Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 28 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee January 28, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 9 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present Kathy Sutter Marlene Dawson (partly attended) Barbara Brenner (partly attended) Ward Nelson (partly attended) 1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (LAND USE & CAPITAL FACILITIES, AB96 -056) Staff Present Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Manager Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Council Starkenburg noted the purpose of the meeting was to review items of previous meetings for clarity and further discussion. He also addressed the in -house committee issue of electing a committee chair. Dawson moved to retain Starkenburg as the Committee Chair, which was seconded by Sutter. Motion carried unanimously. Starkenburg stated that a review of the Nooksack Valley Subarea Plan will include Sevner's property on Kendall Road and asked if committee could give its agreement today to approve this portion of the Plan. Sutter said the information she received pertained to the wrong property and requested Planning staff send her the correct information. Dawson stated she must abstain from voting on this portion of the plan, and Starkenburg moved and committee then agreed that Dawson be permitted to abstain her vote on the portion of the plan dealing with Sevner's property. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Council, distributed copies of "Comprehensive Plan Modifications" to all staff and Council for discussion uses. He asked those present to consider this meeting to be a work session for discussion of potential changes and needed clarifications to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as review of compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) before final recommendations are made to committee. Mackie said the "Comprehensive Plan Modifications" will be discussed in two parts. This Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 1 meeting will give consideration to the designation of agricultural lands and agricultural protection zones while the designation of mineral resource lands (MRL) will also be discussed. Committee will be asked to consider the designation of MRL and a special administrative process to accomplish permitting of MRL and other administrative reviews to guarantee compliance with existing laws. Mackie gave a brief overview of other key issues addressed in "Comprehensive Plan Modifications" to be discussed today. He noted that several areas of the County in the earlier version of the Comprehensive Plan were designated for urban growth, and set a criteria that does not characterize these rural areas. He stated the defining criteria for these areas will determine final growth and population size and urged committee to discuss today whether these areas are likely to become part of urban cities and, if so, how to designate their size and densities. He noted that at the next Planning Committee work session, the issue of urban areas of the cities will be addressed. This will include short-term boundaries, resolution of conflicts, and joint planning issues. Also to be discussed will be the industrial growth in Birch Bay, Cherry Point, Custer, and the concept of a floating industrial zone. Finally, a summary of rezoning for various areas will also take place at the next meeting. His presentation began with introduction of the draft document "Comprehensive Plan Modifications ". Topics and subtopics include (documents on file): I. Agricultural Protection Designation of Agricultural Categories I -IV II. Mineral Resource Lands Existing and New Facilities Special Concerns Agricultural Lands General Conditions III. Crossroads Communities and Small Towns Northern towns Central Communities Special Considerations Crossroad Commercial Centers IV. Guide Meridian Residential and Commercial Development V. Impact on Resource Lands and Critical Areas "Ability to Serve" Letters VI. Recreational Communities and Suburban Enclaves Columbia Valley Sudden Val ley /Strawberry Point /Cain Lake Geneva /Summit View Chuckanut and North Bellingham Lake Samish Toad Lake Mackie stated that the suburban enclaves will be addressed in groupings based on their similarities, since there was not enough time to include all communities individually in this Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 2 document. Staff recommended deciding on a pattern guideline and criteria that, if found acceptable, may then be applied to a listing that includes all communities. He also noted that staff will put the key reference material on each of these subjects in the outline above into a notebook, accompanied by air photos, zoning maps, parcelization maps and summaries, agricultural maps, etc, which will be available for people when they approach the Planning & Development Services for information. Mackie began discussion of the agricultural resource lands issue as a twofold process: Has the County set aside sufficient agricultural lands to preserve what may be referred to as the "critical mass" for local agricultural industry; and has the County taken steps to prevent inconsistent or incompatible uses that would be destructive of that agricultural activity? Mackie then addressed agricultural lands conservation by citing testimony from the National Resource Conservation Service that Whatcom County has approximately 125,000 acres of land supporting agricultural industries. From this census he identified two categories relevant to the discussion - -large farms and farms smaller than 20 acre parcels. He cited a Finding on record. Further, he noted that there are about 80,000- 88,000 acres of agricultural lands presently in that approximately 100,000 acres, which are needed to ensure the critical mass in the larger parcels. To accomplish this, a four part criteria designate lands for agricultural protection is necessary. He urged committee to examine how the next 20 years could affect the critical mass. Staff have identified three potential impacts: 1) An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study recently concluded that the effect of manure practices and lagoons on dairy farms can result in the limitation of agricultural use for properties affected by floodplains and other drainage patterns that may make the property unsuitable during certain times of the year. 2) Economic issues can also affect the use of agricultural lands, e.g., plant closures or other logistical changes that impact the marginal costs of an agricultural activity and may even make the activity nonproductive. 3) Towns such as Lynden and Sumas are located within a large agricultural base, and their expansion may reduce some of the land zoned agricultural. Staff has assumed that for the 20 -year Plan, the County could lose up to 10% of the land presently zoned agriculture- - agricultural zoning being based on proximity to prime soils and suitability for agricultural activity, and the other criteria set forth in the state Washington Administrative Code (WAC) as pertains to such designation. This designation states very clearly there are somewhere between 80,000- 88,000 acres of lands useable for agricultural purposes. Staff has devised a proposal to create an agricultural protection zone to make up the balance of acreage needed to maintain the critical mass. Mackie explained the process that involved staff review of various areas east of I -5 currently R -5 and R -10. Maps reviewed in this process include those produced by LESA, the Soil Conservation Service, and the County Assessors maps, and staff has redrawn the Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 3 map to capture the bulk of those that are not in the way of existing residential development or other incompatible uses. The proposal applies to the R -5's intent of developing on 20% of the land. Staff found that land currently zoned R -5 and R -10 may or may not be used for agriculture, or the actual acreage used may be smaller than 20 acres, and thus not suitable for clustering. Mackie explained the proposal is not intended to require land be included within an agricultural zone if it is not suitable for such activities. He stated the proposal provides a mechanism for preserving significant larger tracts of land for future agricultural uses and has the additional benefit of preserving land for larger uses, such as the large acreage needed to build a school. The property owner is also not required to farm. The intent is to create a set aside of land that may be suitable for farming. Staff has identified a total of approximately 75,000 acres in the County with the potential to support commercially significant agriculture. Assuming about half of this number would be considered unsuitable, this would leave a generous margin for the additional 20,000 acres needed for a Category III Agricultural Protection Zone set aside. Most of these 20,000 acres are a ready designated for commercial agriculture and are on the Assessor =s records as such. Mackie also stated that under the Category III designation, the owner of a 200 acre dairy farm may choose to develop under the R -5 and R -10 zoning code. However, the Comprehensive Plan Review Board has removed any bonus offered for clustering as part of this, although clustering decreases the need for roads and other public services. Starkenburg asked if this designation would be a voluntary or mandatory measure. If people are told they have agriculturally suitable soils, they must keep it that way. He felt committee needed to consider further whether this should be a mandatory or voluntary measure. Mackie countered that there is a need to identify appropriate uses within an Agricultural Protection Zone, and it should not be assumed that such a designation will prevent use of the land for activities, such as gas stations, repair sites, day care centers, residential subdivisions schools, etc. The protection zone will not apply to the portion of a farm not suitable for farming; however, the burden is on the owner to show that. This is not intended to take land unsuitable for long -term commercial agriculture, and therefore would not be required to the mandatory requirements. For lands suitable for farming, it is appropriate for 20% of those lands to realize the entire density allocation and range of conditional uses provided they do not adversely impact the remaining agricultural uses. Regarding general development parcels, often one, two, and five -acre tracts sell for the same economic range; however, the need for roads and other services are greater than if developing on a larger parcel, which produced a net benefit to the landowner can be equal to or greater than developing the property on a one to five acre basis. Sutter thought this measure may not be in the property owner's interest. She used an example under this zoning designation: The owner of a 30 acre parcel zoned R -5 with good soil is able to develop 6 of the 30 acres. If the property is considered a cluster, the owner will not be allowed individual wells for each unit, triggering the need to join a public water service, which in turn triggers the fireflow requirement which becomes cost prohibitive for the owner /developer. Mackie responded that at the end of the Comprehensive Planning process, the development regulations must be amended to assure consistency with the Plan. Potential Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 4 solutions for the owner /developer may be to allow drainfields and wells in other areas away from the individual parcel, or to provide community services, such as one water supply