CARE

Camano Action for a Rural Environment

C.A.R.E. Comments to Board of Island County Commissioners on the Gateway Village Zone PDF Print E-mail
Written by Allison Warner CARE President   
Monday, 25 May 2009 15:02

 

 

May 19, 2009

TO: Island County Commissioners John Dean, Helen Price Johnson, Angie Homola

FR: Joan Schrammeck and Allison Warner, on behalf of

Camano Action for a Rural Environment (C.A.R.E.),

PO Box 1742, Stanwood, WA 98282

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

RE: Public Comment on Camano Gateway Ordinance

 

The people in this room have written letters and attended hearings because we CARE

about Camano. 532 is our scenic corridor, in fact, it has been designated a Scenic

Highway. We support commercial activity along the corridor in the three areas impacted

by the ordinance. After all, we are the ones most likely to benefit from the businesses

that open. But we also want to make sure the commercial activity is likely to be

successful, is needed by and supported by people who live here, and – most especially -

is consistent with rural character.

1) C.A.R.E. participated in the Camano community working group which was formed

to evaluate what should or should not be allowed in the new Camano Gateway

Zone, and to address topics such as set-backs, signage, lighting and so forth. At

the end of the process there was near-unanimous agreement that gas stations

and convenience stores should not be allowed in the new Camano Gateway Zone.

 

2) In the process of considering the new Gateway Zone, the Planning Commission

held a public hearing which was attended by about 50 people. When the

attendees were asked if they wanted gas stations/convenience stores,

approximately 80-90% of the attendees said, “NO.” At a subsequent meeting of

the Planning Commission, Commissioners commented they had never received so

many letters and emails on any issue as they had on this one. Camano residents

pro-actively contacted the Planning Commission, opposing gas stationsconvenience

stores in the new Camano Gateway Zone.

At the Planning Commission hearings, the Planning Department also

recommended against gas station and convenience stores. The Planning

Department stated that traffic problems created by gas station-convenience stores

could not be mitigated by a single development because the traffic issues were a

problem in the corridor overall. Despite the Planning Department’s strong

recommendation against the gas station-convenience stores, and overwhelming

public opinion, the Planning Commission took the opposite view and sent a

different recommendation to the Board of Island County Commissioners.

The Planning Commission gave no sound logic or reasoning as to why gas and

convenience stores should be allowed. One Member of the Planning Commission

stated that she didn’t feel “rural character” exists in the corridor. Another stated

that he didn’t feel that convenience stores necessarily “ruin the neighborhood.”

However, none of the Planning Commission members addressed the issues

presented by experts in the Planning Department regarding traffic concerns.

Public Comment re: Camano Gateway Ordinance May 19, 2009 Page 2 of 4

Furthermore, the Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations showed

total disregard for the planning process, wherein citizens and business owners

donated their time for several weeks of meetings to help plan the best community

in which all could live. The entire purpose of the Gateway planning effort was to

allow Camano citizens, who have continually expressed concerns about the

appearance and scenic quality of the Gateway, to determine what type of

development is suitable for the entrance to our island.

A majority of the members on the Gateway working group were business owners,

and none expressed a concern that more convenience stores and gas stations

were needed to serve Camano residents. In fact it was overwhelmingly expressed

that present gas stations on the island and nearby in Stanwood already serve the

needs of Island residents and will continue to do so in the future. In summary, we

disagree with the Planning Commission, both on its findings and on the manner in

which it conducted its process where it ignored sound citizen advice from diverse

quarters. Instead, we agree with the Camano working group –
no gas stationconvenience

stores.

3)
Along with the Planning Department staff, the Camano working group thought

that gas station/convenience stores in the Gateway would have especially

negative impacts on traffic flow which is already notoriously slow during peak

hours. CARE believes adding cars turning left and/or adding a new signal light

would dramatically slow traffic and increase hazards and the possibility of

accidents. A gas station/convenience store would have a negative impact on all

Camano residents who travel SR532 including most, if not all, C.A.R.E. members.

532 is constantly full of traffic; we use it as a thoroughfare on and off Camano

Island. Today a minor accident causes major delays. Adding another traffic signal

could add 10 to 15 minutes or more to each person’s commute.

4) We also worry about the negative impact more gas stations would have on

existing Camano island businesses. Currently we are served by three gas stations

with stores (at Elger Bay Store, IGA Plaza and Huntington’s Store). One or more

of these longtime locally-owned businesses could easily collapse if another gas

station/store opens on Camano. There is absolutely no community need for

another gas station. We do not want new development to negatively impact

existing businesses, and we don’t want more empty buildings for which no tenants

can be found.

5) Furthermore we believe that a gas station/convenience store would in no way

enhance the beauty, appearance, or character of the Gateway to our rural island.

