HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 12 20111
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
Regular County Council
April 12, 2011
CALL TO ORDER (7:00 :29 PM)
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Tony Larson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :01 :20 PM)
Crawford announced there was discussion with Assistant Chief Deputy
Prosecutor Daniel Gibson regarding ferry issues (AB2011 -018) in executive session
during the early morning Special Committee of the Whole meeting and discussion with
Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation - rural land
use planning issue - AB2010 -072B in executive session during the late morning Special
Committee of the Whole meeting.
Crawford reported for the Special Committee of the Whole and announced there was
discussion of public testimony received at the March 29, 2011, Whatcom County
Council public hearing and preparation of a draft ordinance amending the
Whatcom County Zoning Code Title 20, the Official Whatcom County Zoning Map,
and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and maps, to implement changes
related to rural land use planning (AB2010- 072B). Councilmembers want to continue
working on this item tonight.
Crawford announced there was consideration of an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding an Administrative Appeal of a Land Disturbance
Permit and an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, filed by the Squalicum
Valley Community Association AB2011 -091 in executive session during the Committee
of the Whole meeting.
Kershner moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford announced there was also consideration of an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding an Administrative Appeal of a Land Disturbance
Permit and an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, filed by the City of
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
53
Bellingham AB2011 -092 in executive session during the Committee of the Whole
meeting.
Kershner moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
MINUTES CONSENT (7:03:59 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 15, 2011
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 15, 2011
OPEN SESSION (7:04:45 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Yoshi Revelle, 4026
uniting humanity.
• Bruce Diele, citizen,
healthcare.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Willowbrook Lane, Bellingham, spoke on the issue of
spoke on the issues of Council minutes and for - profit
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC TITLE 20, TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH
SERVICES IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (URMX) - AB2011 -127
(7:10:36 PM)
Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, stated he is
available to answer questions.
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Barbara Dykes, City of Bellingham representative, submitted and read from a
handout (on file) from Mayor Dan Pike. The Interlocal Agreement expired in 2009. The City
continued to meet the agreement, and the County should do the same. The County did not
consult with the City on the ordinance before the Council tonight, as it is required to do
under the Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies, and urban fringe
subarea plan. Delay voting on this ordinance and consult with the City. She read the
specific concerns.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, submitted and read from a handout
(on file) with a map delineating all the drive -up facilities within the City of Bellingham. He
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
described his project. He disagrees with Ms. Dykes, who said the City was not aware of his
project. He's been working on this project for 12 years. Allow the use, preferably as an
permitted use.
Karie Brown, 6961 Edin Farms Lane, Lynden, Trickle Creek owner, stated she
supports the ordinance. It is a great location for a coffee shop such as Woods Coffee, where
people spend time inside or drive up and get a coffee without getting out of the car.
Jeff Kvamme, 1651 E. Kelley Road, Bellingham, stated he disagrees with the City of
Bellingham. They can't approve certain auto - dependent businesses while arguing for a
pedestrian - friendly development by disagreeing with certain other auto - dependent
businesses. Businesses must be financially viable.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
(7 :28:24 PM)
Brenner asked Ms. Dykes the reason for her recommendation to not allow the drive -
through to be between a street and building or building and residential zone. Dykes stated
the reason is because it is a design standard developed by design professionals. She's not a
design professional, so she can't describe the reason specifically. The City should be
involved with the County's process, because the area will eventually become part of the
city.
Kershner stated area is not necessarily going to become part of the city, according to
the history of the City's urban growth area (UGA) status. The City asserts that larger
buildings are not conducive to pedestrian - friendly environments. New York City is a
pedestrian - friendly environment.
Crawford asked if drive - through services are not allowed in the URMX zone. Dykes
said they are allowed, but they should meet the City's design standards. Also, the decisions
should be made on a case -by -case basis. City Planning staff determined that the Trickle
Creek project isn't appropriate for having a drive - through lane.
Mann stated it seems that the City's concerns will be considered during the
conditional use process. Cleanthus described the conditional use process.
Knutzen asked for clarification on the two versions of the ordinance. Cleanthus
stated the Council directed the staff to bring forward an ordinance that allows the use as a
conditional use permit.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance, which would allow the use as a conditional
use. He described the history of this issue.
Larson asked how to provide certainty to business owners and developers who want
to invest money in a project. Cleanthous stated a conditional use is allowed as long as the
project meets the conditions in the zoning code. There are specific conditions for the URMX
zone. If the Trickle Creek project meets those conditions, the project would have certainty.
Brenner moved to amend the motion to adopt, and approve Exhibit A from the City
of Bellingham, with an exemption from this code and the conditional use permit if the use is
on a major highway or at a traffic light. This one stands out because it is at a major
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
52
53
highway and at a traffic light. Both of those should change the status to administrative
approval.
