HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 19 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 19, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
Other Council Members:
Ward Nelson
Tom Brown
Absent:
Marlene Dawson
Staff Also Present:
Dan Gibson, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Michael Knapp, Director, Planning and Development Services
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning Division Manager, Planning and Development Services
Carl Batchelor, Senior Planner, Planning Division of Planning and Development Services
Jeff Griffin, Planner II, Planning Division, Planning and Development Services
REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE
(AB96 -OS 1F)
Starkenburg gave background information on the work Council has done so far on the
Comprehensive Plan. He then announced the format for the day's meeting.
LAND USE
Sandy Mackie, Comprehensive Plan attorney, discussed the format by going through
specific areas and talking about the subareas. The Growth Management Act (GNU) is designed
to protect resource areas. The County needs to identify the agriculture resource lands that must
be protected. There are approximately 120,00 to 130,000 acres in ag use. The County must
identify a target acreage for the protection of long -term ag industry, then identify what is currently
protected. Current ag zoning covers approximately 90,000 acres. He suggested an ag protection
zone, areas that are R5A or R10A. The question is, how can the County protect additional lands?
One alternative is clustering, allowing development on a percentage of acreage. The County must
also protect ag activity from incompatible users, so a condition of development would be a
requirement of best management practices. Council needs to not only identify lands for protection
but provide a means for preserving the industry that goes on those lands. The objective is to
create a combination of designation of ag protection zones and also have areas that may not be on
Planning Minutes, 12/1/96, Page 1
I prime soil but preserve them for ag uses that do not necessarily need prime soils. It is important
2 to protect ag activities if they are not in ag areas so development regulations will carry ag
3 protection covenants. Ag management practices will prevail.
4
5 Starkenburg asked if there can be an incentive program involved with that concept.
6 Mackie responded that buffers for ag resource land should be provided on neighboring properties,
7 not the properties in agricultural use. Neighbors will have to carry some burden in order to
8 protect ag lands. The goal is to try to protect the ag land as an economic resource. Also, the
9 County needs to build in economic flexibility to get a return on the land if the particular crop is no
10 longer economically viable. Regarding mineral resource lands (MRLs), the general conclusions
11 are that mining has no effect on aquifers. Agriculture resource land is not incompatible with
12 mineral resources uses. The County can cross - permit those activities. The priority is to define ag
13 resources.
14
15 The topic moved into the individual subareas. Regarding the Birch Bay/Blaine subarea,
16 Mackie stated that the County knows it is a major tourist and resort area and must examine the
17 areas characterized by urban boundaries, urban growth, and adequate facilities. This area is not
18 an area of significant agriculture, timber, or mineral resource. If this area is suitable for urban
19, densities inside the urban boundary, then the County should encourage a density of four units per
20 acre or above and characterize the industry as a lot of vested land that has not been developed.
21 The conclusion is that all land should be developed at urban levels inside the city, which should be
22 put in a short-term growth boundary with an underlying zone of one unit to five acres. The
23 short-term boundary moves with the zoning line; it is not a planning line. This encourages
24 development on utilities and discourages one unit per acre with well and septic. It allows the
25 County to acknowledge, even though there are not adequate capital facilities, urban boundaries
26 for areas characterized for urban growth. The short-term boundary is relative to the ability to
27 provide services. The County will set criteria for moving short-term boundaries, which are utility
28 based. Development is concurrency based; that is, you do not get the plat unless there is proof
29 that schools and other services are adequate.
30
31 Sutter stated that a short-term boundary precludes an urban growth boundary. Mackie
32 replied that there are two issues. Over time, the short-term boundary will move, creating an
33 urban reserve. The short-term boundary imposes pressure which helps economic incentive to
34 build a density and control sprawl.
35
36 Someone from the City of Blaine: She stated that septic tanks in the area are failing, and
37 the best way to protect the area is sewer service.
38
39 Mackie stated that the solution for critical areas in urban growth areas (UGAs) is higher
40 densities. Identify urban areas and plan for sewer to keep from runaway use of septic systems.
41 Designate urban densities and identify critical areas as a separate urban planning issue. The Birch
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/1/96, Page 2
I Bay urban area is currently unincorporated County. Between allocated population, the vacation
2 tourist population, and the currently vested lots, this is an area characterized by urban growth.
3 There ought to be urban growth boundaries.
4
5 Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, clarified there are approximately 3,200
6 undeveloped acres minus critical areas and parks, mostly in blocks along the water.