for every four units, thus staying below the requirement for public water service. He stated that it is appropriate to review the regulations to ensure the owner is not subject to these types of penalties. Mackie argued that R -5s are consumptive of agricultural lands, and people who are want to live in an R -5 area have been found to be satisfied living within an R -1 or R -2 area. These market factors and other regulation changes can be put before the people to give their comment in the public hearing process. The number of properties that are highly suitable agricultural lands whose owners want to subdivide and develop is the example under discussion and may actually be a very small portion of the total acreage to be set aside. Sutter countered that Council is required by charter to assess the impact on property rights for all property owners. She is concerned that small properties would be prevented from turning, for example, a 20 acre "family farm" into 5 acre parcels that could be divided among family members. Mackie stated that if considerations such as these result in a likely loss of farming, i.e., the extent of these parcels affects the 26,000 amount, then the County has need for concern. But he felt there is more than enough room for these considerations. Sutter asked if the agricultural protection categories could be construed as an unequal application of the law, and Mackie negatively. The legislature has given a rational basis for setting up the legislative classes (zoning categories) in support of the objective, which is to preserve agricultural lands. The means to accomplish the objective may not compromise the economic incentive and, as an example, being able to develop 20% of the land is more favorable for the property owner than having the property downzoned, which is a more restrictive approach. The objective is to both preserve agricultural lands and preserve the economic incentive. He felt it would not affect overall productivity and that such development may go a long way to helping preserve the economic productivity of the farmer. Sutter said that the County must ensure properties that are currently under common ownership will not be subject to consolidation under the new agricultural conservation designations. Mackie stated that from a platting point of view, separate tax parcels are not considered separate and divisible lots, and the County does have a lot consolidation ordinance. Council will examine that and assess the implications. Sutter said that if the zoning is a mandatory measure, then she would not like consolidation to be imposed as well. Mackie concluded that two things that need further review will be the "family farm" and lot consolidation. Starkenburg felt the County should lean toward flexibility and not inform the urban areas within agricultural lands that they may not expand further. He felt the proposed agricultural protection designations will create a huge issue of what criteria and process will be designed for the proposed mandatory process and who will undertake this effort. He felt that of the 75,000 acres to be reviewed for such a designation, a fair amount of properties located east of the I -5 corridor may be willing to voluntarily designate their land for protection if offered a program that includes incentives. He was concerned that the process be more voluntary than mandatory or preferably a mix and thought committee should give staff more direction. He addressed Sutter's comment that there will be advantages and disadvantages for various people to agree to such designations -- dependent on access to roadways or the ability for codevelopment with adjoining properties. Sutter agreed with Starkenburg's comments and felt the mandatory process would not result in taking anyone's rights. She stated that the infrastructure element was an issue she would like to see addressed more clearly. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 5 Starkenburg explained further that incentives to be offered could include the bonus structure in their cluster. Mackie thought the previous bonus structure was generous and that a bonus for certain kinds of uses could be offered. Conditional uses may warrant special review, e.g, congregate care centers, where dust and noise may pose health hazards. He will look further at these concerns, which he will characterize as a limited bonus and sensitive uses. Sutter asked if areas that are designated as agricultural protection zones will be required to undergo a special review and how often will this occur. Mackie explained that agricultural lands selected for conservation were based on lands that are currently in use for commercial agriculture. This land may also overlap a mining area; these are not conflicting uses. Periodically, as the dominant economic use of this land changes or if the land is being evaluated for development, it may be then subject to review as affected by change or urban growth. In some cases, agricultural property is already being retained voluntarily, such as near Cherry Point, but is close to areas of intense development. The boundaries of the land may be modified to benefit agricultural preservation and subject to either annual review by request or as part of the year review process. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, noted that an agricultural protection designation for the area west of Ferndale would effectively preserve the area as a cluster, i.e., a larger undivided parcel. He explained the benefit of clustering is realized when urban development does occur because it can take place much more efficiently and thus maintain long -term economic integrity. Mackie said that staff does not recommend these lands be presented as permanent open space and noted that at present they are permitted for all uses within an agricultural zone but not for further subdivision. He stated that as urban boundaries shift and land uses change, the Comprehensive Plan must also change; lands will be reviewed for current conditions. Under the proposed agricultural protection designations, as parcels drop out of R -5 and R -10, they become available for all uses permitted under the new zone. The zoning changes need to be made through the GMA, using the criteria established by the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that a permanent open space designation is unadvisable and, under the new zoning, property owners are given a reasonable option for 20 -30 years into the future. Sutter asked if the commercial agricultural properties selected from the tax Assessors records were only for properties over 20 acres. Mackie replied that a variety of properties were chosen, and this information will be in the notebook divided into groupings of properties over 20 acres, under 20 acres, etc. Sutter asked if the properties were based on the Open Space Lands/Farm or Open Space Lands /Agriculture classifications because she knew that many of these lands are not commercially active. Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services, replied their numbers were compiled from all Assessors Tax Codes identifying farms and agriculture, including those that are in open space taxation. Mackie felt the open space classification does not preclude them from being relevant for agricultural protection and listed the criteria used for selection: soils, proximity to incompatible development, size of parcel, and the tax parcelization. He clarified that committee already made the first cut by designating that R -5 and R -10 lands for clustering and asked for clarification on which types should be subject to the mandatory agricultural protection zone. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 6 Mackie described properties under the Category II designation as being characterized by seasonal flooding. He proposed that land currently or seasonally unsuitable for agricultural use due to flooding or other water intrusion may make up part of the long -term commercial agricultural resource lands. He felt these lands will not comprise a significant portion of the total resource base. He concluded with an example for Category IV designation of an established agricultural business whose property was slowly being encroached upon by urban development. The Voluntary Agricultural Designation helps the owners who wants to protect their property against the potential for incompatible uses. With this designation the regulations need to clarify there is a minimum size for agricultural use, and there is an intent to farm. This offers the agricultural properties protection language against subdivisions that are approved around that farm. Mackie began discussion on the amendment of County Development Regulations, noting that in order to make the Comprehensive Plan work, some minor modifications may need to be made to Mineral Resource Lands Ordinance to ensure the necessary protections until committee makes final recommendation for amending the development regulation. He noted concerns for a statutory mandate for an agricultural protection zone include the use of agricultural chemicals on these lands, especially as their use may impact nearby water supplies. Other concerns are dust, noise and related impacts that would affect nearby residential housing. When a residential development occurs within an agricultural zone or an agricultural protection zone, other items are necessary in addition to the Right -to -Farm Ordinance. Mackie recommended these measures: 1) Development permits contain covenants or easements regarding permitted Best Management Practices (BMPs). To clarify, a condition of the plat may be that farming is the primary use in the district as long as the farmer complies with the BMPs as prescribed for specific crops or other type of farming. The best resource guide for BMPs is published by the National Resource Conservation Service; other sources may be added. Neighborhood covenants may also bear down on the farming use. So, when development occurs on agricultural property, BMPs must be used and nearby uses must be "ag- friendly." 