Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Februry 11 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee February 11, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 1:38 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Committee Room. Also Present: Absent: Kathy Sutter None Marlene Dawson Staff Presents Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office Terry Galvin, Planning and Development Services Tom Brown, Council member Ward Nelson, Council member Starkenburg noted the first item of business was the discussion of the rezone of the Lynden - Nooksack Valley Comprehensive Plan ordinance amendment of 40 acres from Commercial Forestry (CF) to R5A acres. Terry Galvin, Planning and Development Services, gave a report on the Planning Commission =s recommendation. He noted there were a number of mistakes in the rezone request. The Planning Commission recommended the east 20 acres be zoned Rural Forestry (RF) and the west 20 be zoned RSA. Staff will allow the RF to remain CF but cautioned committee the precedent may be set for future requests that enables R5A in areas that would otherwise be suitable for forestry. Sutter inquired if it were appropriate zoning for the isolated 20 acres RF surrounded by R5A on both sides and CF on the other two sides. Galvin replied staff thought it is, as it sets the stage for the movement of high- medium density residential development to CF lands in the County. Sutter then wondered why the 40 acres north was left CF. Galvin stated this land is characterized by steep, isolated slopes surrounded by CF. There are some inconsistencies, as some forestry lands are abutted by RSA, but mainly because they are appropriate for CF. He then spoke briefly to topography in R5 and CF. Phil Serka, 400 North Commercial, representing Mr. Thompson, commented regarding his client, who has two homes on the property. He found the designation when he applied for financing, which caused him cost, and his application has been pending for a year. He requested Council adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission except for the north 40 acres Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 1 as CF rather than RF and spoke to the reasoning, noting that road access is available, and there is no opposition to the request. The two acres would be developed for two units rather than no units. Dawson noted a specific inconsistency. Starkenburg pointed out that particular item regarded ownership and not size. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, stated that the minimum lot size for residences in CF was 80 acres, and it was commercial ownership. Galvin clarified that, in his opinion, an error was made in this rezone, but the application was made, and his department cannot go back. Had the error been addressed at that time, it could have been converted from CF to RF in its entirety. Since application was made for RSA, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation. Gordon Thompson, property owner, stated there was some discussion about rectifying the problem, but there was no action taken by Planning staff, and that is why he filed the application. Gibson cautioned this item involves a substantial change in the recommendation from the Planning Commission as well as at Council level. This type of change would require a Council hearing, but it would probably be short because it does not present any practical problems. Dawson moved to support the RF zone because it has fire suppression, the owner is an individual, and there has been no notice to the individual regarding this change. Starkenburg clarified with Serka that the owner is interested in the placement of two residences in the RF zone. Ward Nelson, Council member, questioned if the area changes to RF, then residential units can be built in that area and whether the fire district agreed to provide protection in that area. Serka replied the property is within the service district boundaries. Motion carried unanimously. Starkenburg requested staff consider whether a public hearing is needed to a address this rezone. (Clerks Note: A short break was taken) Starkenburg stated the next portion of this meeting was the committee report on work for the past year, specifically the past four months, which was an update and overview for full Council. It was noted Council members Brown and Nelson were present, but Imhof and Brenner could not make this meeting. What has been presented here (handouts on file) is work done today. It was recognized that there was a time crunch. The public hearing date should be moved back due to staffing problems and the complexity of the issues. That way, discussion on everything can be completed before the public hearing, which would give staff additional time. A discussion then took place regarding a date change, which has not been cleared with Council staff. He requested changing the March 11 date to a public hearing, not the date for final adoption. Gibson noted there is a very serious intent to achieve final adoption as close to the Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 2 March 11 deadline as possible because it represents 180 days from the date the Planning Commission recommended adoption. However, this was brought forward in the spirit of giving adequate public notice. Sutter stated she was having notices printed to inform the public about the mandatory agricultural protection zone and asked if a separate hearing for this could be held on February 25. Starkenburg replied committee needed to consult with staff on this. