HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 2 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
45
46
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 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, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
FROM RURAL 10 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 the
Planning Commission recommended approval. A good portion of the area is already platted in
five acre pieces. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was concerned that this
area abuts commercial forestry. There was also a concern of private roads going through the
area.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that concern comes
from the County Public Works Engineering Division. Eventually the County could be faced
with denying roads because they don't meet County standards.
Goodwin stated that there are five -acre zones to the west and to the east. They have
access off of the Mt. Baker Highway.
Brenner questioned whether they could obligate the rezone applicant to upgrading the
roads to County standards. Goodwin stated that a concomitant agreement could be done.
Knapp stated that they are private roads. As the properties develop, they will be
developed as a private road with no latecomers' agreements.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, Page 1
2 Sutter stated that, at the point it is requested that the roads be taken over by the County,
3 the County can require that they be brought up to County standards. There is no problem there.
4
5 Nelson questioned DNR's presentation to the Planning Commission. His concern was
6 with forest practices. Density will be increased. The reason they put a rural forestry designation
7 on R10 was to provide a mechanism to have a buffer between the forest practices and the denser
8 areas. If they get into a habit of rezones and increasing densities near forestlands, then they will
9 have no mechanism to separate the public. If that is going to be the policy, then they should do
10 an overlay and clustering to give the Planning Department a better ability to keep the density
11 away from the actual practice.
12
13 Sutter questioned whether the property was subject to the Agricultural Protection Zone.
14 Goodwin stated that it is not.
15
16 Sutter questioned whether there was a way the Council could require buffers around R5
17 development in forest zones. Goodwin stated that there is a right -to- practice forestry provision
18 in the Code that notifies these people that they are adjacent to forestry areas. She believed that
19 there was a 100 -foot setback adjacent to a commercial forestry zone.
20
21 Sutter stated that DNR addressed the issue of fire hazard. DNR is responsible if a fire
22 occurs, no matter what the cause.
23
24 Brown stated that he has a conflict of interest in this area. This discussion impacts
25 200,000 acres in Whatcom County. He requested making a short presentation. His home and
26 part of his land is in the proposed area.
27
28 Sutter stated that they are talking about the buffers on the adjacent property to
29 commercial forestry. That isn't 200,000 acres. She questioned the amount of acres being
30 impacted by requiring buffers.
31
32 Brown stated that is the point of his presentation. He will not be voting on the item.
33 Small lots and commercial forestry have coexisted throughout the history of Whatcom County.
34 The U.S. Forest Service leases home sites within their forest boundaries. Commercial timber
35 companies are selling home sites within their operations and reserving the timber rights in other
36 parts of the State and in other states. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
37 simply a commercial forest operation. They should be able to live within the same guidelines as
38 other forest managers. They have publications that address forest fire prevention. DNR is
39 overstating the impact of the rezone, attempting to stifle private property owners to make their
40 jobs easier. This area only borders one small portion of the 95,000 acres that DNR manages.
41 Commercial forest property surrounds all of the rural lands in that area. To provide a large
42 buffer would eliminate thousands of acres of potential home sites in this County.
43
44 Frakes stated that there is an appearance of fairness issue.
45
46 Brown stated that he is no longer on this specific rezone. He is discussing the effect of a
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, 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
buffer that is 3/4 of a mile.
Frakes advised caution when discussing this rezone to this proceeding.
Brown stated that this proceeding is setting precedent on whether there will be buffers.
This has to be on the record. It would force development around flood plains, agricultural lands,
and salmon habitat areas. The DNR states that the right -to- forest ordinance does not change
peoples' attitudes about living near forestry. Agriculture lands exist next to populated areas.
The forest industry operates during daylight hours only. They harvest one crop in a normal
lifetime of 75 -80 years. Setbacks and other measures can be handled through development
regulations. The person with 200,000 acres should be the one to accommodate the setbacks.
The threat of fires is reduced if the home site is maintained properly. Most of the fires started in
commercial forestry areas are not started from home sites.
Neela Stewart, 648 Mt. Baker Highway, stated that it could be a protection to have
people in the area because they could watch what is going on.
Nelson stated that they don't have problems with people that grew up in the area. There
will always be someone that has a problem. They need to be proactive in addressing the issue.
If they increase the density, then they increase the number of people that will be there, which
increases the chances of more problems. They need to address the conflicts between forest
practices and development.
Marie Herring, 7053 Tall Cedars Lane, Ferndale, stated that the area north of the rezone
was clear cut.
