed overlay for Lake Samish. They've put in $50,000 to bring
the sewer to their property. That will go away if this is done. They want the
benefit of what they paid for.
Ed Hanson, Lake Samish resident, stated he was opposed to any change in
the zoning. He is a concerned citizen of Lake Samish, and he doesn't support the
change. The voted against the water system because it would have cost him
$25,000, which was too expensive for him. The lake is a beautiful place and should
not be reserved for only a few people who were there first. Also, he is a voter.
Councilmember Dawson stated a person could claim a regulatory taking if a
government denies an owner reasonable investment expectations associated with
the land. Regarding process, government must provide fair procedures that
provide the property owner reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.
There wasn't reasonable notice about this issue.
Brenner stated she would never support a mandatory downzone. If this
issue goes through the process, there will be notice. The bigger question is
whether this is something they want to do.
Curt Shelton, west Lake Samish resident, stated he is not a landowner. He
rents. Without development on the lake, he will never be able to own a home on
the lake. Most of the people on the lake have lived her for years and will not harm
the lake.
Madeline Smith, 618 West Lake Samish, stated her family purchased land for
retirement income. She was opposed to a downzone. She opposed the previous
downzone. It is excellent residential land. Mr. Pros' statistic that 85 percent of the
residents rejected the water system is incorrect. She worked on developing the
sewer district. The problem was that the proposal was not presented well. That
was the reason the water system was rejected.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
Brenner stated the Planning Commission process is an evaluating process
before it comes to the Council. She has never voted for a mandatory downzone.
She liked the idea of creating an overlay that protects the quality of the lake. The
zoning was there when people bought their homes. People buy according to the
zoning, not whether they can keep water in or out. This should not pit people
against each other. The community should be working with the County staff to
develop a good overlay program for the lake.
Nelson questioned whether this went through a Planning Commission
process.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it did. Dave Pros brought
this forward to the Planning Commission as a citizen. He asked the Planning
Commission to sponsor it and send it to the Council. It did not have a public
hearing. The Comprehensive Plan stated a citizen, the Planning Commission, a city,
or the staff can forward an item to the Council for consideration on the docket.
Nelson questioned whether the Planning Commission voted on it. Goodwin
stated it did. There were two abstentions and the rest of the members approved
forwarding it. There was not a lot of discussion.
Nelson stated the Council had extensive discussion about this area during the
Comprehensive Plan process. One of the concerns was about development and the
water resources available. They went through a process to make sure they
preserved the land with the zoning that was currently there. They didn't increase
the density, but recognized that current development practices are expected in the
area. The message from the Council at that time was to maintain what was there.
Goodwin stated this was not brought forward by staff. It was brought
forward by the Planning Commission.
Nelson stated they continually fight over the Lake Whatcom watershed, but
there has been no attempt to downzone that area. They are looking at other
alternatives to protect water quality. If the Planning Commission's objective is to
protect the water quality, he hoped they would look at the other alternatives for the
Lake Samish area as well. He was not in favor at this time of changing the zoning
in this area. He hasn't seen enough reason to proceed with this.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Commission wanted to hear this
item or if they wanted direction from the Council about whether or not it should be
on the docket. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission only talked about this for
a couple of minutes. They hadn't given it much thought prior to the meeting. They
were operating under the idea that it would be put on the docket if they suggested
it be on the docket. Their intent was to have a public hearing so they could accept
the public input. However, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to
docket an item.
Campbell stated that there was misinformation given to the Planning
Commission. They were told that 85 percent of the people around the lake voted in
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
1995 against allowing water to come in. The motion to forward this to the Council
was made by Commissioner Beech.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Campbell continued to state that the intent of the Planning Commission was
to look at this in conjunction with the overlay. The facts presented to the Planning
Commission were flawed, and the application should be thrown out.
Pros stated he understood this was the process to put it on the docket. This
is not a decision to downzone. The conflict they are seeing today is what they need
to resolve. It is an unresolved issue because the situation has totally changed.
McShane questioned the vote on hooking up water from Alger. Pros stated
there are 360 sewer hookups around the lake. There were 208 protest letters
against water. The original plan was based on a formula involving front footage
and depth. It would have passed had seven people, including the park district,
voted in favor of it. The park district said it would destroy the neighborhood and
they did not vote in favor of having water.
Crawford stated that was speculation.
Pros stated they hope this gets resolved for the sake of both sides.
Straighter Place is not the point. They are grandfathered in no matter what is
decided.
Dawson stated good land use decisions require predictability.
Crawford explained the docket process to the audience.
McShane stated there are some issues at Lake Samish that should be
addressed. This may be the process for that. He moved to recommend that the
Council send docket item 2000 -B to the Planning Commission.
Brenner stated Lake Samish should be looked at, but not through this
process. The docket is for items the Council feels are appropriate. They should not
clog the docket with this.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford opposed.
