HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 9 19992
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 9, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
15
16 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
17 AMENDMENTS (AB99 -074)
18
19 Sutter stated that this item will be held in committee for two weeks so that legal concerns
20 can be addressed.
21
22 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND
23 ZONING FOR THOSE FEE LANDS WITHIN THE LUMMI RESERVATION (AB99-
24 087)
25
26 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that this
27 has been an on -going issue for 25 years. This is an ordinance to adopt permanent zoning as
28 applied to fee lands. It is on the Council agenda as an emergency and permanent ordinance. The
29 interim ordinance expires this Saturday. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and
30 recommended option #2 on packet pages 160 and 161. That option would result in less density
31 than current interim zoning, yet give all the areas slightly lower density, but would still be given
32 the right to develop at a suburban density. Currently under the Seasonal Recreational Residential
33 (SR) zoning, the density is 4.5 homes per acre. Under option #4, zoning around the shoreline of
34 the reservation is SR or Resort Recreational. That allows about 4.5 homes per acre. Under a
35 proposal recommended by Planning Commission, option #2, the area surrounding the shoreline
36 would be rural residential, three units per acre, if they are in an existing water association /sewer
37 service area, or are already characterized by small lots. Areas with existing plats or water
38 associations are Rural Residential 3 (RR3). The rest are recommended at Rural Residential 1
39 (RR1).
40
41 Brenner questioned whether they are allowed to dig wells right now. Goodwin stated that
42 they are allowed, the State doesn't have the water rights for those. The Lummi Nation owns the
43 water, and there are still legalities about whether or not someone has the right to legally dig a
44 well. There is case law that says the Lummi Nation owns the water, but that is subject to debate.
45
46 Sutter questioned whether there is water available for the level of development in option
47 #2.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, Page 1
I Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she does not have an answer.
2
3 Brenner stated that they do that provision in other areas of the County. There is a lesser
4 density zoning, unless there is water available. She questioned why they wouldn't do option #2.
5 Goodwin stated that option #1 is the most conservative. It limits the development to the areas
6 that are within a water association and puts the rest of the areas in an R5 or R2 zoning, which is a
7 rural designation.
9 Brenner stated that the only difference between that and option #2 is that option #2
10 allows already platted, smaller lots to remain so. That is State law. Goodwin stated that option
11 #2, the recommended option, allows additional subdivision in certain areas.
12
13 Frakes stated that this goes hand -in -hand with what is taking place with the Lummi water
14 negotiations. She believed that there may be another source of water in the future, but that is
15 unreliable. They should assume that they are relying on the water that will be brought in
16 pursuant to the agreement. It is based upon the understanding that, given the current number of
17 parcels, that there would be enough for one allocation of a water share to each existing parcel. It
18 doesn't anticipate accommodating future subdivisions.
19
20 Goodwin stated that option #1 would draw a line around areas that are currently
21 subdivided and leave the remaining areas at rural density. It would result in reduced density that
22 has had suburban zoning for 25 years. That would result in a less water demand than option #2.
23 It would be consistent with the way they have treated other areas in the County that don't have
24 water.
25
26 Sutter stated that they couldn't do any development unless water was available anyway.
27
28 Goodwin stated that the areas surrounding the shoreline are Rural Residential, consistent
29 with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Suburban Enclave. The interior of the reservation
30 has been under a designation of rural farm, similar to RSA. The northern portion is
31 recommended for agricultural and 40 acre lot sizes. On all options, they straightened out the
32 boundaries to follow natural features and current lot boundaries. The delta of the Nooksack
33 River and Portage Island, in trust land, are recommended as Rural Forestry. They are not subject
34 to County zoning.
35
36 Brown asked if a park could be developed in Rural Forestry. Goodwin stated that parks
37 are allowed. If it were public land owned by the County or State lands, then the County would
38 have recommended it as Recreational Open Space (ROS). Since it is trust land, they went with
39 zoning consistent with the Lummi zoning. If the County wanted to zone it as ROS, then the
40 Council needs a public hearing.
41
42 Dawson stated that federal and State monies purchased Portage Island. Knapp will talk
43 to the Interagency for Outdoor Recreation about the appropriate zoning for that area. Goodwin
44 stated that it could go either way. It doesn't make much difference if it is a park.
