MARC BOLDT (right), chair of the Clark County Board of Commissioners, confers with county Planning Commission chair Dick Deleissegues during an Oct. 16 joint meeting when the Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission heard from the public on rural land use and development density issues.
Public comments on rural land use issues were taken Oct. 16 at a joint meeting of the Clark County commissioners and Clark County Planning Commission held at Hockinson High School in Brush Prairie.
Those speaking gave mixed opinions on rural zoning and parcel sizes, development in rural centers, and development techniques designed to give landowners more flexibility.
Comments on all of these topics are still invited.
Clark County commissioner Marc Boldt kicked off the two-hour meeting with a history of comprehensive planning in the county. He said the county’s first growth plan was adopted in 1994 when larger lot sizes were created in rural, agricultural and forest lands. He pressed staff repeatedly to determine if records existed on pre-1994 lot sizes and was assured that such records could be located.
Boldt said the urban elements of the county’s growth plan were updated in 1994 and again in 2007. An update of the rural portions of the plan began in 2008, he said, with a study of “rural character.”
Clark County Planner Gordy Euler said a rural lands review is designed to increase options and flexibility for landowners, and to develop policies and programs to implement those options. The current focus of the growth plan update process, he said, is to evaluate whether allowed housing densities in rural areas should be changed, whether densities in rural centers should be changed, and whether the county should look for ways to “save” productive farm lands and minimize the conversion of farm lands to other uses.
Euler said the county commissioners have asked staff to study five things in the 2013-2014 period:
• Homesteading on resource lands
• Clustering on resources lands
• Rural planned unit developments
• Minimum parcel sizes
• Rural centers
Homesteading is a process that allows the creation and sale of a homesite on 1-3 acres on a 20 acre, 40 acre or larger parcel, while the remainder of the parcel remains in resource use – agricultural or forestry. Homesteading does not result in more homes than current zoning and therefore does not increase housing density, according to representatives of Berk Consulting, a Seattle-based firm hired to study rural planning issues for the county.
Clustering is a process that allows several homes to be grouped together on small lots in a large parcel, while the remainder of the parcel remains in resource use. Depending on final rulemaking, clustering could result in one more homesite than allowed under current county code.
Clustering is presently allowed on lands designated as “rural” – R-5, R-10 and R-20. One acre is the minimum lot size for clustered homesites in rural areas. The remainder lot must be 65-75 percent of the total parcel and may be considered to be a buildable lot.
Several questions surround the issue of clustering on resource lands, including:
• Would such clustering be consistent with the state Growth Management Act?
• What would be the minimum or average lot size?
• How many lots would be allowed in a cluster?
Rural planned unit developments are a way to master-plan a site to protect sensitive lands, increase density, and allow for additional uses such as affordable housing choices.
Smaller parcel sizes in rural and resource lands are also under consideration. Commissioner Boldt has suggested returning to parcel sizes that were in effect prior to 1994. Returning to 1994 parcel sizes, said Euler, could result in a challenge under the state Growth Management Act.
At present, fewer than 20 percent of lots in the 20-acre agricultural zone are 20 acres in size, and nearly half the lots are 5 acres or smaller.
Officials note that the average farm size in the county has declined from 44 acres in 2002 to 37 acres in 2007, while the number of farms has increased from 1,598 to 2,101.
“It appears that with the local food movement and types of crops (e.g. berries) the lot size needed to have a productive farm may be changing,” states one county report.
Lot consolidation has also been proposed.
Under current county planning rules, 90 percent of population growth is to take place in urban areas, and 10 percent on rural and resource lands. Changing the population growth ratios “would be an involved process,” said Euler.
Officials hear range of comments
At the Oct. 16 meeting, county planners listened to a variety of public comments including the following:
• Person 1: Need to protect agricultural lands. Planned unit developments could harm farm wells.
• Person 2: Concerned about more dense development. Questioned whether there is adequate infrastructure to avoid well contamination.
• Person 3: Concerned about unwanted annexations.
• Person 4: Wants smaller lots ith setbacks from creeks. Believes county should encourage farming, although his farm equipment is too big to move down existing roads. Believes boundaries of rural centers should be enlarged. Said county development fees are excessive.
• Person 5: Clustering does not solve the issues of adequate roads and schools. Rural centers could be larger.
• Person 6: Impact fees charged by the county are too low. The public pays through taxes and reduced services for certain costs related to housing subdivisions.
Several other speakers said they supported clustering on resources lands.
Rural Lands Task Force reports
The county commissioners created a Rural Lands Task Force to study rural issues. The Task Force began meeting in 2008, met 17 times, and issued a report with recommendations in March 2010.
The Task Force recommended that the character of rural centers be maintained, with small lot patterns for residential development and small-scale businesses and convenience shopping. The Task Force said commercial and industrial development should be encouraged to locate within rural centers, and offered several other detailed suggestions.
Rural centers are areas designated on the county comprehensive plan land use map as Amboy, Brush Prairie, Chelatchie Prairie, Dollars Corner, Fargher Lake, Hockinson and Meadow Glade. Meadow Glade is the largest of these rural centers, although some of that land now lies within the Battle Ground urban growth boundary.
The Task Force also recommended that the county protect and encourage good agricultural and forest activities and reduce the circumstances under which such activities may be considered nuisances.
In support of agricultural and forest activities, the Task Force endorsed cluster developments, small scale agriculture, a biomass plant in Chelatchie Prairie and small wind energy systems.
The Task Force said the Dollars Corner rural center should be expanded to the east to include 120 acres for a future educational and workforce training center, and more industrial land should be added to the Brush Prairie rural center.
The Task Force also recommended that productive forest lands should be conserved, and that the county should ensure appropriate use of gravel and mineral resources by minimizing conflict between surface mining and surrounding land uses.
County planners invited additional public input on the various issues surrounding rural land uses and development densities. Officials said additional public meetings would be held before any new rules were adopted.
Topics earmarked for future study include a transfer of development rights program, rural reserve and agricultural production districts, and an examination of the current use taxation program.
More information is available at www.clark.wa.gov/planning/land_use/rural_lands.html and by calling Euler, (360) 397-2280, ext. 4968.
Marvin Case may be reached at marvincase@msn.com and at (360) 687-4122.