7
8 Mackie suggested making the finding that the area is already urban and not rural. The
9 County supports the area at an urban level of service. County policy is to encourage municipal
10 acquisition. Development patterns need to be identified by the County, as well as define a reason
11 for an urban area inside the County. Use short -term boundaries and minimum densities and hold
12 to urban facilities. One achieves minimum densities by a platting ordinance which states four units
13 per acre is minimum density, the main lot size is "x ", and the final plat must have not less than
14 75% of zoned density.
15
16 Regarding the Custer and Cherry Point subarea, the GMFIB found these areas industrial
17 lands. Custer is a rail inter-model situation with connections to Canada and I -5. The Cherry Point
18 minimum lot sizes are 100 acres. There are twenty or forty minimum acre lot sizes in Custer.
19 The primary use would be rail oriented. This will bring in accessory uses, which require
20 development with master plans and concurrency requirements (such as fire suppression issues);
21 these all go in development regulations. These sites will require 100 -150 foot buffers to critical
22 areas. The County is required to have in the Comprehensive Plan utility corridors such as Puget
23 Power and Bonneville Power. It is appropriate for the County to indicate a rail corridor linking
24 Sumas, Custer, Lynden, and Cherry Point. This shows the importance to the County for
25 economic development.
26
27 Brown pointed out a concern about school districts and tax base. He asked if the County
28 can use that criteria, being unique in needing tax base, for designation of industrial lands in the
29 east County area. Mackie replied that he would not use the term "unique ". The County would
30 want to look in ag and timber resource industries to permit dairies, canneries, saw mills, rock
31 crusher and cement plants. Look toward rural and ag supporting services to ag uses to provide
32 ag related industries. Do not preclude those uses from being allowed in resource lands.
33
34 Starkenburg stated a concern is if the County opened the door to that type of activity,
35 where is the line drawn? Mackie replied that school districts may be able to require developments
36 to mitigate them economically, depending upon how many new children the development may
37 bring into the school district. Also, population outside urban areas impacts the road program.
38 When granting plat approval, a developer must have mitigation or impact fees to improve the
39 road. Regarding the level of service (LOS) outside city urban boundaries, expectations of LOS
40 should be much lower. Impact fees in an area that is already short of service can only charge
41 developers for their incremental costs. The developer cannot be charged the cost to return the
42 service level to standard. One option is to encourage the creation of an expanded economic base
43
Planning Minutes, 12/17/96, Page 3
I in those rural/hamlet areas. Regarding the Guide Meridian, the County should not characterize
2 land inside the city as ag land. It is characterized as urban land; it can be down zoned and
3 designated as non - conforming use, but this should be avoided as a reasonable alternative.
4
5 (Clerk's Note: A short break was taken)
6
7 Regarding the Point Roberts subarea, Mackie stated that this area is characterized as an
8 area of 90% vacation, retirement, and Canadian tourist. There is no long -term rural ag resource
9 use.
10
11 Carl Batchelor, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, stated that the
12 attraction for Canadian tourists is that Point Roberts is considered rural in nature. The County
13 must consider whether to let the area continue to surburbanize or remain rural. There are some
14 provisions for growth while maintaining the rural nature.
15
16 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, stated that in the long term,
17 incorporation is a possibility, but that is not in the short term.
18
19 Mackie stated that if the County is going to maintain this area forever, it must hold back
20 densities. This is actually a self - contained resort. The County is a caretaker for the city to
21 someday to take over. If this area is going to be urban, concurrency is a restriction on
22 development and must create a sewer system, adequate water and a tax base.
23
24 The Sudden Valley Subarea is no different than Birch Bay. There are 90 acres are
25 potential for development. There are dedicated use areas (golf course). The question is whether
26 this a city, a recreation center, or a rural area in nature. It is probably a city.
27
28 Gibson stated that Bellingham doesn't want to annex Sudden Valley. It is in the Lake
29 Whatcom Watershed. Bellingham's concern is about the city's water source.
30
31 There was discussion on the characterization of Sudden Valley. Mackie stated that one
32 option is to say this is a recreation resort outside an urban boundary; let it be a suburban enclave.
33 Griffin gave another option as a suburban enclave served at urban levels of service. Mackie
34 replied that if the area is designated as a recreation resort area, the County can provide services
35 but not expand a road system or encourage commercial activities, job development, or traffic
36 generators. Put a D or E level of service on the roads. There would be relatively low sheriff
37 patrols.