Brenner stated that she supported the rezone. They should consider it as they consider
agricultural resources. People need to understand what they are getting next to. Having the
right -to- forest designation would take care of the problem. She suggested beefing up language
to home buyers so that they are aware of what they are getting into. The buffers should be on the
forest land, not on the private rural land.
Sutter asked if the notice was recorded on the deed or the plat. Goodwin stated that she
believed it was on the deed.
Sutter stated that if it is on the deed, the home buyer would be notified. The limit of the
County's responsibility has been met. She questioned whether there was already a 100 -foot
setback for development.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that was correct.
Sutter suggested creating a requirement that the setback has to be cleared.
Nelson stated that the people would want the trees.
Brenner stated that it is the area around the house that should be cleared.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, 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
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Nelson stated that the major issue is from people who don't live directly in the area and
that don't want the logging.
Sutter stated that if they are informed that logging practices are going on next door to
them and they still choose to live there, then it is their responsibility to deal with it.
Hoag questioned the history of the zoning in the area. Goodwin stated that at the time
they did the subarea plan, there were citizens in the area that were led to believe that the County
Council would approve R5 zoning. They didn't come to the hearing. The County Council
instead approved R10 zoning. There was also information on the record about slope stability.
The main issue was the adopted subarea plan. It was not R5 in the past.
Brown asked about the zoning prior to 1988. Knapp stated that it was General
Protection.
Hoag questioned whether there was a rural forestry buffer in the past and, if so, what
became of it. Brenner stated that they invented the commercial forestry designation a few years
ago. Prior to that, it was just forestry and houses could be there.
Hoag questioned whether there has to be certain criteria for a rezone that the change must
be in the public interest and circumstances have to have changed. She didn't find anything in the
materials that changed or any reason that it would be in the public interest. Brenner stated that
part of it was to line up boundaries that make more sense.
Goodwin stated that the findings in the staff report are fairly weak. They could have
argued it one way or another.
Sutter stated that it also makes the zoning consistent with existing lot sizes.
Knapp stated that there would be higher density along the main road, then it would
lessen.
Goodwin stated that there are schools, a major road, and fire services nearby, but none of
that has changed. They felt that there was public support and the existing subdivision patterns
supported R5, the Comprehensive Plan states that it could be either R5 or R10, and the
Comprehensive Plan states a preference for R10.
Knapp stated that they could argue an error one way or another.
Hoag stated that she had not found any changes that could justify a change in zoning.
Sutter stated that one thing that has changed was that the Feathers' property, in the
middle of this area, was rezoned to R5.
Bruce Harris, 135 Summerland, commented on his criteria concerns and distributed a
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, Page 4
I handout (on file). Planning staff has failed to produce documentation that the rezone satisfied
2 the approval criteria. They did not document the change in conditions that justify the
3 modification of the current zoning pattern. They must identify the plausible public interest
4 justification for changing the zoning. That was not done. They must demonstrate that the public
5 need in question is best served by the zoning change to this particular piece of property
6 compared to other available property.
7
8 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
9
10 Harris continued to state that the need has not been demonstrated. It doesn't make any
11 sense that the County needs to zone the area around Feathers five acres because Feathers' area
12 was rezoned to five acres. It will be difficult to justify this area to Growth Management as
13 deterring residential sprawl in rural areas. There are other 10 acre parcels up and down the Mt.
14 Baker Highway. They are eligible to be five -acre parcels. There is nothing particular about this
15 piece of property to justify designating it R5. They still have to dispose of a lot of higher density
16 parcels. There is no factual basis of change. There has been no inventory of available water
17 resources.
18
19 Brenner questioned whether there was a water system in the area. Goodwin stated that
20 there is water in the area. They would be serviced by wells. The local water system would not
21 run a line to this area. The staff report addresses the issue that there is adequate groundwater. It
22 is the same water in the aquifer used by Water District #13.
23
24 Stewart commented regarding the water situation in Paradise Valley. They are updating
25 their water supply. Their engineer told them that there is so much water in the valley that it
26 would take a major earthquake to shut off water to the valley.
27
28 Hoag questioned Harris about whether the area would dry up if more wells would be
29 installed. Harris stated that there has not been any hydrological study done by any of the
30 investments in the area, including Paradise Lakes and Water District #13. They do not have a
31 comprehensive water /sewer plan. The decisions have been made on heresay.