45
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, Page 2
I Goodwin continued to state that a key issue was water availability and population. The
2 Planning Commission finding #8 deals with population. The County projected a population of
3 6,900 in 2015. The Tribe projected a higher population. The option recommended would be
4 consistent with the Tribe's recommendation. Water is addressed in finding #5 regarding
5 availability of water. Finding #17 says the water demands, for option #2, would be .75 million
6 gallons of water per day. The goal of the negotiation is to bring in at least .6 additional million
7 gallons of water per day. It is not enough to serve all of the lots, but is in the ballpark. The
8 water would be to serve the water association.
9
10 Goodwin stated that Staff and the Planning Commission recommend option #2.
11
12 Sutter questioned whether they are working with Lummi Planning. Goodwin stated that
13 Lummi Planning is working on a comprehensive plan. They are hoping to be done the end of
14 this year.
15
16 Sutter questioned whether setbacks, which conflict between County and Tribal
17 regulations, will be addressed in negotiations. Goodwin stated that they are considering an
18 overlay zone. Zoning could be adopted and amended after a year.
19
20 Hoag stated that public comments on page 169 -173 of the Council packet conflict. She
21 questioned why staff was recommending option #2 when public comments support option #1.
22 She also questioned the ability to handle growth and additional density. Goodwin stated that
23 option #1 allows less density than #2. Most of the land is trust land and isn't subject to County
24 zoning. There are only a few fee -owned parcels. Also, along the south shoreline, most of the
25 land is trust land. Other than that, options #1 and #2 are not much different. It is not a
26 substantial difference. Regarding sewer capacity, it is an issue now. Water and sewer
27 capabilities are not there to serve the growth, but it can be expanded. They can expand sewer
28 anywhere as long as there is money. Water is the issue. It is getting to be in short supply in the
29 County.
30
31 Knapp stated that the water supply is not in short supply, as is the allocation of the water.
32
33 Goodwin stated that with option #1, the aquifer area, is 4.5 units per acre. Option #1
34 recommended that it be down -zoned to one unit per five acres. There is only one parcel that
35 would be under the County zoning.
36
37 Brenner stated that the residents wanted less density, and the Planning Department was
38 pushing option #2. She questioned why they wouldn't go with option #1 if no one was opposed.
39 They were virtually the same. Goodwin stated that option #1 and option #2 have merit. They
40 recommended option #2 because option #1 has four or five fee owners that would be
41 substantially down - zoned. It has been the County's policy to not take that much density.
42
43 Brenner questioned why one couldn't be held to prove that they have water. Goodwin
44 responded that right now they are held at their current density, which is much higher than that,
45 until they prove that they have water.
46
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, 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
Brenner stated that is the area where there are road problems. By acknowledgement of
denser zoning, the County may be liable for problems of the road. She suggested option #1, with
a caveat that one would have to prove available water to go to the higher density.
Sutter questioned whether option #2 creates less zoning than currently exists. Goodwin
stated that it does.
Dawson stated that there is a water and sewer line along Lummi Shore Road. It is a
Tribal water line, but they are supposed to serve it to everyone, according to the negotiations
with the City. Goodwin agreed.
Sutter asked about the density in the Sandy Point area under option #1. Goodwin stated
that RR3 is within the existing subdivided areas. The rest of it would be RSA, one unit per five
acres.
Sutter asked the Lummi zoning in the area. Goodwin stated that old zoning is residential
and industrial. Their agriculture and rural match the County's. There is not much difference in
density between option # 1 and option #2.
Brenner stated that she liked aspects of both option #1 and option #2. She suggested
option #2 include the aspects of option # 1. Goodwin stated that it would require a public
hearing.
Sutter questioned the amount of lots they would be allowing that aren't allowed now, if
they approve option #2. Goodwin stated that there are concurrency provisions in the
Comprehensive Plan and in the subdivision regulations about adequate water, schools, roads, and
sewer. It must be addressed and there must be mitigation.
Dawson stated that they need to leave Portage Island blank until it is checked with the
Interagency for Outdoor Recreation, because Rural Forestry zoning reinforces the Tribe not
using it as a park.
Brenner stated that parks are allowed in Rural Forestry.
Sutter moved to recommend option #2.
Brenner stated that she preferred option #1.
Hoag stated that she is also torn. The testimony given to the Planning Commission
supported option #1.
