HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole July 24 20121
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
July 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3 :11 :39 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 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE 20.14, WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223A)
report.
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
(3:14:04 PM)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041 Permits and Zoning Table, row three, "One or
multiple WES with a cumulative rated output greater than 50 kW up to and including
500kW; Administrative permit; AG, CF, HII."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041 Permits and Zoning Table, row 5, "One or
multiple WES with a cumulative rated output greater than 500 kW."
Knutzen stated and there was discussion of the amendment language allowing as
many systems as someone wants.
Brenner stated there should be a conditional use permit on each one.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 1
1
2
3
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
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041 Permits and Zoning Table, to delete row six,
Use permit; AG, GF, H14"
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Brenner moved to amend 20.14.052, the last row of the setback table "2,r v09 feet
One mile from property line..."
Crawford stated that the more he learns about wind energy systems, the less he
likes them. He will support more restrictions, but will not support any ordinance that allows
systems outside of heavy impact industrial zones. Watch the documentary called Windfall.
He doesn't want these near where he lives or on the county's beautiful ridgelines. He will
support any motion to make this more restrictive.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Kremen moved to amend the last row of section 20.14.041, "Within and 1,000 feet
beyond the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom watershed that are recognized...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Brenner moved to amend 20.14.052, the last row of the setback table "2,999 feet
One mile from a property line, unless the neighboring property is a CF—, AG or HII zone...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.062, "WES with a cumulative output greater than �
50 kW er gr-eate sound level, performance, and measurement standards
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Abstain: Brenner (1)
Crawford moved to amend the entire ordinance where applicable, "greater than
50 kW er- greater."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.090 Complaint process, "If two or more complaints
from different households are received within 2 weeks of each other,
site, paFtieular the County shall notify the WES operator. If the condition has not been
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, 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
remedied within 10 business days of notification, a sound measurement will be conducted
within 19 business deys immediately by a qualified consultant approved by Whatcom
County."
Crawford asked and there was discussion of how the County measures sound
complaints currently.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of defining "immediately."
Kremen asked and there was discussion of the cost associated with having a
technician visit the site.
Mann moved to amend 20.14.090 Complaint process, "If two or more complaints
from different households are received within 2 weeks of each other, and documente d at
site, the County shall notify the WES operator. If the condition has not been
remedied within 10 business days of notification, a sound measurement will be conducted
within 10 business days 30 consecutive days by a qualified consultant approved by
Whatcom County."
Kremen stated he supports the intent, but will vote against the amendment. They're
already extending the buffers. This can be used in a punitive way. It's not necessary. It's
easy for two households to orchestrate their complaints.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kershner, Mann and Weimer (3)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen and Kremen (4)
Brenner moved to remove the last sentence of section 20.14.090, "its
mss„
Kershner stated she is opposed because it wouldn't be fair to a WES operator to
experience a complaint from Sumas if the tower is located in the south part of the county,
especially when obligated to conduct and pay for a sound study immediately.
Mann suggested a friendly amendment to amend the sentence to change 1 mile to
30 miles.
Brenner did not accept the friendly amendment.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Brenner moved to amend 20.14.102, "1) Remove all wind turbines, above - ground
and below - ground improvements to 36" deep, and outdoor storage. In the AG, HII, and CF
zones, property owners may choose to leave SWES /WES foundations in place and intact,
partially or in whole, for approved, permitted reuse, except that in the AG zone foundations
left in place must be located such that the distance between any reused SWES /WES
foundations and foundations of existing farm buildings shall not exceed 50 (fifty) feet."
Kershner stated she is against the 36 inches. It's too shallow.
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, 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
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Crawford moved to remove all large wind energy systems greater than 50 kW from
the agricultural zone and commercial forestry zone. He described the negative impacts of
the large systems, such as tax subsidies, fire, and viewscapes. It's not feasible for an
energy company to build just one of these large systems. They'll want 10, 20, or more to
make it more cost - effective. Consider the legacy they're leaving in terms of the appearance
of Whatcom County. Don't install industrial installations in areas that aren't zoned
industrial. They can still be allowed in the heavy impact industrial zone. One option is to
allow just in the heavy impact industrial zone for five years as a trial period to see if the
industry is interested.
Brenner stated issues have to do with public health and wildlife impacts. They
should be allowed only in very remote areas to protect from low- frequency sound problems.
Small systems are still allowed.
Mann stated he's tired of working on this ordinance. He's sorry to see they don't
allow an opportunity for an entrepreneur to allow a larger size unit. There are all kinds of
subsidies given to every business, especially the fossil fuel industry.