2) Development permits would specifically limit the proposal and easements. The public was encouraged to comment on these proposed easements. Staff recommended wells be limited to within 200 ft of potential agricultural properties, and residential structures should be within 100 ft of agricultural lands. For example, if a property owner wants to modify his development for views or other reasons, the County may give easement and make covenant, as long as the owner agrees to agricultural uses of the nearby property. Sutter asked how to address the potential for conflict if uses change or activity increases over time. Mackie replied the Comprehensive Plan requires public notice of significant changes that would affect nearby properties. As agricultural lands change the type of farming or use of the property, the County will follow BMPs as a guideline and impart a reference mechanism, such as a full notice /fair notice system, so that the agricultural user knows what is expected. Mackie cited that trespassing on a neighbor =s property or other such actions may pose a potential threat, and it should be made clear that there are potential consequences when developing or financing a property within an agricultural area and that the developer must exercise "due diligence ", but the County may need to develop a way to Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 7 communicate BMPs as applied to agricultural areas. Sutter asked if a lawsuit could be perpetrated if agricultural lands change the type of farming or use. Mackie responded the BMPs program is designed to resolve the environmental implications of farming, and a public process is required dealing with this. Counties may try to impose standards, but care is needed. For example, state noise standards are much higher within an agricultural area than are tolerable in a residential area. If a person waits to develop within an R -SA or R -10 that is an agricultural protection zone, one would need to make a covenant and create a noise easement. Starkenburg asked if these details are to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan or will these be defined in the development regulations. Mackie replied that the Plan does not describe standards and practices unless the County regulates one type of agricultural activity as opposed to another type of agricultural use. Generally, a succinct statement that applies to the regulations, such as note the permitted BMPs, and then reference the needs of these uses as being typical. The Plan may state the form and kind of acceptable uses; in the Findings the challenge is noted to the put these into effect in the following phase where the development regulations are amended. Starkenburg asked if the definition of agricultural zones need to be changed in keeping with the GMA, and Mackie responded that a definition in WAC 365 -190, 030, and 150 will be amended so the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance are compliant with the GMA. Starkenburg noted there is a long- standing request to change the rating system for agricultural soils and requested committee proceed and give direction. Mackie stated the current and recommended agricultural zones look at classifications from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), LESA, and also consider use -in -fact, actual and County open space taxes, potentials for conflict, suitable uses, and criteria under WAC 190 -050. There is no recommendation at this time to change that because all soils were given consideration for locating the agricultural zones and the R -SA. If over time land becomes unsuitable for agriculture and a property owner uses SCS or LESA information to request removal of his land from the mandatory cluster, the County would not choose based on SCS or LESA only but would look at both classification systems in totality. Starkenburg suggested change from the past system needs to be fully explained in the Comprehensive Plan and that it is inappropriate to use only a single source. Gibson clarified committee is reviewing Map 23, which purports to be a map of prime soils in Whatcom County. There has been past confusion about the identification of prime soils and commercially existing facilities. Regarding expansion of existing facilities, it is more common for a portion of the land to require environmental analysis and review. Some of the most commercially viable agricultural soils are considered prime when drained or when protected from flooding, so there are many prime soils identified in the map that will not and may never be involved in long -term commercially viable agriculture. He asked if the County needs to address in the Comprehensive Plan that a classification of prime soil is not a binding concept that stands apart from economic value. Mackie responded that the Findings should include a note that states the criteria and all of the components that were considered for the final choice to impose an agricultural protection zone. (Clerks Note: There was a short recess to move to another room) Mackie declined to cover the subject of Forest Resource Lands today. However, he did Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 8 state confirmation is needed of Findings supported by the record that the amount of forest lands presently designated for commercial long -term forest on a sustained yield basis provides the volume of timber for exporting and processing that is consistent with the needs of the industry. He continued that if these Findings are confirmed, the only reason to change forest land boundaries would be 1) for a specific, individual request; 2) if the County determines property contained within the boundary is somehow inappropriately designated; or 3) such lands must be identified (Mineral Resources). Some questions arise in order to accomplish this, specifically: 1) How does the County develop a permitting process that is more independent of state permits? The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has set criteria that designates standards for Mineral Resource Lands (MRLs) that differ if within a rural area, an urban area or a timber area. 2) Staff recommended committee consider what will be required for the environmental analysis and review of MRLs. If by granting an MRL designation to the boundaries of the site that automatically means that the site may be mined wall -to -wall without further County environmental review, then the burden is placed on the County at this level to engage in an environmental analysis of the potential impacts. This has not been done, and there is presently no plan to do this. With a phased environmental review, how can the County accomplish both objectives of providing both the mechanism and setting aside sufficient MRLs to meet the County's needs? Another concern is to maintain County control over the permitting process that puts the County in the lead without unnecessary duplication of the environmental process. A reasonable requirement should be included in the environmental review that enables the County to allow MRL lands to grow, and yet is able to review site - specific issues that would not be dealt with in a programmatic review at the County level before license to mine is given. To accomplish this, three processes have been identified (handout on file): 1. Ex 46 concern is to vest the current mine sites for the future. There are only three new requests for MRL designation under consideration by the Planning Commission that have no current development. The Commission's recommendation includes the full extent of property ownership and some additional information to balance off the boundary lines. Staff recommended the starred areas of the MRL map are appropriate for the mineral resource area and then include on the zoning map the MRL, based on the DNR permits in place. It is presumed here that it is appropriate for the MRL to expand, and the project level environmental review would be conducted through an administrative review or special use procedure. It also gives the County the ability to apply such measures, such as pollution permits issued by the Department of Ecology (DOE), to areas designated for wellhead protection. Although the DNR has control of reclamation plans, with zoning the County may articulate its consideration views within a seamless system. Mackie recommended conducting an administrative review or special use procedure to evaluate the boundaries for MRL rather than a conditional use permit, which would include evaluation of local conditions, environmental sensitivity, and other specific matters that are appropriate to include in the development regulations. A brief discussion of the correct map used to identify new mining facilities began with Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, who explained that Map #25 was produced after the Planning Commission made its proposal and shows classification areas that meet the Commission's designation criteria, along with all sites requested for designation whether or Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 9 not they had been proposed for site selection. The map was amended for use by committee to show new areas (circled) that are not adjacent to an existing mine. Starkenburg requested that information on the map given to committee, dated January 1995 and be correlated with information staff is using. Mackie responded the Planning Commission was given Map #25 to convey information about the sites before its proposed recommendation. Staff will report to Council with a current map. 2. New Facilities. Griffin identified new areas proposed for mining as being located on West King Tut Road, Oat -Cole Road, Sumas Mountain and South Pass Road. All other sites are adjacent to or contain DNR permits or County conditional use permits (CUP). Mackie continued that for new facilities that are not presently permitted but with a potential for significant long -term use will be designated "potential MRL ". On the zoning map, it will be designated potential MRL with a special demarcation (currently *); however, this designation does not ripen into a vested right until after the environmental process. (Clerk's Note: Council member Barbara Brenner joined the meeting at this point.) 3. Special Concerns. a) Non - conforming pits and permits under 20 acres: Mackie explained that typically these are small noncommercial or semicommercial uses, such a small pit used to improve a minor road, and in general these types continue to operate at historic rates. Committee needs to review the limit of 5,000 tons per year and 20 acres to determine if these are appropriate triggers before having these uses undergo a permitting process. He asked at what rate of use or expansion will these uses be considered for an environmental process. Public comment is also needed on these small use limits. b) Wellhead protection zones (WhpZ): Small towns may define wellhead protection based on a radius (such as within 500 feet), and are generally an arbitrary number to maintain a zone of protection rather than based on a geohydrological study. The calculated WHPZ tend to take a conehead of projection based on groundwater flow. The calculated WHPZ assesses the amount of water and rate of its travel to the cone of depression (surface area of the well) over a five - year or ten -year period and establishes the conehead of projection as the effective service area. From a regulatory point of view, it was recommended there be no mining within the five -year WHPZ and no mining within the ten -year WHPZ from the point of groundwater plus 20 feet. Mackie felt the ten -year limit of groundwater plus 20 feet was not necessarily a recommendation but a focal point for testimony to be considered during the public hearing process. Mackie cited the Mead study, conducted by two Counties, that claims mining within the aquifer is not necessarily inappropriate and may not negatively impact downstream uses regarding turbidity and contamination. Brenner asked to see the study, and Mackie replied it will be included in the notebook mentioned above that will detail the decision - making process for the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Starkenburg asked whether the ten -year WHPZ indicated the groundwater level plus 20 feet above, and Mackie affirmed that was correct. Mackie clarified that the 20 feet above groundwater is a reasonable buffer between the mining activities and potential for future uses. He displayed for example a map created by Hart - Crowser identifying potential WHPZs and noted committee needs to determine which are public water supplies and which are typical uses as opposed to specific uses, which can be used to give a sense of an order of Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 10 magnitude. Griffin stated that Planning and Development Services has the informational ability to specifically map these areas, and Mackie stated this information would then be included as part of the development regulations and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. He clarified that the mapped WHPZ would not necessarily determine protection zones but that when a subsequent application is received, the mapped information would be reviewed within the permitting process. Mackie began discussion of agricultural lands with the question of how may the County