6) Everyone knows that TR Camano bought properties on 532 with hopes of building

a gas station and a hotel. But his vision cannot command government or dictate

what is best for an entire community. Developers take risks. There are no

guarantees when purchasing a property for future use. Implementing a new

Gateway zone is far more consistent with Camano Islanders’ vision for the future.

There is no legal reason why Island County Commissioners cannot adopt

a Camano Gateway Zone that disallows gas stations, convenience stores,

and hotels.

7) CARE applauds the Board of Island County Commissioners for establishing an

inclusive public process to chart the future of the Gateway. Now we wish to have

the majority of Camano residents’ vision take hold.

8) We turn now to comments on hotels and overnight accomodations. CARE

members have mixed views on the idea of allowing small motels, country inns, or

lodges in the Gateway Zone. Small inns with up to 20 rooms seem rural. Large

hotel-motels of 40 rooms or more do not seem consistent with the rural character

we wish to preserve, and should not be allowed.

9) Despite differences of opinion on the appropriateness of a motel in the Gateway,we believe that nothing as extensive as hotels, motels or apartments

should be allowed until there is evidence that the impact on the local

aquifer has been carefully evaluated.
The Gateway topographical area has

been identified as at high risk of seawater intrusion.

The language of the proposed Ordinance purports to preserve water resources in

the following policy statement: “Overnight lodging should be designed in a

manner that does not utilize and distribute water resources beyond the intensity

typically associated with residential development that is allowed within other

RAIDs in the community.” However, it is important for the Commissioners to

understand the history of zoning for the Rural Village area, and specifically for the

Juniper Beach water service area. Interestingly, although the Juniper Beach

residential RAID was dropped from the 1998 zoning proposal because of its very

high-risk aquifer, the Rural Village RAID was created as a
non-residential area

of more intensive development within the same aquifer impact area. The language

of limited-in-scale intensity and size was partially in response to the severe

limitations of water on this part of Camano. Development in the Land’s Hill area is

extremely limited by poor septic capacity and high-risk water resources. The

record shows that the mixed use zoning was added as an afterthought, as no

discussion of it is shown in the minutes. It was never the intention of the

Commissioners at that time to create an area of residential development “typically

associated with RAIDs in the community.” Now however, the creation of the

Camano Gateway Zone would extend residential RAID allowances of 2 dwelling

units/acre to the same aquifer impact area where it was previously rejected. No

analysis was done to support this change.

We know from past proposals for a hotel in this area that such a facility would

have doubled the existing draw-down of the Juniper Beach aquifer. And we know

that the only way new development can go forward is by exporting septic water to

a distant drainfield in another aquifer recharge area in a different watershed.

The Board of Island County Commissioners cannot ignore these facts in making

their decision. A statement from Island County Health that they are not concerned

regarding sea water intrusion is a reversal from their previous stance when the

Comprehensive Plan was enacted in 1998.

10) C.A.R.E.’s argument during the Gateway process was that Country Inns are

already allowed in Rural Zoning on Camano, with the number of rooms limited by

the size of the parcel. C.A.R.E.’s concerns have always been related to the

intensity and density of a standard hotel or motel. Many inns on Whidbey meet

the Country Inn standard. We refer you to our earlier comments to the Planning

Commission: we feel a Country Inn scale of development is more compatible with

Camano’s existing infrastructure, and is in better keeping with the rural character

we wish to preserve. Why not add Country Inn as an allowed use in the Gateway

Village Zone, as opposed to overnight lodging, which would include any typical

franchise motel?

If a County Inn is to be allowed, we strongly recommend that the minimum parcel

size be 5 acres, in other words, only one Country Inn per 5 acres, and that

subdividing the 5 acres not be allowed. The proposed ordinance would allow 20

room motels
per acre, which we believe is too intense and dense for rural

character.

11) Also regarding hotels, we believe an economic feasibility assessment should be

done before hotels are included in the new zone. The County stands at a decisionpoint

right now about what should be allowed in the new Gateway Zone. NOW is

the time to conduct a feasibility assessment. Doing a feasibility assessment could

help prevent a situation in which businesses try to operate and are unsuccessful,

or property is left half-finished, incomplete, or falls into disrepair from lack of use.

The Department of Trade and Economic Development should be consulted and

included before allowing hotels.

12) We support and agree with the suggested provisions in section #7.c. regarding

the sea water intrusion analysis requirements, particularly with respect to

cumulative impact. We recommend that Island County look at adopting provisions

similar to Bainbridge Island’s groundwater monitoring program, which addresses

both salt water intrusion and a safe yield of water.

Thank you for holding this hearing on Camano.

 
Joomla 1.5 Templates by Joomlashack