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated his staff will investigate this issue. Brown clarified the reason for moving the date back is to get all the recommended changes into print for public review. Knapp requested committee remove pages in one of the handouts within resource lands, Mineral Resources, Section II, and insert the new Mineral Resource handout (on file). Starkenburg directed committee to County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and stated this is the latest work and reflects staff work on developing interlocal agreements with the other cities. This portion of the meeting was not open to public comment. Knapp gave a short synopsis on the CWPP. The Oversight Committee has spent a great deal of time to rework these, and the cities have taken the redrafts to their councils. Batchelor confirmed that Bellingham, Lynden, Blaine, and Ferndale have responded. Knapp noted staff has identified certain kinds of growth areas that are not characterized by cities, such as Cherry Point. Batchelor stated that on packet page 140, page 6 of the staff report, attachment 1, is a summary of each of the changes. Starkenburg asked what has been done regarding land use issues. This was compiled by Sandy Mackie (documents dated January 31 and February 7, 1997), which is an itemized short form of each of these issues. Bold type denotes action needed or future development. Starkenburg had intended to cover this for the two Council members who have been and are absent at today--s meeting. Gibson addressed the population figures and stated the original Planning Commission work was based on earlier figures. New figures mean that portions of the Plan will have to be revised. This represents an increase of 8,000 or 220,000+ total in the year 2015. The Resource Conservation Plan states that areas within the R5 or R10 zone that are larger than 20 acres will be allowed to remain at such a density. Clustering will be required to encourage better efficiency of resource use. This may affect people who are currently in the process of subdividing their currently undivided 20 acre or larger parcel within the R5 or R10 zone. Committee is seeking to address appropriate designation criteria regarding Mineral Resource Lands (MRL). He asked what is necessary to effectuate mining within that designation. Alternative recommendations will be given to full Council for its comment and then public input. The primary issue in CF is Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 3 whether or not to allow construction of residential units. These may be permitted with adequate road and fire safety; however, no significant development may be allowed. (Clerks Note: tape 1, side B) Urban and hamlet designations are mooted by more precise areas of designation, such as resort and recreational, tourist resource or commercial designations -- Kendall, Deming, Nugents Corner, Glacier, Maple Falls, etc. These are not urban areas, but the idea is to recognize existing development and not to plan for vast expansions for greater populations in that area. Suburban enclaves include Chuckanut, North Bellingham, Lake Samish - -those areas not having urban densities but having greater than rural densities. Chuckanut is not likely to revert to forestry use; however, given traffic and other constraints, it is not appropriate for greater residential development. There is a recognition of Custer as an area suitable for a major rail related intermodal center, but it must be given that form before it becomes a reality. Cherry Point has been established as industrial development. Sprawl prevention is important for cities - -the County must not plan or fail to plan for sprawl. Therefore, if development occurs in areas outside city services, Ability to Serve Letters must be submitted. Short- and long -term boundaries will help achieve more orderly development within those areas, thus avoiding a black- and -white determination and allowing for development with provision of annexation that allows provision of services. Policies addressing annexation are needed with cities to ensure that no jurisdiction is Ataking the cherries and leaving everyone else with the pits =. There have been a great number of requests over the past few years, and those have been worked through on two occasions. These requests were organized by staff, including the subarea, location, zoning, etc. Committee is about 95% complete. He reported committee =s work has moved to staff and legal for review of consistency and, if error is found, staff will report to committee. Nelson inquired whether those individual requests came in during the last public hearing process regarding the Comp Plan, zone changes, etc. Starkenburg replied some requests have been lingering for four to five years, waiting to see how things would fit (with the new Comp Plan). Nelson asked how requests for change to different zoning activity were handled. Knapp responded the process is to measure the requests for density with the policies adopted by the Comp Plan and review the zoning changes. Knapp reported a master list of all the requests will be provided to committee with indication of which have and have not been resolved. Starkenburg noted that a larger piece references resource lands and agricultural base. Regarding the Comp Plan, it is a balancing act, and committee cannot just pick and choose. In order to balance, committee needs to look at a resource protection zone. In order to take lands for urban expansion, committee must also give lands for resource protection. (Clerks Note: Mackie joined the meeting at this point.) Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, gave his presentation. He stated he had been asked two specific questions: Can the current Plan be made consistent with the decisions of Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 4 the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), and if there are any specific adjustments to make to resolve unique problems. The GMHB found that if unrestrained five acres are allowed to develop in the rural areas, that would take away from agricultural resource lands and was inducive for sprawl, which is not good for growth management. In dialogue with the GMHB in other cases, there is the need for caps to keep R5 areas in check. If one unit in ten is required, there is more potential for ag resource use. In Whatcom County, there is a great deal of R5A zoning where ag has taken place. It is necessary to support a critical mass to conduct long -term commercial zoning. There are some places where the lands will be displaced, such as the Guide Meridian, and some where multiple uses will occur, which means up to 10% loss of lands. Ag protection can occur up to 120,000 acres, but 100,000 acres should be preserved as the critical mass. He suggested taking a resource protection plan approach that mandates clustering but allows the underlying zoning to be retained. Units can be built on 20% of the parcel, which could be targeted in areas of existing infrastructure or minimum impact. As the area between Cherry Point and Ferndale is viewed - -as well as other areas potentially impacted by urban growth - -there are lands in the R5A area that are available for other uses, such as schools. In saving resource lands, he asked if the land to be made available had been identified and if it has been protected. In order to prevent incompatible uses, he asked if development has occurred outside the urban areas and in rural areas. By defining ag use as the predominant use, covenants and easements are created through the general practices found in rural communities. The National Conservation Services has a Best Management Practice Program, which is tied to agricultural activities. If this program is in place, a critical mass has been set aside for agricultural protection, and the ability to have a degree of development in the rural areas has been continued, as long as it is not incompatible with ag uses. Also, Mackie asked if adequate services were available, noting the Letter to Serve from police /school /water /fire, etc. is the responsibility of the developer to obtain. By taking these steps to make sure a significant portion of the resource lands are protected, there is greater freedom to create more dense R1 and R2 or designate a heavy industrial zone, such as Cherry Point, because this does not impact the ag resources. In order to apply for R5 segregation, a short or long plat process must be used. Fair notice, covenants, and easements all help mitigate uses among the adjoining properties. Voluntary vs mandatory ag resource protection plan was discussed briefly. Mackie stated that with a voluntary plan, the County needs to avoid caps and limits on the number of permits granted in rural areas. A question and answer period followed. Sutter requested the definition for Alarge parcel = -- Mackie responded 20 acres or greater. Sutter then asked if this will affect all R5A and all RIOA zoning. The reply was in the negative. All areas around the urban areas and the I -5 corridor were set off as lands that would be diverted for some other use. Speaking to the map, Mackie pointed out these areas. Leaving some areas out was due to existing developments. Sutter commented if some properties are included and not others, then it may be a legal challenge. Mackie responded that a very strong case could be made against putting a Aring of fives= around the urban development because it becomes difficult to put roads, services or anything else through that. Including this land puts the County well over 100,000 long -term commercial ag. Sutter asked why this is based on ag. Mackie replied its primary objective is to confine R5 development in ag zones. There are other activities that can take place on these Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 5 larger parcels that can take place such as schools. Looking beyond 20 years, more than ag benefits. Sutter then asked about provision of property containing agricultural uses and about family exemptions and subdivisions for children of family farms. If there are no services for cluster development, is there then a need for subdivision? Mackie stated it must be made so it is not so easy that people can opt out. It is common to have combined drainfields on one or two acres, such as seven drainfields on one or two acres. Sutter then asked if they are told they have to cluster but they cannot meet the water requirements, then is the County taking the property? Mackie stated no, not in the constitutional sense. There will be differences in requirements for urban