give consideration to conflicting resource uses. There has been previous work on this issue, including a subcommittee that has been meeting for four or five years, and all recommendations made seem to be in agreement. There are certain soil types that may not be appropriate for approval until the County has completed a mineral resource survey. Starkenburg asked who established the subcommittee; Griffin responded he was directed to do so by Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, and Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Manager. Gibson clarified the group does not have official status but is a working group of citizens meeting on an informal basis who have given their input to staff and providing testimonial information for committee's consideration. Mackie continued the record is open, so that comments such as these and written documents may be considered as committee proceeds with developing the Comprehensive Plan. Sutter pointed out that redefining the MRL process creates too many details for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that when an area is requested for MRL, a hierarchical matrix containing these details could be used to evaluate the site for permit. Mackie concurred that if committee agrees to these recommendations and they are adopted by the Council and then released in the Findings, then Council will, in effect, agree to the creation of a special use permit process that will create the following categories and hierarchy regarding the evaluation of these new sites. This is a development regulator activity that allows the two -step environmental review, so that project specific concerns can be addressed during that. Sutter reiterated that she felt there was a possibility the level of detail could drag down the policy making process. Sutter interjected a new item for committee's consideration. Based on comment received from the public, she suggested changing the terminology from "Natural Resource Lands" to "Natural Resource Conservation Areas" because this more adequately and accurately reflects what the GMA mandates. Sutter then read from a letter she is sending to people who submitted testimony on MRL addressing their concerns: "The Growth Management Act requires that the County identify and designate natural resource areas of long -term commercial significance which are to be conserved for future use. I will be suggesting that we change the term "Natural Resource Lands" to "Natural Resource Conservation Areas," which more closely reflects the intent of GMA. It then becomes clearer that a "Mineral Resource Conservation Area" means that uses will be precluded which will render the resource unusable, rather than the perception that designational law allows an owner to use the resource. The same would be true for Agricultural Resource, Conservation Areas and Forest Resource Conservation Areas. The issue then becomes one of understanding that a Mineral Resource Conservation Area designation does not imply that the area can be mined. Permitting requirements under applicable federal, state and local regulations will still have to be met. It also does not mean that any area which is not designated a Mineral Resource Conservation Area cannot be mined. It just means that if it is not designated, it does not Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 11 have to protect it for future use as a mineral resource." Sutter continued that changing the terminology will go a long way to changing the way the County perceives it. She felt that if the land is designated a MRL, then it is not perceived as a conservation land first but rather a mineral land first. Brenner expressed her concern about changing the designation for its potential impact on resale of property and the intent that it somehow misinterprets the use of the property. She also felt the two -step approach of a phased environmental review will add more confusion and that the designation should more plainly state the actual use of the property, such as sand - and - gravel area. Griffin stated that the County does employ a "mineral disclosure notice" which is like a right -to -farm but is applicable to any lands that are designated as a mineral resources area. There was further discussion in which Sutter reiterated the potential for confusion of the designation with the permit to mine or other activities and Brenner countering that presently a property owner may not automatically mine without permit, so there is no basis for confusion. Mackie stated the burden is upon committee to articulate as clearly as possible the objective and how it will be accomplished; however, there will always be some amount of misunderstanding by the public. He recommend employing a demarcation in the area, such as a ( *), rather than a parcel specific boundary, and that specific criteria may affect the development of parcels beyond the designated areas. Some inconsistencies are to be expected, such as forest land designations where harvesting is not possible on every inch of property, or where harvesting takes place only once every 50 years despite the designation which makes it seem like logging may take place at any time or at all times. The recommendation is to remove the limitation and look specifically at the mining or timber features of the property and apply the use as fitting with the proposed activity. Starkenburg felt there has been a lengthy historical review of protection of agricultural lands dating back to 1970; resolve of the issue has been attempted with periodic Council actions and an overall study prompting Local Ordinance 92 -079. However, most all opinions given to this point effectively tabled the resolution until the development of the Comprehensive Plan, so he felt the County is at a junction where the historical review now needs to come into agreement. He suggested the use of past records to finding solutions and that criteria may need be different from forestry to agriculture, and so on. He suggested that committee develop criteria that specifies ahead there is a special process that they will be measured against. Mackie continued with recommendations for Agricultural Lands with an estimate of about 5,500 acres of soils that have slopes of less than 3% that may be described as premium farm lands. Starkenburg asked if these would be considered Class I Kickerville Soils, and Mackie responded he was not certain if these exclusively include Class I soils but, as an overall scope that out of 80,000 acres zoned agricultural, this 6% is considered premium. Sutter requested clarification regarding uses of the clustered 20% of land zoned for agricultural protection by asking if the 20% can be used for either housing or mining. Mackie responded that they could be used for either purposes, and Sutter then countered that this will preclude mining uses by designation. Mackie responded that out of the 88,000 acres of ag -zoned lands and 75,000 acres of potential agricultural lands or out of the 160,000 acres in total, there is a cap of 5,500 acres which meets this unique criteria. He further stated that in the agricultural regulations, uses are needed which economically support the farm. Outside the prime acreage, it would be appropriate to either build houses or operate a mine. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 12 However, regulations are needed that permit a specific amount of acreage for farming uses only. Griffin felt this recommendation applies to the agricultural zone and is different from the cluster area concept, which is being applied in the rural zones. Mackie suggested staff bring a map to committee showing ag- protected zones with options for mining. Mackie agreed that it would be unfair to not allow mining on agricultural - permitted lands and that special situations will need to be studied with boundaries /limitations for uses carved out clearly and fairly. Mackie concluded discussion of agricultural lands with non - agricultural uses and permit for mineral extraction. He recommended that both in these areas and through zoning imposing certain limitations on mining activities, such as the following: If reclaiming a mine within an agricultural land, there should be two allowable methods: 1) reclaim it to an agricultural activity. Mackie mentioned previous testimony pointing out the difficulty of reclaiming mining land to the previous standard of productivity and cited the Lingley study that asserts a reclaimed mine may be used for certain kinds of agricultural uses, such as a nursery, which would not rely on prime soils from the site and may receive the benefit of wind reduction from within the gravel pit. 2) reclaim it as a lake. Unless there are specific limitations or reasons why mining into the aquifer is not desirable, this is the preferred solution from DNR's point of view because it creates habitat - -as opposed to agricultural uses - -which may pose a pesticide or ag -type commercial activity that may threaten the water supply. In addition, if the lake as reclaimed is greater than 20 acres, it will have a shoreline designation and other controls come into play, such as use of native plant species, etc. From a zoning point of view, reclamation is limited to either a farm or a lake. Mackie continued with a discussion of general conditions. In the agricultural area, limit the period of time that land is to be reclaimed; for example, require a certain amount of land be reclaimed before the owner attempts to reclaim other portions of the land. Another general condition would give the County the ability to mitigate non - permitted uses by permit holders. Nonconforming use status is difficult because rules may change from year to year; however, by the same token, if a permit is subject to periodic review, the County may serve a notice of correction and then perhaps withdraw the permit if corrective action is not taken. This should be a development regulation, but the County needs to establish the grounds for providing long -term oversight. Starkenburg noted that committee needs to discuss with staff the various wellhead protection plans for each city. These plans have not been reviewed, and some consistency is needed between the plans for Sumas, Blaine and Everson. Staff assistance is needed to give feedback to the cities. Mackie thought staff should include both a drawing and a definition of the terms used for wellhead protection and that although other cities may propose changes larger or smaller to the overall plan, they must follow a single set of standards that will apply to each city. Knapp suggested the working group of citizens mentioned above make a brief presentation for Council's consideration, and Starkenburg agreed to have committee hear their concerns. Sutter commented that the section of the Comprehensive Plan where additional criteria is given for designated forest areas and urban/rural areas seems to be permitting requirements, as opposed to policy issues that would be more appropriate for inclusion in the Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 13 Comprehensive Plan. Mackie agreed and suggested that they were included for committee to come to agreement on both a policy base and a regulatory base and will have committee place its directives on these issues in the Findings with a recommendation for the Planning Commission to place these procedures in the regulator base. Starkenburg asked if committee has any issues in rural forestry, and Gibson replied that in the negative but stated there are some issues in commercial forestry, such as the 360 acre minimum (this number was not confirmed in the meeting), for placement of a residence. Starkenburg stated committee reviewed testimony