2000 -H Bellingham UGA
Goodwin stated this is within the City of Bellingham's urban growth area
(UGA). They have a letter from the city. They do not recommend that this move
forward. This is the same issue they've dealt with in the urban fringe. If the city
says they do not want to deal with this, but the urban fringe plan says that the city
and County must consider these concurrently, then they have a dilemma of
whether the County can consider it without the city. At this time, that is the only
issue she is aware of. She hasn't heard either way about a need for light industrial
land in the area. This was heavily debated during the Comprehensive Plan process.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
There are a lot of citizens that want the area to remain residential. She did not
have a recommendation.
Floyd Sandell, 1475 E. Bakerview Road, stated the issue is the 25 -acre land
he owns on the east end of the Bakerview Road. Presently, he is farming the land.
Because of the population growth, farming will be short - lived. Because of this, they
are thinking of putting the property to its best use. It is now zoned urban. The
property is not adapted for urban population because there is a gas line that goes
through the center of the property. Olympic Pipeline runs along the east end
adjacent to the property. The TransMountain Pipeline runs along the southwest
corner. It is not adaptable for housing. The western boundary line is bordered by
light industrial property. The south and east border is adjacent to DNR land. The
north border is adjacent to land zoned similar to Bakerview Road land. The sewer
and the water are at the front door. They want the Council to consider this zoning
change.
Crawford questioned what the building that is on the property is for. Sandell
stated the building is an all -metal building he built for his cattle operation. It can
be easily converted to a warehouse or other use.
Nelson stated he didn't know there were that many pipelines going through
the property. He would prefer to see this go through the process. He didn't want
to see residential development in that type of situation.
Brenner stated her concern was that changing the zoning would mean 100
fewer dwellings. Also, they've changed the wording on Gateway Industrial so there
might not be any light industrial land in that zone. It seems no one wants to
provide light industrial zoning in the county. She would rather see more
information from the city.
Crawford questioned the zoning on East Bakerview, north of the Bakerview
Valley Industrial Park. Goodwin stated that area was debated during the
Comprehensive Plan. She would look into the zoning of that area. There is no
hurray in initiating these items. The resolution can be delayed.
Brenner asked to see a map of the property, with the pipelines on it.
McShane stated it didn't sound like a bad idea. His only concern was that the
city wants to wait until 2002 to do their population projection. He didn't want to
create a false hope for the proponent in addition to having him incur expenses
when the same issue with the city may come up. Clearly, the city is against this
proposal. The City Council voted unanimously against this.
Sandell stated that, when Ludtke Pacific developed their property, he
originally owned that property. When they put in the sewer and water line, the city
recommended at that time to make it large enough to service the outlying area
north of this proposal.
McShane stated he would advocate for this property after the city does their
review. He didn't want to lead the applicant on now by approving it.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
49
50
51
Crawford asked how the City Council gets this before the County Planning
Commission. Goodwin stated any applications within a city are sent to the city for
comment. The City Council only considered whether they should have a public
hearing. The intent of this process was to allow the city and County to consider
each others' comments, not to allow the city to prohibit the County from
entertaining any changes.
Brenner stated there is nothing from the city that shows they addressed the
pipeline issues. She questioned whether that was considered. Sandell stated they
had large drawings that showed where the pipelines were located.
Brenner questioned whether the City Council made any comments about the
pipelines. Sandell stated they did not.
Crawford moved to recommend that the Council include docket item 2000 -H
on the Planning Commission docket.
Brenner stated they should delay this until the city comments.
Motion failed 1 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford stated this would go forward to the Council with no
recommendation from the committee.
McShane moved to recommend that the Council not forward item 2000 -C to
the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend to the Council to forward docket items 2000 -
A, 2000 -E, 2000 -F, and 2000 -G to the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to recommend to the Council to forward docket item 2000 -D
to the Planning Commission.
Motion failed 1 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford stated item 2000 -D would go forward to the Council with no
recommendation from the committee.
3. RESOLUTION CREATING THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000 -085)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is a follow up to a resolution that
was passed in November or December to form an Agricultural Advisory Committee.
The committee is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The resolution adopts the
committee for an 18 -month period, at which time they will have a work plan and
proposal for their scope as a committee. The resolution specifies twelve members
that represent the agricultural community. It also accounts for committee staffing.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, 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
They should also include language that an additional ex officio member would be
staff from the Conservation District. The Conservation District board members are
included as voting members.
The committee concurred to include the language adding Conservation
District staff as an ex officio member.
Brenner questioned when they nominate and confirm Executive
appointments. Usually something is either appointed by the Executive, with
Council confirmation, or the Council appoints directly. Goodwin stated she would
look into it.
Brenner questioned why the suggested members are being presented now
instead of after the resolution is approved. Olason stated the Conservation District
suggested the membership. The Council can choose to add other people.
McShane stated he liked that it had a consumer representative. They need
to connect people in the cities with people in the agricultural lands.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the Council, with the addition of
the Conservation District staff ex officio membership position.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Acting Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2000, Page 18