HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 11 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
August 11, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Alsn Pr-.cent-
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM RURAL TEN ACRES (R10A) TO RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A)
FOR APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (AB98-
212)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated
that this item was referred back to the Planning Commission by the Council for additional
consideration on four points, which include forestry impacts to the adjacent forestry zone,
density and effects on school enrollment, water quality, and changed conditions.
She provided a supplemental staff report. The Planning Commission discussed
forestry impacts. They discussed forest fires, access, and other issues. Because the area
adjacent to the forestry zone was already subdivided into five -acre pieces and previously
logged, access to those forested areas would not go through the subdivided lots. Title 20
provides for a 100 -foot setback from forestry areas. The Planning Commission felt that the
issue was adequately addressed. Any additional changes to forestry, rural, and adjacent
forestry zones would be added to the Planning Commission docket. One option to the
County would be to put additional buffers on forest land that is adjacent to rural lands.
Foresters did not want that option and suggested buffers be placed on the residential land.
There is an option of a strip of conservation easement as a buffer between the two zones.
Another option would also make clustering mandatory.
Nelson expressed concern about establishing precedence. Increased density
around forestry areas is just as negative as increased density around agricultural areas. If
Planning and Development Services Committee, 8/11/98, Page 1
I the area is going to be zoned Rural 5 Acres per unit (R5A), there needs to be public
2 review as to whether that is zoning designation would be appropriate. Goodwin stated
3 that the Planning Commission put on their docket for consideration of additional changes
4 to the zoning text.
5
6 Nelson stated that the County needs to decide what type of zoning would be
7 allowed around rural and commercial forestry. Goodwin felt that the rezone should be
8 approved. Also, there is sufficient capacity at the school districts. There is room for an
9 additional 21 lots. The development of the expensive lots would encourage older
10 residents without children, which would not burden the school district much. There is
11 adequate water to serve the area. There are good sub - surface groundwater conditions. It
12 is the same aquifer from Canada and provides water to the Columbia valley.
13
14 Nelson stated that Goodwin mentioned this was not an impact to the school. He
15 questioned whether the development had been platted. Goodwin stated that a portion has
16 been platted. The estimate is that there could be as many as 21 additional lots if the area
17 was rezoned as R5A rather than if it stayed at Rural 10 Acres per unit (R10A). A long -
18 plat would go through the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review. Short-plats
19 are exempt from SEPA, but would have to go through the short-plat procedures. Impact
20 fees would not be imposed.
21
22 Goodwin stated that the findings on the changed conditions are that there is an
23 increase in population growth in the County, the County now has a comprehensive plan
24 and development regulations in place, and these lands don't have the characteristics of
25 agricultural and mineral lands, so they are one of the few remaining areas that are suitable.
26 There has been a Mineral Resource Land (MRL) designation adjacent that would reduce
27 land available for rural development.
28
29 Brenner questioned the average density in immediate area and zoning according to
30 that density.
31
32 Goodwin stated that one of the issues is the average density, which could be
33 described over either a broad or narrow area.
34
35 Sutter clarified that the density in the immediate area is 7.32.
36
37 Goodwin stated that density figures for the area came from the comprehensive
38 plan. There was a question about whether density estimates were from the state. The
39 Planning Commission recommended it be approved based on changed conditions.
40
41 Bruce Harris, 135 Summerland Road, Bellingham, stated that there is a statutory
42 challenge for lack of public notice of the July 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
43 Goodwin responded that it was not a public hearing, so no notice was required. It was
44 scheduled on the agenda.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 8/11/98, Page 2
2 Harris also stated that the background of the issue is that the area has the highest
3 law enforcement incident in any area of the County, lowest test scores for the schools,
4 highest drop out rate, and highest unemployment. These add up to an increased rate of
5 criminal activity. Some of these statistics are from the County Sheriff's Department, the
6 background document of the sub -area plan, and public school reports. The public school
7 information is recent to the last few years. The Council is adding the opportunity for
8 additional residents in the area without providing adequate employment. Residents will
9 have to travel to Bellingham for employment. It is too far for the Sheriff to travel. The
10 primary mandate is that the County will find that they can provide adequate public
11 protection. There is no basis for an increase in the number of lots available.
12
13 Harris continued to state that the Planning Department staff has not documented a
14 need for RR5 zoning at this location and at this time. There are other properties that are
15 better suited. The site of the proposed rezone area fails to mention any comments on
16 quantity and quality of water in the creeks in the area and as used by the state fish
17 hatchery. They must now pump groundwater to keep the facility afloat. This area, if
18 platted in five acre lots, will be next to approximately 25 -acre lots. People are afraid of
19 fire hazards and have removed the merchantable timber off their property. The effect is
20 that the run -off and the dry period of the year is extended. This lessens the water resources
21 to the creek. Water quality and quantity was identified as the highest priority for the
22 Nooksack River. The salmon recovery program made it clear that this is still a high
23 priority stream for fisheries. Council cannot continue to say that this extension of
24 residential development in the watershed and runoff area is satisfying the need to protect
25 and enhance fisheries resources. A claim has been made that there has been an increase in
26 population in Whatcom County. There is no statistical data that states there is a need for
27 five -acre lots in this particular area. Regarding residential development next to forestry
28 lands, people will not be looking out for fires in the forestry areas. People are also a cause
29 of fires. There is no guarantee that anyone will see a fire if it happens.
30
31 Hoag asked Goodwin about the changed conditions, such as the impact of the
32 adoption of the development regulations to this area. Goodwin stated that the development
33 regulations impact other areas that will no longer be able to do rural development on five
34 acres. There are few areas that allow five acre lots.
35
36 Dennis Feathers, 6858 Mt. Baker Highway, commented that he does not have any
37 financial interest in the rezone and he does not hold properties within the boundaries. The
38 rezone does not set precedent, but corrects an error that was made in 1988. His neighbors
39 fit into the five -acre category both now and in 1988. Whatcom County Planning staff
40 initiated this rezone. It received two favorable staff reports and two favorable votes from
41 the Planning Commission. All the pertinent issues have been addressed. He urged the
42 committee to go forward with the rezone.
43
44 Nelson moved approval.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 8/11/98, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Services Committee, 8/11/98, Page 4