submitted regarding about eight counties showing they were consistent with allowing one residence per 80 acres and requested discussion on this issue, stating it would have a significant effect on some areas of the County. Starkenburg felt change toward this ratio would still afford protection under the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which will effectively preclude further development in sensitive areas around, for example, Lake Whatcom. Starkenburg wanted to make certain that if the change is made, the County's critical areas would still be protected and not pose further problems. Gibson concurred that permitting in these areas would be subject to CAO constraints. For slight hazard areas, road safety and fire protection would take precedence. Mackie suggested that certain measures be reviewed and added, such as requiring metal roofs and prohibitions on outdoor burning. For commercial forestry, he recommended locating buffer /setback distances on the developed area and not in the timber area and establishing consent easement for noise levels. So, even though the density is increased to one residence per 80 acres, the ability to engage in commercial forestry can be preserved, which can be accomplished through the easement /covenant process. These and other limitations should be identified in the Findings that will then be directed to amendment of the regulations. Starkenburg agreed to the allowable limit of one residence per 80 acres with very tight permitting requirements. He noted that Dawson will need to give her opinion on this issue. Starkenburg felt committee had adequately addressed agricultural issues and directed it to further study the section on minerals and review other testimony before coming to agreement on the general framework for staff to pursue. Knapp noted that Ward Nelson and Lesa Starkenburg of the citizen's working group called to discuss issues related to minerals and agriculture, and that they would like to be included in this process. Mackie clarified that the working group =s comments will be coming to committee through staff, and those recommendations will be brought to review before committee. (Clerk's Note: A lunch break was taken) Beginning discussion of Section III, Crossroads Communities and Small Towns, Mackie began by explaining most of these areas were designated as urban in the former Comprehensive Plan and asked committee to develop a criteria for decision making in these areas. He added the Comprehensive Plan "Notebook" will include general public comments, followed with community -by- community coverage. The criteria for new designations are as follows: incorporated urban areas will have a current population of between 1,500 and 2,500 people and a projected population of between 2,500 and 5,000 people. These urban areas will be provided with services, such as a City Hall and Public Works Office. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 14 The staff recommendation was not to designate these as urban areas and make individual determinations for each community. Some areas may not become urban, such as the Mt. Baker Foothills. Newhalem and Diablo are special areas that will not be greatly affected by any changes or recommendations made for the new Comprehensive Plan. Mackie asked Knapp for confirmation that the criteria for areas set for incorporation should have a population base of between 1,500 -2,500 and below that number is insufficient for a viable city. Knapp concurred and stated that economically 5,000 is really the population minimum to establish city services. Below that, they don t really operate as cities, and below 1,500, the population is much too small for incorporation. Sutter asked what is the required population for incorporation, to which Mackie replied 300 people. Mackie asked then if there are any other areas in the County that should be specified for incorporation; committee had no suggestions. Mackie continued that apart from Birch Bay, there are no other logical areas that are ready to incorporate as an independent city. However, there are many areas in the County that serve a valid historic purpose; for these areas the staff recommended examining the present and future purpose for its service, and then size and zone the area accordingly. Knapp noted that a movie industry recently approached the County with a request to construct some facilities in the next four to six months and would be located near the airport and near Glacier, representing a large development worth an estimated $5 million and the potential for creating several high - paying jobs. The facilities would also include tourist centers to allow the conduction of tours. He remarked that the timing in the development of the Comprehensive Plan is critical to giving this investment group further direction so their plan may proceed. Mackie urged committee to envision what the northern communities look like with the inclusion of British Columbia. On viewing a topographical map, it is easy to see how close the northern communities, e.g., Blaine, Birch Bay, Sumas, Glacier, etc. are to the daily recreational subarea of the greater metropolitan Vancouver area (pop. 1.5+ million). In that context they serve a valid economic and social role, and the objective is to increase the tax base and the jobs; however, they also may not become larger urban cities, so provision of water /sewer, schools and fire protection all fall to the County. Staff felt it makes more sense to create a commercial tourism zoning designation for these communities as appropriate for tourist /service activities, such as restaurants, hotel /motel, rental housing, industries such as the proposed motion picture studio, and perhaps outdoor recreational lodges. Regarding rural development, the cost of service is higher than cities that can conduct capital facilities planning under a single provider. Each service segment is handled by a different provider, i.e., fire districts, water /sewer districts, etc. To create a Letter of Availability, or Letter to Service, the County needs to make sure that growth pays for growth, or taxing for areas that are not practically served with fire schools, water, community that are considered applicable sewer /septic, etc. The maps submitted reflect these logical physical boundaries with room for some growth. Many of these areas will be protected by the CAO with the object being to focus and center the tourist activities that will provide the economic incentive. Regarding roads and transportation, the impact would generally not be significant because there are not currently a great deal of tourist type activities, although the tourist traffic is already there. Starkenburg stated committee has had ample opportunity to consider these issues, and he felt some direction would be given today in order to keep the process moving. He directed Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 15 staff to give assistance in developing criteria for the Kendall area in order to serve the tourist business. He so directed staff to determine any additional ways to assign temporary zoning in the Glacier /Maple Falls area to facilitate process with the proposed motion picture studio. Mackie responded that for Kendall (handout on file), Council finds that commercial services expansion on the highway is more appropriate than attempting to create a new commercial core in the Columbia Valley platted area. Starkenburg clarified that if there is any large scale development that comes forward for the Kendall area, there should be flexibility to realize such a plan. Mackie responded that the intent is for all northern communities to be zoned for the potential to serve commercial /tourism activities. Larger developments may occur with the service base limitation that fire protection and water will specially arrange with the developer. Starkenburg agreed with this and felt testimony supported this direction. Sutter asked about industrial zoning within these areas, and Mackie replied that industrial development starts to raise questions about the residential base needed to serve this type of activity. The Columbia Valley would be considered appropriate for intense commercial activity, as opposed to Acme and Deming. He continued that some form of a review must be performed to assess appropriate locations for industries -- possibly truck and transport oriented to assess the type and scale of traffic- -and whether a community could support industrial activities based on the use of natural resources or for a major industrial proposal that may not be permitted outright but without being prohibitive. Additional issues, such as housing, must be considered that are not being included here. Sutter asked if staff is building the justification for some kind of light industry or value -added industry. Knapp responded it would be logical for resource -based industries to be included here. He continued that there is an established track record for resource based industries in these communities. Mackie cautioned that in terms of a cross - reference, resource based industries are appropriate on resource lands so that mills and associated value -added product industries are located in timberland designated areas. Sutter justified her comment by adding that perhaps industries should be considered but on a smaller scale, and Mackie replied the tourist /commercial designation is broad enough to include such. He requested staff give more clarity to what is applicable tourist services, such as small -scale production facilities. He further clarified that it is not just the act of selling the product but the whole range of services provided to the services. (Clerk's Note: Marlene Dawson joined committee at this point.) Gibson noted the Kendall - Peaceful Valley area has a current resident population of 2,000- 3,000 and is served with municipal water and sewer, but asked what the population impact would be if this area is to be platted out. He suggested that during some point in the Comprehensive Plan, the projected populations with services be platted out for full consideration. Starkenburg replied that police protection and schools are not able to be included accurately for population projections, and these two areas seem to consistently come up short. Mackie responded that during a five -year review, these areas may become recognized A5 urban. Griffin said that the water uses are currently 50150 (permanent -to- recreational uses) now, but future projections may be more like 60/50. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 16 Mackie began discussion of the Central communities, Acme and Deming, as being characterized by significant tourist activity, although agriculture and forestry have historically and could currently be appropriate uses, with the access to resources and rail transport. It is important to examine the type and size of services that can accommodate the industry; e.g., a log mill operation would need adequate fire suppression resources that could handle an operation of this type. Therefore, these industries should be sized by their logical capacity, and then work out the need for services with the local fire marshall, schools, etc. In this way development can take place without being prohibitive in a regulator sense. The recommended boundaries are being set according to local, physical and geographic features. Starkenburg agreed with the commercial /tourist designation for the northern communities but felt the central communities also service the areas around them. He expressed doubt that tourism taking place upvalley will have much impact on the central communities and foresaw difficulty enlivening the tax base to support the school system. He asked if there were any creative ways for these communities to be more economically viable. Mackie responded that both Acme and Deming has the potential for a greater population base because much of the land is available and such land could be converted to light industry. He envisioned high value -added manufacturing industries with an inexpensive, small labor force, such as wood products. He felt this type of industry could enhance the local economy without greatly increasing the population. Sutter interjected that Acme could be more of an agricultural support community than Deming. Mackie responded that Everybody's Store in Van Zandt reports greater activity in summer than winter, which indicates tourism is also an important factor. Starkenburg felt these communities should be viewed somewhat differently with a difference in scale between the mix of tourism and commercial. Mackie replied the focus could be on protecting existing uses in Acme and increasing tourism activity in Deming. Gibson and Mackie asked if there are sufficient services in Deming, such as natural gas and water service in the area, to support increased tourism. Mackie claims the current Comprehensive Plan may state there is no water service available in Deming and that he had contacted the water districts in this area and received a response that water is available. Griffin supported this statement and added the subarea plan states there are 75 connections at present in the water district. Gibson noted that there is a potential for contamination from the Siper Pit, and this should be noted in the Plan. Mackie brought up the topic, Special Considerations (handout on file). Since the County is the "general purposes" government, it must provide additional sheriff services to these communities. The impact for needing additional manpower, substations, etc., must be addressed; however, he urged committee consider whether this problem could be resolved with alternative measures or consider whether the County must step up to these needs. Committee must also consider what the growth will mean; i.e., what will the cost of additional industry be in terms of the organization of the County. Starkenburg agreed that as the process moves forward, these issues will be addressed. Mackie began discussion of what he terms "Crossroads Commercial Centers." These are communities that tend to be smaller but more inclusive, offering such activities as a mechanic, coffee shop, grocery, etc. The County's ability to serve is an issue for further development of these communities. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 17 Starkenburg asked regarding the area on East Badger Road and the Guide Meridian what is the County's duty as far as providing services versus zoning requirements? He stated the, County is not currently providing services to all of these small crossroads communities. Mackie responded that these communities are traffic generators, generally located on the local by -pass road. The staff recommends trying to cluster these as they currently exist, rather than have one spread out on every corner. Sutter asked if zoning should be used to prohibit these areas from spreading, and Mackie responded no, the proposal for these corners will be called a rural /commercial center, although the term I am using is crossroads commercial center. The uses in these areas must be well defined and a criteria developed to guide future development. He recommended putting the equivalent of "small red dots" on the map that define these areas under the special designation crossroads commercial center, and then identify those that are important designate them as such. Then create a location or siting criteria for the purposes of limiting where this type of development may further occur. Starkenburg asked if law enforcement must be included in the list of services as provided under urban growth, and Mackie responded this may well be included as a policy criteria. The ability to serve letter from the County includes policies as such. Discussion of a previous topic, residential development within commercial forestry zones, was revisited. Gibson stated that the current zoning prohibits residential development on a parcel of a 40 acre lot size zoned for commercial forestry. Batchelor added that a CUP may be allowed for a caretaker's residence. Gibson asked if committee is inclined to readdress this within the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and, if so, what needs to be included regarding roads, safety and fire suppression. He stated the maximum lot size should also to be considered as one residence per ownership. Starkenburg thought the prime issue is commercial forestry, and the subissue is size of property and ownership. He felt a flexible solution should allow the property owner to have the rights to build on his own property. Mackie stated there are three choices: status quo; one unit per ownership; or one unit per 80 acre density. He asked if the full Council should choose among these alternatives. Sutter noted that Title 20 zoning would need to be made consistent with any changes made here. Mackie noted that if opting for an 80 acre lot size with one residence minimum density, the issue then focuses on density and not on minimum lot size. Batchelor clarified the 80 acre figure is a minimum lot size, and the 40 acre minimum is used as a condition in determining how the parcel will be zoned. Discussion ensued with Sutter requesting clarification that a 40 acre lot may be zoned commercial forestry, but only an 80 acre lot would be permitted for commercial forestry. Griffin responded the 40 acre minimum is part of the criteria to determine where a commercial forestry zone will be located, and it is implied that two 40 acre parcels must be held to receive a commercial forestry permit. Mackie responded the policy language should be clarified and that the predominant commercial lot size is 80 acres and up; however, there are occasional 40 acre parcels that may be drawn in to square in the boundary. The policy statement that is consistent with the intention here is "the predominant commercial lot size is 80 acres and up ". The map then may include 40 acre parcels that are zoned for commercial timber, which is not inappropriate, so the 40 acre minimum sets the framework for a minimum permit site of 80 acres. This, however, is the current policy, and it is currently being reviewed for Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 18 change. Starkenburg requested staff to return to committee with clarification on this issue so that it is not confusing or seemingly conflicting. (Clerk's Note: A short recess was taken) Mackie introduced discussion of the Guide Meridian corridor by adding to the major issues to be addressed today, the interests of the Whatcom County Council of Governments ( WCCOG), to be relayed by Gordon Rogers. In terms of current local and Canadian transportation plans, Rogers will be bringing several reports (to be added to the notebook) for committee's consideration. Generally, the WCCOG has determined that flow of traffic is traveling south from the Canadian border into Whatcom County, which has had a heavy impact on the Guide Meridian. The WCCOG also feels that, given the inherent limitations at the Blaine and truck route border crossing, the same problem will occur at the Sumas border. He urged committee to remember that since the state is required to comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the County's designation of the Guide Meridian is a major traffic corridor with local, state and international significance. Starkenburg replied the WCCOG's views of increased Canadian traffic on the Guide is not new, and this has been considered in planning efforts for some time; however, the WCCOG has recently determined a change in the location of greatest impact. He indicated committee consider that there may be little that can be done to control the movement of people and goods along the Guide. Gibson noted that the Sumas border crossing had previously been designated as an urban growth area but will not likely retain this designation. Mackie likened it to a crossroads commercial center, and Sutter thought the inclusion of uses such as the duty free store should be considered. Gibson and Mackie agreed that since the area is characterized by limited tourist/commuter services, border facilities and farmland surrounding does not give reason to change the designation from the current farm/agricultural zone to Lynden. The state will be conducting a corridor study, and there is the potential to lose some ag lands, such as an acre on either side of the Guide. Sutter thought there should be a crossroads commercial designation for the Guide's connection with Badger Road, and Mackie replied affirmatively that the Badger Road area then could be filled in. He indicated a need for change in designation for the west side of Badger Road. Sutter asked if committee could include in the Comprehensive Plan a need for concurrent planning with the Canadian government. Mackie explained that to bring the State Department of Transportation (DOT) to the table requires the County to both support the regional transportation planning efforts of the WCCOG and designate the Guide A5, a major corridor. The WCCOG can then perform a corridor study, but the Comprehensive Plan then identifies where uses may occur, setbacks, and how development will take place along the Guide. Mackie continued that the Guide along Lynden will be dealt with at the next meeting. Next along the Guide is a major floodplain, some suburban enclaves, and crossroads commercial centers. Staff recommends that, in these enclaves, it is important to avoid every house having a driveway accessing a major arterial, opting for alternatives such as frontage roads, joined driveways, and super- setbacks that do not prohibit the use of property but Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 19 require a setback from the center line of the road, which allows a subsequent condemnation without having to take out the house or building. The property can then still be used consistent with zoning. It is not advisable to subdivide existing lots to encourage increased residential development; rather, infill the existing uses and acknowledge that commercial services in the area must be poised for the inevitable change toward a five -lane highway. Lynden may pick up the northern areas, and Bellingham may pick up the southern areas over time. Knapp asked if there are any problems with the gaps between urban and rural in the event of expansion. Mackie responded that the staff is reviewing the parcelization and will be recommending areas not presently suitable for farming for commercial development. Starkenburg requested agreement on zoning the corridor, beginning with the area from north at the border to Lynden where the proposed zoning is agricultural with two neighborhood commercial areas, from Lynden to Wiser Lake Road (which includes the floodplain), where the proposed zoning will be agricultural. Mackie interjected that Wiser Lake itself is an existing suburban enclave that will be zoned to the existing density and will include two neighborhood commercial centers on East Bartlett and Pole Road. Committee gave its agreement to these zoning designations. Gibson described the area south of Pole Road: from Beard Road to Pole Road is mixed commercial /residential and is fully parcelized, but at Beard Road it splits with the east side having larger parcels and agricultural uses, and the west side having heavy parcelization extending to the King Tut Road. Starkenburg said committee needs to divide