Brenner asked if the folks are willing to have a hearing.
Sutter stated that the land use and development controls make option #2 appropriate.
Hoag was concerned that it is being zoned for more water use than is available.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, Page 4
2 Sutter stated that one couldn't develop unless there is water available.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Sutter stated that the Council must also adopt the emergency ordinance.
7
8 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
9 FROM RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A) TO LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) FOR
10 APPROXIMATELY 23.5 ACRES IN THE CHERRY POINT - FERNDALE SUBAREA
11 (AB99 -088)
12
13 Goodwin stated that this is an area that was initiated by the Council as an emergency.
14 There is an existing auto repair facility that cannot expand because it is a Conditional Use Permit
15 (CUP). It is within the Ferndale Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City has designated it as Light
16 Impact Industrial (LII).
17
18 Hoag questioned the anticipated affect on critical areas and resource lands. 21.5 acres
19 contain prime agricultural soil. Those acres are subject to the provisions of the Agricultural
20 Protection Overlay (APO). She questioned whether the land is used for forestry. Goodwin
21 stated that it is just vacant land.
22
23 Hoag questioned what to do with the information of the anticipated affect to the critical
24 areas. Goodwin stated that they recommend it be changed because of its location in a UGA and
25 next to a freeway interchange, and because it is not being farmed or logged. It is not productive
26 farmland or agricultural land. It does fall under the APO zone. If it were left zoned in R5, the
27 development would be required to cluster, and the land would be left for agriculture, but it likely
28 would not be used for agriculture.
29
30 Sutter stated that they have to look at surrounding zoning.
31
32 Goodwin stated that it is more valuable for industrial uses.
33
34 Hoag questioned the process. Goodwin stated that the criteria are that it is in a UGA and
35 is designated as an industrial use.
36
37 Hoag questioned whether the Council could take something out of the APO if they want
38 to. Sutter stated that they could.
39
40 Hoag asked about it being in a critical aquifer recharge area. Goodwin stated that the
41 Planning Commission concluded that the existing ordinances are adequate to protect the area.
42 There are other similar areas in the County. Because it is adjacent to a freeway and an area
43 surrounded by development, it is not the most important portion of the aquifer recharge, which
44 covers a large area. They raise these issues in the staff report because those are the types of
45 things they are supposed to look at and the Council should be aware of and consider.
46
47 Brenner stated that they need more industrial land.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, Page 5
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
Brenner stated that City services would protect the aquifer recharge area better than the
installation of septic systems. Goodwin stated that it will not have City sewer until annexed.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated that APO is a de facto zoning. Goodwin agreed. It isn't a Comprehensive
Plan designation.
Hoag asked for staff to draw conclusions about anticipated affects in the future.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO AMEND WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE 20.42.155, CONDITIONAL USES, TO INCLUDE RURAL CABINS AND
MEETING FACILITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES IN RURAL FORESTRY
ZONES (AB99 -108)
Sutter questioned whether this is a text amendment to go on the annual Planning
Commission docket and the nature of the emergency.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that it is an
emergency and they can move it forward.
Brown stated that they would have to look at bringing economic development to the
Foothills as an emergency. This should have been handled when the County did R5 and R10. It
is a necessary component to work with part of the WA -CERT application.
Knapp stated that there is a $50,000 grant application that has just been approved. There
was intent to link this to that effort. This provides the capability to have facilities to go along
with the educational effort that was intended.
Sutter stated that she was a proponent of economic development in the Foothills. She
wanted to ensure that the Council was not overstepping their legal authority by declaring an
emergency.
Brenner stated that they stretched their authority by declaring the prevention of adult
bookstores an emergency. This is of equal importance. This is healthy economic development.
Knapp suggested a language change on packet page 199, in the added portion of section
20.42.155, to state, "...facilities and other customary uses within the rural forestry zone..."
Sutter stated that she took the meaning to be about customary uses associated with
education.
Knapp stated that education is an element of rural forestry.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, 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
Hoag stated that she wanted it to be clearer.
Sutter moved an amendment to read "educational meeting facilities and other related
uses, including but not limited to, rental cabins and other lodging structures, cooking and dining
facilities, retail sales of meeting supplies and gifts, in the Foothills Subarea..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to write a resolution and forward to the Council with the recommend that
they approve as an emergency.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/99, Page 7