Weimer stated he is against the amendment. The Council has worked on this for 29
months, and they've learned a lot. Wind energy won't ever be a big deal in Whatcom
County. He agrees with Councilmember Mann. The oil and gas industries have more
subsidies and negative impacts to human health and wildlife. This is an attempt to come up
with an energy alternative.
Crawford stated the Bonneville dam program pays for itself. Wind energy won't pay
for itself because of investment cost versus the return. His motion would allow these large
systems in Whatcom County in the heavy impact industrial zone.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Kershner stated this will come forward to the Committee of the Whole for one last
look before introduction.
2. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE
WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT
CHANGES RELATING TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193)
(4 :12:45 PM)
Weimer asked and there was discussion of cancelling tonight's hearing or limiting the
next hearing to the changes made tonight.
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a substitute
zoning code (on file) highlighting changes from the staff memo dated July 20, 2012. He
gave a staff report and referenced the substitute zoning code, page 89 of 90, section
20.82.030(3) regarding water lines.
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 4
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
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether providing service is allowed by
the Growth Management Act (GMA) for only urban areas and why it's limited just to
transmission lines.
Simi Jain, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District attorney, answered questions and
referenced comments submitted earlier regarding the district's water source in Blaine and
needing transmission lines to serve Birch Bay. They want to indicate that the County is not
promoting an urban level of service in rural areas.
Weimer stated define what transmission lines are.
Davis gave a staff report and referenced the substitute zoning code, page 86 of 90,
section 20.80.100 regarding the building size for the Birch Bay- Lynden & Valley View limited
areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) as described in the staff memo. There
is evidence of another structure on the property that wasn't on the Assessor's records.
He gave a staff report and referenced the substitute zoning code, page 87 of 90,
section 20.80.100(2)(b)(1) and (2) regarding conditional use requirements as described in
the staff memo. The term "public facilities" may be vague. The second proposal is to
indicate that a particular proposal does not need to meet all four parameters of size, scale,
use, or intensity, as determined by a Clallam County Hearings Board decision.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of eliminating the word "maximum" in the
table's title so it can't be interpreted to constrain the proposal to the maximum building size
existing in 1990. Re -title the chart to say, "1990 Observed floor area per building in square
feet."
Kershner stated the Committee will discuss potential changes to the ordinance, and
then the Council will make motions after the public hearing at the evening meeting.
Linda Twitchell' Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, referenced a letter
from Jack Swanson that says the GMA does not limit provision of existing public facilities or
services to the LAMIRDs.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether the only downside of a larger
building is potential increased demand for public facilities.
(4:48:00 PM)
Davis gave a staff report and referenced the substitute zoning code, page 85 of 90,
the chart headings in section 20.80.100(1) regarding use types as described in the staff
memo. Also, the Wiser Lake East map was inadvertently excluded from the ordinance, and
there was an error on the Wickersham map. The revised packet of maps includes those
corrections.
He continued the staff report on the remaining other potential changes as described
in the staff memo.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of allowing people to do a combined square
footage of all buildings rather than one building.
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 5
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
Crawford asked and there was discussion of what would keep someone from
subdividing lots to get more lots with more buildings in the rural general commercial (RGC)
zone, since there is no minimum lot size.
Knutzen referenced the changes he proposes, listed in his email to the
Councilmembers.
First, amend the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A on page 5 of 33 to add policy 2A -13
"2A -13 Allow for adequate economic development to insure economic sustainability,
adequate employment opportunities and services in and for the rural areas." Also, amend
the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A on page 24 of 33 to add a new policy between 211-3 and
21J -4, "Within the Rural Communities, encourage adequate economic development to
provide for current and future residents employment needs, and provide rural residents
places to shop, eat, and access to public services."
Crawford stated and there was discussion of using language straight from the
LAMIRD language in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Knutzen stated amend the zoning code Exhibit B on page 15 of 89 to add language
to 20.59.321, "In a Rural Community designation, maximum allowable floor area per
building shall not exceed the combined floor area of all buildings of a use of the same type
that existed in that designation on July 1, 1990 per WCC 20.80.100(1) except as provided
in WCC 20.80.100(2)."
Also, amend the zoning code Exhibit B on page 15 of 89, section 20.59.322, "In a
Rural Business designation, the maximum allowable floor area for a new use is 5,099 7,000
square feet except as provided in WCC 20.80.100(3) and (4)." Agricultural areas are
allowed buildings at 16,000 square feet or more. Give those people the ability to build a
facility that is adequate for what they want to do.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of the reason for the change from 35,000
square feet to 5,000 square feet and the average square footage of all the buildings that
existed in 1990.