the Guide Meridian to the Wiser Lake Road because a blanket answer is not possible for the entire strip. Mackie agreed to that and added that the intent is to not project new growth into undeveloped areas and zone those areas to accommodate the existing uses. Where the predominant use is 50% commercial (occurring further south), then those areas are recognized for infill with the same kinds of uses, rather than residential. Mackie said staff will provide enlarged parcelization maps for each subarea. Starkenburg asked for agreement for the section of the Guide Meridian from the Bellingham City limits to Smith Road be restricted to predominantly commercial and impose setbacks which will be expanded in terms of egress, curb cuts, lot spacing, etc. Sutter identified this area as currently being in Bellingham's urban fringe area with some R -SA zoning and said that along the Guide there needs to be some restrictions. Starkenburg added if the area is extended up Laurel Road, additional restrictions could include no residential development, super- setbacks and special requirements for egress. He was unable to get agreement until better maps were available. Mackie agreed to revisit this issue when maps showing parcelization and setbacks could be brought to committee. Gibson touched again on the area between Pole Road and West King Tut Road being characterized by parcels of five acres or larger. A strip is located there zoned R -2A that is essentially a hobby farm/residential area, and the zone splits many of the properties- -with Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 20 ownership partly within R -SA and partly within R -2A. He raised questions whether increased residential densities where parcel size does not require such a measure will cause properties to be split into even smaller sizes and putting through even more driveways onto the Guide. Sutter thought the configuration of the lots being long and narrow would additionally encourage people to subdivide. Starkenburg noted the state had at one time marked this area for a road that cuts in back of those properties with access detoured to Frontage Road and having the Guide act as a thoroughfare with access for commercial development. However, he thought this plan would not be realized in time to be included in the Comprehensive Plan and so supported staff recommendation to restrictions on development as described above. Mackie raised the point that R -5 zoning in the area would be included in the agricultural protection zone, which permits clustering. He recommended the cluster be setback from the highway but set a criteria that allows the cluster to occur with more efficient use of the longer narrow lots rather than the R -2A. One setback could be for certain less permitted uses and another setback could be for residential, which would be inclined to maintain a buffer off the highway. This will allow the property owner flexible use of his property but may also give fair warning for the potential impact of state acquisition of property along the Guide to accommodate roadway expansion. Gibson observed that maintaining the larger parcels makes it more efficient for future development rather than the smaller R -2A configuration, which commits it to a pattern that will interfere with efficiency usage of the area in the future. Mackie pointed out that committee should ask whether this is projecting urban levels of growth into new areas, which include agricultural lands, horse stables, commercial, and some industrial. An aerial photo will be provided to committee to help assess the area. Starkenburg received agreement from committee to direct staff to remove the R -2A zoning and propose some options for creative development in the area to find better uses for the area and to serve all uses discussed - -those of the property owner, traffic corridor and usage infrastructure. Sutter asked why the handout states "The density of traffic contemplated would be incompatible with urban residential development..." (pg. 9), and yet higher residential densities mean increased traffic. Mackie explained the notion here is a five -lane major highway will pose a potential conflict with family uses that come with urban density. The sentence was changed to "The volume of traffic contemplated on a regional arterial highway would be incompatible...". Starkenburg restated that for long -range planning, committee needs to review a third border crossing issue, which is to direct traffic from the Sumas border perhaps down an alternate roadway such as the Mt. Baker Highway on the eastern side of the County, connecting back to the I -5 corridor. He urged committee study connecting SR9 with the Mt. Baker Highway, citing that emergency uses, in addition to typical mobility needs, warrant such an alternate roadway. Mackie replied the Sumas border area will be discussed on Thursday, and this issue should be addressed within the context of the Sumas Plan. Gordon Rogers, COG, will discuss this from the WCCOG's perspective because this is a regional transportation planning issue. Committee agreed to continue review of this issue. Mackie began discussion of the Recreational Communities and Suburban Enclaves. Plats in the Columbia Valley, including Paradise and Peaceful Valley, are developments of several thousand lots in a mainly rural environment. This area has the potential to become the size Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 21 of a small town, but the recommendation was to acknowledge the existing plats and available services and zone them for what is presently there plus a small logical service area for the water district. The objective is not to project development more than 50% (often the area is developed to 25 %) and not to project development into undeveloped areas. There is also no move toward establishing an urban core, such as a city hall, shops, etc.; however, such a plan could be evaluated on its own merits. The old plan designated this area as urban, but with the Growth Management Hearing Board's (GMHB) analysis, these are really existing recreational plats and should be vested, but without further development in undeveloped areas. Council member Ward Nelson commented that there has been public testimony received that there are needs for criminal justice, a school district, a jobs -based economy and housing, and this is one area in the entire Foothills that has structured sewer /water service and water capacity. He wanted to know whether this precludes the area from being considered for further development. Mackie responded a shortage of commercial services has been reported for the Kendall area, and it is being recommended for designation as a commercial service area and is considered a more appropriate location than in the platted areas to the north. Also, the tourist /industrial designation is being recommended for Glacier, Maple Falls and Kendall, and a commercial zoning will be given that allows those uses. Acknowledging the heavy tourist population, as well as the shift to some permanent residences in the area, the County faces having to provide public services, particularly police protection. A11 new development requires the Ability to Serve Letters from water, fire and schools to ensure the County does not overtax. At present the growth is limited to those areas already affected. The Comprehensive Plan does not be prevent the County from considering a petition proposal to incorporate Kendall and the entire Columbia Valley into a new city if the proposal demonstrates the new city would be economically viable. Knapp clarified special arrangements for services could be considered, such as the movie industry's proposal, which included providing some additional level of police protection. Mackie added that within the environmental analysis, there is no impact fee program, but under mitigation fees and level of service demands, this type of agreement can be made with major users. Griffin added the Peaceful Valley and Paradise Lakes Estates areas currently zoned I1R have about 200 acres (plus an 100 -acre golf course) that is currently unplatted and undeveloped and wanted to know how the new zoning designation will affect them. Mackie replied that the designation implies a logical boundary for the zone that includes that acreage but, in order to get those additional acres platted, they will need to bring to the County a level of service. The designation keeps the area from projecting new development into the hills or into additional valleys - -it is surrounded by the present area impacted by growth - -and removes the LTR zone, an urban zone, which will be changed to a R -5 density. Sutter thought the description of the Kendall - Columbia Valley sounded urban by GMA definition and cited the GMHB does not allow commercial zoning or urban densities outside urban areas. Mackie clarified that the GMA directs the County to contain existing vested development outside UGAs and also directs the County not to project the growth into new, undeveloped areas. He continued that these areas are not considered urban but are being termed suburban enclaves and explained that urban areas are characterized by growth; ultimately, these areas may be seen within the planning horizon to incorporate. Mackie further explained that one item to highlight is rezoning an urban core in these small communities to a tourism/commercial designation, which would include not only the Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 22 core but the general area. However, the core area designated would be considered for providing services. The objective is to zone and validate the vested plat plus adjacent areas in order for the activity to be able to continue but not to plan for further growth in those areas. The idea is to protect what is there and confine it to the area of present development. This same criteria to acknowledge and validate what is there, without projecting growth into new areas, applies to Sudden Valley and Strawberry Point to Cain Lake (if starting with the Geneva area, this forms the south shore of Lake Whatcom). One issue before the GMHB has been a moratorium imposed on new development due to sewer /water limitations and serious concerns about the County's ability to serve. Water /Sewer District #10 is currently presenting alternatives for public review and comment, which should also be brought forth for the record. There is no need at this time for the County to second guess its customers. Bellingham will take the first action on changing its boundaries and, as long as these are justified, the staff would recommend changes for good cause shown. Bellingham wants to include Geneva in its UGA, and the staff recommends this arrangement. He continued with discussion of Cain Lake, characterized as an intensely developed plat on one side of the road and on the other an equally wide strip zoned R -2A. There is existing water service and the area is already impacted, but the staff recommends keeping new development off the hills and keep the ratio to 50% developed and 50% available for future development. Any new proposal requires the Ability to Serve Letter, so the County can be sure not to overtax the area. This area is also identified in the Capital Facilities Planning as needing coordination with the city of Bellingham for the highway serving the south shore and consideration of police and fire issues in Sudden Valley and Cain Lake. Since there are vested plats in those areas, the staff sees no public interest in wholesale non - conforming uses. If Sudden Valley is zoned one unit per five acres, the current lots may be developed, since all property owners have the right to obtain a building permit on an