HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole May 21 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
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
May 21, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 1:34 in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(1:34:11 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAPS,
AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATED TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2013-
180)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file, exhibit A) and a set of maps (on file, exhibit B).
Brenner asked if staff is proposing a downzone. Davis stated they aren't.
Knutzen asked what they're protecting if this isn't resource land. There's no bright
line for rural character. Davis stated staff recommended criteria based on existing rural
density in the rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) area where there are nonconforming lots.
Kershner asked if the maps are to show how much could be rezoned. Davis stated
the maps are staff's attempt to demonstrate how many parcels they're talking about.
Staff's recommendation is a total of about 36 parcels.
Knutzen asked if the maps consider the lots that have already been downzoned
through this process. Davis stated staff criteria are based on the density from 2013. It's
the size of the lot that matters, not the zone.
Brenner asked if staff proposes downzoning. Davis stated they don't. This
establishes criteria that limit the number of parcels to get an upzone.
Brenner asked how many upzones occurred in rural zones in the last five years.
Davis stated that until 2011, there was a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that discouraged
rezones from R10A to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). It was reworded to the current
policy 2GG -A regarding the character of the area.
Special Committee of the Whole, 5/21/2013, 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
Davis continued the presentation on issue 2, lot clustering.
Brenner stated it creates a misunderstanding to name anything as a "reserve." Use
different language, such as conservation area. Defining a reserve tract and a reserve area
is even more confusing. People understand a conservation area is not to be built upon.
Crawford stated he thought they were reserving an area for future development in
urban growth areas (UGAs). Davis stated that it's fine for development when it is in the
urban growth area, but not when it's in a rural area. He continued the presentation
beginning with issue two and word clarification.
Brenner stated proposed changes to the North Bellingham area don't divide the area,
but the Fort Bellingham area is divided at the railroad tracks. Historically, the area on the
other side of the tracks is still part of the neighborhood. Davis stated the Hearings Board
decision said the boundaries need to correspond with the description, which identifies the
areas with the higher densities. He continued the presentation beginning with the rural
neighborhoods related to issue four.
Brenner stated she objects to the Board's use of the term "dog leg" regarding issue
six. It's insulting, and it's not a legal term.
Knutzen stated the prior boundary of Smith & Guide Meridian was more regular than
it is now. There is clear evidence of a legal taking. What they've done to these commercial
properties is ridiculous. People bought these commercial properties. The State Department
of Transportation (DOT) built a four -lane highway with a turn lane down the middle, fully
aware that it would be commercial all the way to Ten Mile Road. It's upsetting the County is
considering taking any more of this property. He will have a hard time supporting any of
this.
Brenner stated the Planning Commission did recommend this. She was with Doug
Pullar when he was told by the Planning Department that it would be better for him to wait
until the State was finished, to make easier ingress and egress to his property, because it
was going to be commercial property, and that the Planning Department would be glad to
work with him as soon as that was done. Verbal promises are just as binding as written
promises when they come from government.
Davis continued the presentation beginning with issue seven.
Crawford asked if there is a changed circumstance guiding the Planning
Commission's recommendation to include a parcel that the Hearing Board said must not be
included. Davis stated there was technically no action, because the Planning Commission
recommended doing nothing, and leaving the boundary the way it is. He doesn't know the
Planning Commission rationale for its recommendation. Staff presented in 2012 information
that there was a small building on this parcel. The Hearing Board acknowledged it, and said
that one small building in 1990 does not equate to a two -acre addition of more intensive
rural development.
Kershner asked if it's typical for the Hearing Board to dictate a county's zoning
parcel -by- parcel. Davis stated it is common.
Special Committee of the Whole, 5/21/2013, 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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) says that roads and
infrastructure are considered a built environment, but the Hearing Board isn't considering
the Guide Meridian, which is a large road. The Hearing Board's decisions seem arbitrary.
Davis continued the presentation on issue eight and the proposed schedule going
forward.
Mann stated the Planning Commission recommendation is not going to fly. He would
like staff to prepare an ordinance based on the staff May 6, 2013 memo to be in
compliance. The staff recommendation is a much clearer path to compliance.
Knutzen stated he disagrees. He recommends accepting the Planning Commission
recommendation at the very least. They are sending a message that property owners have
to sue to do what they want on their property. It's time for the County to step up. The
Planning Commission findings talk repeatedly of taking private property without proper
compensation.
Mann stated the Council keeps sending the Hearings Board ordinances that the
Hearings Board will not approve. The Hearings Board gave specific guidance which the
Planning Commission chose to ignore in favor of making symbolic, ideological statements.
Get in compliance. Get economic development feasible again instead of keeping people
from being allowed to apply for building permits due to the County being out of compliance.
It's not anyone's fault other than their own that the ordinances keep getting rejected. The
County keeps sending the Hearings Board ordinances that aren't legal. Send them
something legal. Use the expert advice of Planning staff and legal counsel. That doesn't
mean he likes any part of this. It's not about preventing sprawl or anything other than
getting into compliance as soon as possible. It's costing the County too much otherwise.
Knutzen stated the Council has made all the recommended changes. Each time, the
County still gets orders to make even more changes. It's time for a legal opinion on this,
not the opinion of this appointed group.
Brenner stated that the County has won every appeal of the Hearing Board's
decisions. It is a political body. She prefers to work from the Planning Commission
recommendation. It's what was brought forward and what people have been seeing. If the
Council makes changes, it should explain itself instead of accepting a ready -made
alternative. The Planning Commission process was extremely public and they had a
hearing.
Kershner stated the Council can make amendments to the Planning Commission
recommended ordinance after the public hearing tonight. Davis stated that's possible. It's
also possible to work on it on June 4 during the day, and introduce a new ordinance that
night, for a public hearing and adoption on June 18.
Mann stated that's the latest possible date for adoption.
Brenner stated the Council can meet on any Tuesday.
Crawford stated discuss this after tonight's public hearing. He agrees that people are
waiting to get permits until they are in compliance. However, the changes that the
Hearings Board sends back to the County are more out of compliance with certain aspects of
how they tried to approach this. The County has made an honest attempt to comply. He
hopes they can work through this after the hearing tonight.
Special Committee of the Whole, 5/21/2013, Page 3
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
Weimer stated he doesn't care which ordinance they work from. He shares the
concerns of Councilmember Mann that there are clear problems they need to fix. He hopes
staff is prepared. Quoting erroneous Planning Commission findings doesn't make them the
truth.
Crawford stated there must be common sense and a practical approach to zoning.
The County is in a situation in which it is punishing the people who held off on developing
and rewarding the people who developed early, when there was less environmental
regulation and good population growth planning. That is not logical or reasonable. The
State being in the growth planning business doesn't work.
Mann stated he agrees that this has nothing to do with common sense. It's the
situation they're in. He wants Whatcom County to get into State compliance. The State
Hearing Board is the arbiter of that for now.
Brenner stated the Hearing Board was intended to keep people out of court.
Instead, it's added another layer of court. It's unfortunate. It was never intended to be a
court of law. It was intended to be mediation, but it's become a court of politics. At some
point, the County needs to say this is enough.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 9, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 5/21/2013, Page 4