38
39 Nelson commented that Sudden Valley provides its own fire and security. Mackie stated
40 that concurrency rules will solve the utility problem. The GMA requires the County make the
41 choice as to how it will be designated. The County can control traffic into the area for
42 commercial services by limiting the size of the commercial services.
43
Planning Minutes, 12/19/96, Page 4
I Regarding the Nooksack subarea, Mackie stated that Nooksack is characterized by a
2 water supply, flood hazard, wetlands, recreation, and parks. The County can identify that in order
3 to provide flood control, additional supplies of water and water resource, other additional
4 features, a program needs to be gotten together that deals with all these issues as an activity in the
5 Comprehensive. Plan.
6
7 Discussing economic development, Mackie suggested adoption of the Port plan by
8 reference. The Port is limited in physical location and tied to transportation corridors.
9
10 Nelson asked about SR 9, all weather roads and transportation routes through the eastern
11 part of the County. He stated there is a desire to keep the area rural and rustic; however, the road
12 is a transportation corridor. He asked how the County can tie in the east County with Cherry
13 Point and Canada. Gibson replied that the Transportation Committee stated there is a need to
14 beef up connections from the Sumas border crossing to the South. Citizens living in the area do
15 not want improved transportation in the area.
16
17 Mackie stated that there can be a freeway running through resource lands and have very
18 little development on either side. There could be a strong policy that development needs to be
19 contained in urban growth boundaries. The purpose is to transport timber resources to the
20 market. If it is a possibility to expand border crossings to spread out transportation, then that
21 justifies the encouragement of investment in SR 9. There is potential for sprawl control. SR 9
22 runs through resource land and several small communities. Development should be encouraged
23 within the small communities.
FE
25 Starkenburg stated that there is a need to deal with how the Comp Plan and Subarea plan
26 work together. Mackie replied that the County does not have to redo the subarea plans once the
27 Comp Plan is done. Subarea plans provide information, guidance, vision, and an explanation of
28 what the County has and why the plan exists as it is. If the County changes the land use pattern,
29 then there is a concurrent growth management reason. The County should adopt the subarea
30 maps as appendices to the Comp Plan.
31
32 Griffin asked about the existing policies in the subarea plan. Where they are redundant or
33 inconsistent with direction of Comp plan, they are invalid or overridden. What if they are a
34 unique policy? Does the policy disappear?
35
36 Mackie replied that the County should give a reference to the policy in the land use
37 chapter. Also, any development regulations should consider the unique features of the underlying
38 subarea plan. Work needs to be put in the development regulations.
39
40 There was discussion on the Comp Plan as a visionary document.
41
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/17/96, Page 5
I Mackie stated the Comprehensive Plan is now a binding document. Everything the County
2 does must be measured against the Comp Plan performance criteria. The County should define
3 urban and rural areas and what to expect in those areas.
4
5 Starkenburg opened the floor to questions.
6
7 David Peterson asked Mackie for advice for the County about level of detail and core
8 facilities. Small towns need definition as to what are core facilities. He asked what the
9 implications are regarding urban growth boundaries and if core facilities can grow to handle it in
10 20 years. Gibson clarified that strong concurrency means the developer makes payment to cover
11 additional infrastructure costs.. Mackie stated that it may be a utility base and general facilities in
12 reserve for future growth and reimburse utilities and incremental costs to extend service. In most
13 small towns, the developer may run out a sewer line, and everyone else hooks up to that line.
14
15 Someone stated the County would like to make some indications for the future in the area
16 of Custer and inquired if an alternative could be to put in a reference to an amendment for special
17 industrial uses. Mackie replied that the County has authority to prove that area is a commercial
18 area. If not, state law makes provision for heavy impact industrial sites. The Comp Plan should
19 have cross reference to that as an enabling area.
20
21 Lee Denke stated he would like to see the Planning Department follow the GMA, which
22 provides for early and continued participation on the part of property owners.
23
24 Mackie stated there have been hearings before the Planning Commission, hearings during
25 Planning and Development Committee work shops, and another round of public hearings for
26 public recommendations. When that is complete, then committee will recommend a set of
27 Findings to Council, which are also subject to review and comment before final decisions are
28 made.
29
30 ADJOURN
31
32 The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
33 �
35
36 Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
37
38 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
39 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
40 �� l
43 Da�i yH—rown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Me er
Planning Minutes, 12/19/96, Page 6