existing lot of record. Mackie cautioned that to allow non - conforming uses would make it difficult for the area to receive bonds to finance extension of sewer /water and noted that the County does not want to unintentionally cut off the proper funding needed for public facilities. Starkenburg asked staff how much land in the Cain Lake area is currently undeveloped and if there is anything that can be done in the development regulations to ensure best uses of the area rather than too much of a mix between residential, permanent and vacation. He felt the County would be better served from a planning perspective, based on what could be there, if building standards could increase the quality of development there. Mackie responded that within the Cain Lake Plat, there is parcelization that may be better if changed from R -2A to RI-5. This is similar to what is being recommending for Lake Samish because it reflects what people are doing and keeps growth from sprawling onto the hillsides. Starkenburg asked for options that improve the area, rather than building out, to avoid the need to provide services such as law enforcement, that may arise in this area. Griffin mentioned staff has considered this and noted such problems as no sewer available and limited water service for this area with most people trying to put in septics. He said that Sudden Valley's Community Association "Density Reduction Program" has mitigated this to some degree by not charging two fees for two lots if a lot owner agrees to buy an adjoining lot. Sutter mentioned that Cain Lake has soils that do not percolate and that people may develop on either side of a lot and use the center lot for a shared septic. Mackie said that the typical pattern for this type of development requires three lots, one each for the house and Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 23 drainfield to deal with drainage issues. The Health Department here should not be granting waivers for non - performing drainfield for septic systems because people will try to acquire more and more property to serve their septic needs, which essentially creates the density pattern. Starkenburg acknowledged the drainfield issue may be the best way to determine sustainable conditions for development in this area. Nelson commented that another problem in this area is substandard roads. He felt some general policies are needed to address the lack of basic community needs that will apply to this and other similar communities. Mackie replied that if the criteria deals with the major communities such as these, a base document can be created that will deal with the smaller communities. Mackie added that Water /Sewer District #12 has said it has offered service to Cain Lake but has not received a response yet. He asked for a response from committee as to whether to include in the Comprehensive Plan a policy that encourages communities to use such an offer for upgrade of the utilities to serve at the designated densities or to use the natural limitations, such as the use of three to four lots as needed to put in a drainfield that perks, and thus planning for decreased densities rather than extension of the sewer line. Sutter wanted to know how affordability of housing would be affected if property owners are required to procure two to three lots to ensure adequate drainfields. Mackie replied the County will always experience the tension between environmental protection, adequate roads, and the cost of housing as it addresses levels of service. From a policy view point, he asked committee if it is a good idea to encourage affordable housing to develop in areas far removed from public transportation and other services. Starkenburg agreed that affordable housing should be located where major public transportation and other services are available. Starkenburg suggested the limitations should be imposed by the natural physical elements to restrain the development. He received agreement from committee. Mackie summarized the remaining areas, beginning with Geneva. He said Bellingham wants to work with the County on Geneva for storm/sewer and wants to keep Geneva within its urban growth boundaries. Regarding the Denke properties in Summit View, there are three choices: 1) Give deference to the city of Bellingham and change city boundaries where good cause has been shown. So far Denke has not shown that Bellingham has undersized its urban area. 2) It can be zoned rural or its existing zoning can be validated with suburban enclaves, or 3) Identify urban reserves as UR4 (currently five -year review areas), such as where water /sewer is available and major transportation access is proposed. In addition, the transportation improvements needed are beyond the ability of either city or County to provide at the proposed levels of urban services density. However, he suggested putting a limitation on these areas that the city of Bellingham must include in the community within the urban boundary. This boundary will encourage growth at urban levels of density (four units per acre and above), but if the owner wishes to proceed with the current vested plat, the measure does not change the rules in effect for the time it was vested. These are considerations for committee. Starkenburg stated it will not commit an opinion at this time. Mackie described Chuckanut and North Bellingham as having the same genesis; i.e., they are old areas of historic development outside the UGA and are significantly developed. Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 24 However, they need to be considered separately. He stated that Chuckanut and North Bellingham are not included as Bellingham's UGB and are not likely to be included in the future. The physical features of the Chuckanut area make it unsuitable for more intensive development than the current RR2 zoning. The staff proposal is to retain the RR2 zoning with inclusion of a small RR3 portion (Governor's Point). Committee agreed to retain this zoning for the Chuckanut area. Mackie began discussion of North Bellingham by stating it is an area unlikely to revert to agricultural uses. He requested committee consider whether North Bellingham is likely to be upgraded. Ferndale has said it does not want to focus on further development of these areas. Consider also the housing stock there has a common remaining life of 20 -40 years, so it is not possible to plan the redevelopment of that area for a 20 -year planning horizon. The proposal is to place a boundary around existing development without projecting into the agricultural areas, which would be agricultural protection zones just to the east. Like Chuckanut, it has been confined and zoned for what is existing. If someone is inside a 20 -acre parcel and wishes to develop, he can build at the prevailing pattern, which is RRl (one unit per acre). The developer would then need a Letter of Service from the school, fire and water /sewer district, so there is no need to tax beyond the existing level. The County would also need to review adequacy of roads. The incremental impact of building in this area, assuming half the remaining property builds out at one unit per acre, will only increase the area by an estimated 100 units. In the greater scheme, this is a small number. Council member Nelson agreed these are generally small lots and wanted to know if these individual lots, if subdivided, would need Letters of Service. Mackie replied in the affirmative. Nelson then asked if a septic could be installed within this area if it were rural. Mackie replied that if the property were located within a sewer service area and the bonds for that sewer require hook up, then an owner would be required to hook up. Mackie continued that North Bellingham is currently designated as urban on the interim plan, but the boundaries need to be clarified. Mackie will confirm the area with committee at the next meeting. Mackie continued with a description of Lake Samish and stated that on the east side of Lake Samish, half the parcels could be divided in the RR2 zone; however, significantly less than 2% of the parcels -- perhaps none - -are five acres or above. He requested committee locate the area that has already been developed, as opposed to the area that lends itself to development. He noted the R2A zone on the west side travels uphill between Summerland Road and Lake Samish Road, which is characterized by large parcels with several five -acre tracts recently platted. He felt that to project the existing pattern of development uphill would drive more intense development into new areas. Staff recommended using the Lake Shore Road as a dividing line and within specific distance; e.g, 250 feet on either side, allow that pattern of small lot development with differences due to geographic limits. Do not project small lot development uphill and so change the zoning to RS from the basin of the lake up the hill rather than preserve the RR2. Sutter suggested that building at the RR2 level was possible in these areas and perhaps the geography made it possible to designated it as such. Mackie replied that if the lower shelf (the stepped hillside from the basin to the upward slope) is developed at the lower densities, then the development will be likely to occur at greater densities above that shelf, and then Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 25 another shelf will top that. Staff recommends a downzone in this area with no development allowable for any parcel five acres or larger along the lakefront to compensate for the greater density of parcels on the higher ridge above. Mackie felt this measure will help to avoid the GMHB's directive that growth must not be projected into undeveloped areas. Starkenburg interjected that the area does have water /sewer service and road access, and thus may be characterized for increased residential development. Mackie explained that if there is going to be significant urban development there, then there is the potential for an urban boundary, a new city, and all that that entails. Sutter noted the area may be subject to some constraints stemming from not being able to draw water directly from the lake, and there is some controversy about bringing water from a well located on the other side of the hill. Starkenburg concluded the area needs to be looked at very carefully and stated committee is giving no recommendation other than caution at looking at only the larger parcels and acknowledging potential differences with the GMHB. Mackie thought the question here was to define the reasonable distinction between an area already impacted by the growth that is there and already served and projected growth into a new area. Mackie discussed Toad Lake, describing this as a classic case for smaller areas. The south end of the Lake is zoned R5, R2 and R2A. A portion of the area zoned R2 projects out toward an area with no parcelization, no boundary tracts, and has a spread of four acre parcels to 40 acre parcels. He recommended these 40 acre parcels in the R2 area be zoned R5. Batchelor stated that a year ago a local improvement district was granted in that area, which is paying to improve that road. Mackie asked if there were development plans that came with the request to improve the road. Nelson described some of the history and identified a series of issues with the road and water /sewer that need further consideration for future development. Starkenburg concluded that to bring closure to this area, the area affected by the LID needs to be identified. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m. Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk, Council Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 1/28/97, Page 26