and rural levels of service. In the resource protection area, there may be the same requirements for development for fire, water, etc. He urged committee to query the need for higher levels of fireflow. He urged committee to consider whether a person on a five acre tract is entitled to better fire protection than a person on a one acre tract. What is being said is the clustering is consistent with the pattern of development in the rural areas. Sutter inquired as to the number of houses in a cluster before it would be considered an urban level of service. There was no definitive answer. Starkenburg interrupted to say that Sutter was bringing up all the things that need to be considered if this type of measure is adopted, but he wanted to allow more time at the end of the meeting to dialogue, which would then be the road map for amending the development regulations. Knapp notified chair staff was requesting all Council members to submit their questions addressing these issues. Dawson thought these are not platted lots being placed in this zone, and the density of development is still the same as if it were R5. Mackie stated prime soils are in consideration, but it is also the area historically zoned for ag uses. In answer to a question regarding the acreage, Gibson responded 75,000 plus 25,000 = 100,000 acres. Mackie stated this is an overlaying zone, an ag protection zone. Over time these large parcels can meet a multitude of needs, not just ag uses. (Clerks Note: Tape 2, side A) Starkenburg pointed out committee and Mackie are not saying there needs to be XXX acres used for agriculture- -the land base number has not been specifically determined- -but this is a measure to go about making the determination. Mackie noted that if Council =s recommendation was to put in all of the R5 and R10, it would increase both totals about 10 %. Starkenburg moved discussion to the crossroad communities and suburban enclaves. Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 6 Knapp noted that some areas have not been addressed. He was concerned about the commercial area just to the north of Custer, the Gateway Industrial zone, and the new commercial piece on the south part of the County ( Nulle Road) and how that should be designated. Mackie stated Nulle Road fell within a logical place for neighborhood commercial /crossroads commercial. The old plan was trying to designate urban with the assumption that these areas became fully operational cities, and realistically they are small rural towns. The operating basis for designation was preservation. He encouraged committee to take the set of these documents as they exist today and elicit comments from cities, public groups and all those interested so people coming to the public hearing can focus on these textual changes for final judgment on March 11. Mackie noted that one change made was to designate Point Roberts more like Sudden Valley rather than Birch Bay. A study should be made to identify what the essential elements are that would warrant full citihood and discuss how to encourage this development. In the meantime, he suggested treating it like a resort community. Starkenburg noted that on page 13C, there were several issues regarding small non- conforming residential areas. He requested Mackie give a brief overview on Custer. Mackie stated Custer will create a certain kind of demand as it develops. There is a unique circumstance where Cherry Point rail, I -5, and the Canadian rail to Sumas is all connecting and provides a special opportunity for an intermodal rail site. This activity cannot be met inside the cities, and it cannot be duplicated elsewhere. To accomplish all these activities within the light industrial zone (Cherry Point) may be prohibitive. Step 1 is an enabling ordinance, and the Master Plan with all the zoning requirements and restrictions is an appropriate device to identify those issues. He suggested using the same criteria as Cherry Point to preserve the large lots, and then use accessory uses to the larger use. Plan for major use, then identify appropriate accessory uses. The second step is a detailed environmental review in conjunction with the Master Plan. It is not a light industrial zone, so there is no duplication in Blaine or Bellingham. Knapp stated what has not been addressed is the existing community uses, which may need to have some additional consideration. Mackie replied that perhaps Custer should be added to the small towns criteria. More development should not be allowed to occur, but allow infill. Gateway is not a good place to dairy farm or have residential zoning. He suggested to identify this area as a Guide /Commercial zone and put boundaries on it so that it does not unintentionally grow. A Letter to Serve is needed as well. Knapp inquired about the interchange across from Gateway and its expansion. Mackie replied it is being dealt with as a small town. Starkenburg inquired as to the extent of this zone. Knapp stated the focus is on the intersection, which seems like a crossroads commercial. Nelson asked if this were an intermodal focus, then is it in the transportation element for Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 7 extent of a feasibility study? Must the County have that part of that element in the Comp Plan? There was brief discussion as to whether the Council of Governments (COG) is doing a study on this. Sutter