HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 26 20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:12:05 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Kathy Kershner, Pete Kremen, Sam Crawford and Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW AGRICULTURE PARCEL
RECONFIGURATION AND RELATED CHANGES AFFECTING THE AGRICULTURE
ZONE AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -023 (AB2013 -128)
Brenner asked and there was discussion about accessing Planning Commission
minutes.
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file) and gave a staff report.
Amy Keenan, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the
presentation on current parcel division options.
Lutz continued the presentation on the changes made since the introductory
discussion.
Crawford referenced the current parcel division options. He asked and there was
discussion of whether the two processes do not allow any additional building sites.
Kershner referenced the current parcel division options, the agricultural boundary
line adjustment option. She asked and there was discussion of the benefits of combining
the two existing lots of record instead of using the two lots separately.
Keenan continued the presentation on an agricultural short plat example.
Crawford stated and there was discussion of making the farmstead parcels as small
as possible to leave as much agricultural land intact as possible.
Keenan continued the presentation on the current range of fees and proposed
changes to the ordinance.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/26/2013, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Knutzen asked and there was discussion on whether there are deed restrictions on
selling the agricultural parcel and whether the two parcels have to remain in common
ownership.
Keenan continued the presentation on examples of parcel reconfiguration.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether there is disincentive to
reconfiguration if someone will lose potential development rights.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of the rationale for capping clustering to four
lots rather than six lots.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of how close clusters can be to each other.
Lutz continued the presentation on current draft amendments.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of the possibility of someone selling
development rights, and then doing this parcel reconfiguration.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of the possibility of neighborhood areas
outside of cities to enlarge a little bit to take up development rights.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
(3:56:53 PM)
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of poorer quality soils that don't meet the
definition of agricultural lands of long -term, commercial significance and of Whatcom County
Code 20.40.250 regarding deed restrictions and whether it applies to agricultural purchases
of development rights (PDRs).
Crawford asked and there was discussion about not forcing people into lot
consolidation.
Jeff Rainey submitted information (on file) and stated allow the Agricultural Advisory
Committee to work more on this proposed ordinance. He's against agricultural lot
reconfiguration due to concerns about encouraging development and how a developed lot
affects adjoining farm operations.
Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends, stated he disagrees with Mr. Rainey. This is
an accommodation that is less than perfect. The perfect scenario is getting the 4,000
development rights out of the agricultural area to protect the resource land. However, the
County doesn't have enough money to buy out the development rights. Think about
transfers of development rights. Give people options to trade out their development rights.
There are places with poor soil where they can create receiving zones. The County will get
challenged, but should take that challenge. This tool makes sense. Agricultural values are
strong now, but won't always be. This provides an option for the future. This would be a
replacement for the agricultural protection overlay (APO).
Kate Blystone, Futurewise, stated they need to get development rights out of
agricultural land. It's possible to transfer those rights to urban growth areas. Take time
Planning and Development Committee, 3/26/2013, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
with this ordinance. Four Planning Commissioners voted against this item, and two of them
were farmers. Talk to them about their reasons for voting against it.
Kremen stated TDRs makes more sense than PDRs, which cost an excessive amount
of money. The Council must spend more time considering this issue.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether Futurewise will appeal the
County if the County tries to do something in the small communities outside the cities.
2. QUARTERLY UPDATE ON THE 2016 URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW PROCESS
(AB2013 -127) (4 :17:05 PM)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and discussed a schedule for the next few years, developed with City planners.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of councilmember attendance at the
meetings of the city and county officials.
Mann asked and there was discussion of how set the schedule is with all
governments and the land capacity analysis results being final after they adopt the
Comprehensive plan and facilities plans.
Crawford stated and there was discussion of staff communicating the Council's desire
to use the Office of Financial Management (OFM) middle population projection and concerns
from the cities about the Council adopting something very different from what they spent a
lot of resources on developing. Councilmembers need to stay engaged.
Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends, stated the County must advocate in addition
to facilitate. Land use matters to agriculture.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise, stated the only non - Planning Commission or non - Council
public hearing on population projections is a town hall in July of 2013, which is not an ideal
time for a town hall meeting. Move it to the fall.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
4
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
s official, signed copy:
s 360- 676 -6690 or council c .o.w hatcom .w a.us
Planning and Development Committee, 3/26/2013, Page 3