Crawford stated he is against the motion to amend. This would need considerable
review from the Public Works Department in terms of driveway widths.
Brenner amended her motion to approve allowing the use as a conditional use,
except if the use is located on a major highway or at a traffic light. If excepted, the use
would be administratively approved.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to amend. Although he agrees with the
intent of adopting Bellingham's code, it would have to go back to the Planning Committee to
work with the City.
Kershner asked the kinds of conditions a drive - through coffee shop would have to
meet through Hearing Examiner approval. Cleanthus stated that is the current requirement.
The proposal wasn't to change the approval process, but just to add drive - through services.
Kershner stated she proposes they use common sense and put the use where it
belongs, and not keep it where it is just because that's the way it is now.
Crawford stated there was a tremendous amount of review in the 1990's on what
uses should be permitted, administratively approved, or conditionally approved. The
neighborhood commercial center was allowed in the URMX zone under a conditional use
process. When the code was written, they went through a tremendous amount of
discussion about the level of County review various uses should have. If councilmembers
want to address those 1998 discussions, they would have to go back and look. If there is a
proposal to analyze conditional uses versus permitted uses, it should go on the docket for
the staff to look at. However, it's hard to now say they have to change the permit review
process.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated such a change wasn't a part of the
application in the first place. It would have to go through the Planning Commission. It's an
entirely new change.
Brenner asked if her motion to allow administrative approval, which the staff already
agreed to, would have to be reviewed. Frakes stated that motion has not been reviewed.
Brenner stated this is a very unique situation. The area probably should not have
been zoned URMX. The proponents have been going through this for a long time. She is
trying to find a reason why this could not be treated differently, from the City's comments.
She didn't find anything to convince her that this shouldn't be treated as a unique situation.
It's location is on a major highway. She assumes that most people who live down that dead
end road would stop there on their way in or out of town. They aren't going to walk to the
use, walk back, and then get into their cars. She agrees with making things pedestrian -
friendly. Administrative approval will give this situation the flexibility it needs. That's the
reason for her motion to amend. She restated the motion to allow an administrative
approval process if the use is located on a major highway or traffic light.
The motion to amend. failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Kershner (2)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (5)
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
52
Mann stated they haven't done a good job of implementing pedestrian - friendly
development. According to Mr. Campbell's map of areas with drive - through services, those
services are not pedestrian- oriented development. He thought the URMX zone was to allow
smaller businesses with houses nearby and people walking around. A drive through would
be anathema to that. He understands why the URMX zone is not appropriate for a drive -
through service. However, this particular site is appropriate for a drive - through. With a
conditional use permit, they can consider those factors.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to adopt the ordinance. It's clear that the
County is supposed to coordinate with the associated City about areas within UGAs. The
City has consistently commented that coordination hasn't happened. There is no interlocal
agreement with the City to guide that cooperation. There's been no analysis of the size
expansion. Most coffee shops are nowhere near 5,000 square feet. He asked why they
picked that size. It's been clear that this came forward due to a specific development at
Trickle Creek. There are concerns with that development. They are putting a drive - through
restaurant at the bottom of the hill next to a High School. A student was hit on Mt. Baker
Highway not long ago. Don't lure students to cross Mt. Baker Highway. The parking lot
behind building A in the proposal is a paved parking lot on top of the Olympic pipeline.
County Comprehensive Plan policy 5N -3 discourages pipelines around urban growth areas.
All these issues may be addressed through the conditional use process. However, the
County should table this until they coordinate better with the City of Bellingham.
Brenner stated the pipeline is already in the UGA. This is an exception because of
the location on a major highway and at a traffic light. There are ways to cross the highway
at this intersection. There are many restaurants that are larger than 5,000 square feet.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Weimer and Mann (2)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC TITLE 20, TO ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH
SERVICES IN THE RESORT COMMERCIAL ZONE (RC) - AB2011 -128 (8:00:28
PM)
Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, stated he
received a letter addressed to the Planning Commissioners about an amendment to the
resort commercial zone. They updated the proposed code to require a conditional use
permit if the use is proposed for Birch Bay Drive. He submitted the letter (on file).
Crawford opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont Street, Bellingham, stated he asks the Council to approve
the staff recommendation. Many jurisdictions have increased the size for their retail
establishments in their neighborhood commercial zones. The neighborhood commercial
zones have not worked, because the maximum allowable sizes are not big enough. The
businesses need to be bigger to survive.
Dimon Nikon, citizen, stated he is an architect and planner who has lived in Birch
Bay for 18 years. He is against the proposal for the Birch Bay area. The community has
worked to make Birch Bay pedestrian - friendly, with which these types of businesses aren't
compatible.