then stated the Custer intermodal facility has no definite size yet in the R10A zone and asked how to keep people from building inappropriately in that area. Mackie replied the 440 acres could be designated as a potential intermodal site. Underneath that area (on the map), the R10 zoning applies; this is called a floating zone -- people will be able to develop inside the 440 acres. The Master Plan is a large scale zoning ordinance. There is the ability to have two choices: take the 440 acres and confine it for the intermodal use, or put a star on the area and note that it may be 440 acres, more or less. At the public hearing, discuss the choices before making a final recommendation. Knapp clarified the designation would be urban once the recommendation has been made and inquired if the rest of the community is included; Mackie said no. This is an area incompatible with all things a city brings. Knapp pointed out there are services that need to be there for this facility, especially commercial. Mackie stated it may be decided that, as part of the Master Plan, the commercial side can be handled at the crossroad commercial intersection, but those activities are not encouraged. Other than that, the generic commercial services are crossroads commercial. Knapp stated that trucks would have the ability to interface with rail, which makes it truly intermodal. Mackie stated that by recommending towns with mixed use zones, small towns have the ability to provide additional tourist commercial services and a Sun Mountain type of activity (providing adequate services). The industrial area is identified in conjunction with small towns zoned crossroads commercial. An industrial floating zone, as defined as by Administrative approval, consists of up to ten employees and by special use permit up to fifty employees; after that, it is a rezone issue that will apply to all the rural areas. All cities do not zone 40 acres industrial. Gateway Industrial is a crossroads commercial type. One issue raised was that some crossroads /commercial areas are on side streets, some on Guide, etc. He suggested that perhaps there should be three types to be defined by size and use road setbacks to determine type. Starkenburg summarized committee sent forward a strong signal for looking at the entire Custer area on both sides, recognizing uses along the I -S corridor. He then noted that each Council member must formulate his thoughts. There also must be discussion among Council members. More public comment must be considered. Mackie encouraged committee to take time to put this together and disseminate it as widely as possible. Get people to understand what the changes are that have been made. These are essentially changes in the margins and addressing technical issues of the Comp Plan. Nelson recommended putting this into one package. Knapp stated his department is in the process of making all the changes consistent with the entire document, which will be reviewed with highlights and cross outs. Starkenburg noted that the decision to assess impact fees and on -site Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 8 mitigation needs to be included also somewhere in that document. Mackie stated the Ability to Serve Letter institutionalizes a strong policy statement that concurrency is required. The second piece of that puzzle is to determine how the County meets its responsibilities in the GMA process. The impact fee program is adopted as a subpart of the Comp Plan. Brown expressed his concern about the Ability to Serve Letter, as some people were concerned about shutting schools down. Mackie stated that schools have the most elaborate planning process. In rural areas, uncontrolled growth imposes unconscionable costs on these smaller areas. The Ability to Serve Letter says that adequate public facilities are available. The school would have the ability to veto a development if they can show good cause. The services are a prerequisite to the development. The school district may be able to pass a bond issue to help obtain a development. Mackie stated the school district needs houses to pass the bond issue; once the school has the population, it may then get funds that allows it the portable. Starkenburg noted that as he understood it, the goal is predictability to a point where there will be impact fees or mitigation that will be set, and everyone will know where he stands so he can be accommodated. Mackie reinforced people need to understand that is the mechanism in place. This does work without imposing an undue burden. Impact fees can also be used, but that has a different set of implications, not excluding administering an impact fee system. Nelson asked if impact fees can be broken down on criteria levels. Mackie responded that impact fees have two categories: first, define the Level of Service; second, impose the new level on all new growth. What may be exempted must be picked up by the taxpayers, wherein a balance must be struck. Under the Comp Plan, SEPA enables the Letter of Ability to Serve as a measure. Batchelor noted the handout, Implementation Outline (on file), has more details that can be plugged into this depending on what is done with the Comp Plan. (Clerks Note: A public hearing will be scheduled for March 11.) ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 9 Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 2/11/97, Page 10