32
33 Stewart stated that Water District #13 has done a lot of expensive testing.
34
35 Harris stated that information is not in the public file.
36
37 Herring stated that the changes that have happened are increased population and
38 increased densities. This area already has schools, library, and stores.
39
40 Hoag stated that she would like the committee to addressed Harris' document. She
41 doesn't see the changes identified or the need identified.
42
43 Nancy Jacobsen, 6900 Mt. Baker Highway, distributed a handout (on file). She was
44 concerned about being able to allow one of her children to build a home on her acreage.
45
46 Sutter questioned whether an accessory dwelling is allowable. Knapp stated that it is
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, Page 5
I allowable.
2
3 Goodwin stated that accessory housing could also be allowed on each 5 -acre parcel.
4
5 Brenner stated that, if they do the rezone, they could not allow accessory dwelling.
6 Goodwin stated that was exclusively for properties in the rural residential areas and areas in the
7 Lake Whatcom watershed.
8
9 Nelson stated that several questions remain and he was unsure that the Planning
10 Commission took full consideration of the rezone. There are still questions regarding forest
11 practices. Another concern impacts the possibility of 33 new residents, not including accessory
12 dwellings. That is an increase of possibly 60 new students to the school district. He questioned
13 whether the school district was contacted regarding that potential impact.
14
15 Stewart stated that the school has already outgrown itself and it isn't even built. That is
16 the way the law reads, they can't make the school bigger due to projected population increase.
17 The school has to be full before they can build a bigger school.
18
19 Nelson questioned whether they could send the item back to the Planning Commission to
20 look at all of the questions. Knapp stated that they could.
21
22 Nelson stated that there should be a way to encourage clustering.
23
24 Elizabeth Olsen, Planning and Development Services Planner, stated that she took into
25 consideration that there is a borderline equal on both sides of parcels under five acres and parcels
26 over five acres. Also, south of this area, is a 55 -acre Mineral Resource Land (MRL), which
27 takes away 55 acres out of potential residential. Third, almost all property owners asked if they
28 could be rezoned to what they thought they would be rezoned. The soils in the valley are ideal
29 for home sites.
30
31 Knapp questioned whether Nelson's concerns were addressed in the staff report or by the
32 Planning Commission. Olsen stated that the concerns by DNR were not considered in her staff
33 report. She did note that there were 300 -400 acres in commercial forestry adjoining the top 40
34 acres. She did consider leaving the top 40 acres in R10, except for the fact that it leaves four out
35 of six parcels that are already less than five acres. Also, there had already been a clear cut in the
36 DNR.
37
38 Nelson stated that he believed DNR was more concerned with setting a precedent, as
39 opposed to this specific site.
40
41 Sutter stated that they have never used another rezone as the justification for a rezone.
42 They are done on a site -by -site basis.
43
44 Nelson stated that they usually complain about not having any criteria to go by.
45
46 Brenner stated that there have been new points brought up and it should go back to the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, 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
Planning Commission. Unless there is a water shortage problem, it looks like it works.
Sutter agreed that there needs to be some criteria, but they need to be flexible.
Jon Sitkin, Langabeer, Tull, Sitkin, and Lee, P.S., stated that he was involved in the
Feathers rezone. He understood that DNR wanted R10 as a mechanism against the commercial
forestry activity. DNR will have their own regulations on buffering on their own property. They
seem to be asking that the buffering be on the adjacent property.
Nelson stated that the buffering was against the impacts increased development has near
commercial forestland, not the buffer on the physical property. There are impacts to increased
density near the commercial forest practices.
Nelson stated that the concerns are about increased densities, potential impacts to
schools, and full consideration of DNR's concerns. Goodwin stated that they had a full DNR
presentation at their hearing. There was discussion on their issue.
Nelson stated that they only addressed DNR's concerns about forest fire protection.
Stewart read a letter into the record. The mistake needs to be fixed and the property
needs to be rezoned to R5A. There is adequate water to support the development and the
Kendall fire department has a response time of approximately five minutes.
Sutter stated that she would also like Harris' concerns addressed.
Hoag requested that the Planning Commission determine the average parcel size within
the 240 acres. Olsen stated that it was under 10 acres.
Sutter stated that this item will be returned to the Planning Commission for more detailed
Findings.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT (AB98 -213)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, distributed a letter (on
file) from Sandy Mackie.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, Page 7
2
3
4
5 Jill Nixon, Records Transcription
6
7
8 ATTEST:
9
10
11
12
13
14 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
15
16
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Committee, 6/2/98, Page 8