Knutzen stated amend the zoning code Exhibit B on page 15 of 89, to delete the first
section numbered 20.59.501, ,
buddongs shall net e)(eeed that ef a Eise ef the sange type that existed On that Elesignatien E)ff
" and amend
the second .501, 7. "In a Rural Business or Rural Community designation building or
structural coverage of a lot shall not exceed 50 percent of the total area." As currently
worded, there isn't enough lot coverage to allow commercial properties to be viable.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether that amendment would allow
someone to build more than one building on the lot if it met the 50 percent lot coverage
threshold.
Brenner stated they've lost sight of the original purpose of LAMIRDs, which was to
help areas thrive without expanding beyond the boundaries of the property. It wasn't
supposed to be punitive. This is where they were to infill.
Kershner stated Councilmember Knutzen's amendments seem to be the same in
every zoning section.
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 6
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 stated they are. On the small town commercial (STC) zone, he would like
the building lot coverage percentage to be 70 percent for rural business.
Next, amend the zoning code Exhibit B on page 85 of 89, the chart underneath
section 20.80.100, "Maxingum fleeF aFea peF building,
fleer area feF all buildings, On square feet) Combined floor area of existing buildings in
square feet" and also amend the zoning code Exhibit B on page 85 of 89, the chart
underneath section 20.80.100, to delete all of the first numbers of each cell, leaving the
second, larger number.
Next, amend:
• the zoning code Exhibit B on page 87 of 89 to amend section
20.80.100.(2)(b)(2)(ii), "Scale, referring to the yed building floor area e€ all
buildings"
• the zoning code Exhibit B on page 87 of 89 to amend section
20.80.100.(2)(b)(2)(iii), "Use, referring to whether the proposed use included is
similar in the type of use existing on July 1, 1990 in the area, or...."
• the zoning code Exhibit B on page 87 of 89 to amend section 20.80.100.(3),
"...new nonresidential uses are subject to a maximum building size of 5,000 7,000
square feet...."
Next, amend the zoning map for Axton & Guide Meridian; Smith & Guide Meridian,
on the east side of Guide Meridian to restore the north -to -south boundary to where it
intersects the Axton Road on a matching straight line. Also amend the zoning map for
Axton & Guide Meridian; Smith & Guide Meridian, on the west side of Guide Meridian to
restore the north -to -south boundary from the Axton Road to the north boundary of the L-
shaped property.
Last, amend the zoning map for Axton & Guide Meridian; Smith & Guide Meridian
regarding the Kirner property to the North. Davis stated the Kirner property is already
included.
Knutzen stated restore any properties about which the County received comments
from the owners. Create a straight line and a regular boundary. It is a four -lane highway
with a turn lane down the middle that is designated commercial. This isn't agricultural
ground. It isn't anything other than commercial property. Making it anything other than
commercial property is a disservice to those people who bought it with the understanding
that they were buying commercial property.
Knutzen stated he concurs with the amendments in concept.
Brenner stated she supports all of Councilmember Knutzen's proposed changes.
They are clear and consistent.
(5:43:05 PM)
Roger Almskaar submitted copies of email he sent earlier.
Scott Swanson, Belcher Swanson Law Firm, stated he supports Councilmember
Knutzen's changes. Make sure changes get to all zones. Merge use types as proposed in
the staff memo on page three.
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 7
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
Crawford stated the Hearings Board decision says it was a mistake to connect the
boundaries between the Smith Road and Guide Meridian intersection and the Axton Road
and Guide Meridian intersection. The Hearings Board already made its decision. He's not
hearing new information that would change their mind.
Knutzen referenced and there was discussion of the Grandview Sign building in 1990
and other evidence of the built environment that weren't considered.
Gary Honcoop stated he supports adding an administrative appeal process. The
conditional use process is very expensive. The lot coverage requirement needs to be
consistent. Creating a lot coverage percentage makes it consistent with other codes and
other rural areas.
Jack Swanson stated the Hearings Board doesn't require finding any more than one
of the four parameters, which are size, scale, use, or intensity. Be careful with how they
amend the language so they don't create a more restrictive situation. Also, he likes either
his proposed language or language recommended by Heather Wolf. He read from his letter
sent to the Council today regarding section 20.80.100(2)(b)(i) and (ii).
Twitchell referenced page two of the staff memo. She supports inserting the
language proposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on September 11, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
41 360 - 676 -6690 or council&o.whatcom.wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 7/24/2012, Page 8