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
Rory Hendrickson, 8121 Harborview Road, Blaine, stated he owns property across
from the waterslide in Birch Bay, and he would like to put in a drive - through coffee shop on
the property.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
(8 :12:09 PM)
Brenner asked if Mr. Nikon's comments are for the entire Birch Bay area, or just
Birch Bay Drive. They're very different.
Nikon stated his comments were about the resort commercial zone, which is all
about the pedestrians.
Brenner stated they should allow the use off Birch Bay Drive. On Birch Bay Drive,
the issue should go to the Birch Bay Steering Committee.
Kershner moved adopt the ordinance with one amendment to 20.64.193, 'Retail
shops, resort related uses and restaurants on Birch Bay Drive with eF without drive through
services with a maximum of 5,000 square foot maximum per shop."
Brenner asked if a conditional use would go through the Birch Bay Steering
Committee. Cleanthus stated it would not. They could submit comments at the hearing.
Weimer asked if coffee shops are included as a restaurant in this language.
Cleanthus stated he would have to check the definition for restaurants, but they could
interpret coffee shops as being restaurants.
Kershner amended her motion and moved to adopt the ordinance with
amendments:
• 20.64.055 "Restaurants or coffee shops with or without drive through service;
provided, that a minimum of 50 percent of the seating is inside and any
outdoor seating is screened from adjacent properties and streets, except as
provided by 20.64.193."
20.64.193 "Retail shops, resort related uses and restaurants or coffee shops
on Birch Bay Drive with OF withou drive through services with a aj eF
5,000 square foot maximum per shop."
Mann asked the location of all the resort commercial zones. Cleanthus stated they
are at Birch Bay Drive, Point Roberts, and Glacier. There may be one in Sudden Valley.
Crawford stated the Sudden Valley zone is going to change to a small town
commercial zone.
Weimer stated he sat through hours of discussion in Birch Bay about the Birch Bay
berm and Birch Bay Drive, and the community's emphasis on making it a very pedestrian -
friendly area. They have not heard from the Birch Bay Transportation Committee. He
would like to exempt Birch Bay Drive from this until the Council can have a discussion with
the Birch Bay Transportation Committee.
Brenner suggested they include language to except Birch Bay Drive.
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
Weimer moved to amend Exhibit A:
20.64.053 "Retail shops and resort related uses with or without drive through
services no greater than 5,000 square feet in area per shop, eceept a-s
pFevided by . Drive through services shall not be allowed on Birch
Bay Drive."
• 20.64.055 "Restaurants or coffee shops with or without drive through service;
provided, that a minimum of 50 percent of the seating is inside and any
outdoor seating is screened from adjacent properties and streets, was
pr-evided by . Drive through services shall not be allowed on Birch
Bay Drive."
20.64.193 "Retail ^h,^_ps, FeseFt Felated use and — re,taUFants . ,.,,Fc .,fee sheps
Brenner stated the Council can allow the use on Birch Bay Drive another time if the
Birch Bay Steering Committee wants to bring it forward. People have put years of their
time into the Birch Bay Drive area. The County has spent a fortune. She would like to
know the Steering Committee's opinion before moving on this. She likes the idea of
allowing this in other areas of Birch Bay.
Kershner asked if the Birch Bay Steering Committee participating when this was
before the Planning Commission. Cleanthus stated Kathy Berg attended, and the Glacier
Chamber of Commerce supported the proposal.
Crawford stated they've heard from members of the Steering Committee, which
reviewed this and recommend the conditional use process for Birch Bay Drive. He doesn't
recall anyone suggesting an outright ban on drive - through restaurants until tonight.
Brenner stated she is concerned about whether people from Birch Bay actually
represented the Steering Committee.
Crawford stated he doesn't recall anyone who represented the Steering Committee.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
The motion to adopt with amendments carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
CONSENT AGENDA (8:31:18 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through three, six, and seven. Items four and five
were withdrawn from the agenda.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
(Clerk's Note: The Council later voted on Consent Agenda item two acting as the
Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. See below.)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST DATA SUPPORT
FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY NPDES PHASE
II STORMWATER AND LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,500 - AB2011 -136
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TETRA TECH, INC. FOR BIRCH
BAY CHARACTERIZATION AND WATERSHED PLANNING PILOT — URBAN
STORMWATER SUBWATERSHED MASTER PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $156,458
- AB2011 -137
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY TO
SUPPORT THE NORTHWEST HIDTA BORDER TASK FORCE PROSECUTION
INITIATIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,351 - AB2011 -138
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
UNIVERSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY FOOD SENSE
PROGRAM FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,515
- AB2011 -139
5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
UNIVERSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY FOOD SENSE
PROGRAM FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$22,395 - AB2011 -140
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD THE BID AND
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SINGLE SOURCE BIDDER, THE BELLINGHAM
HERALD, FOR OFFICIAL PRINTING SERVICES - AB2011 -141
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #11 -20
FOR ON -CALL CONTRACTOR/ EQUIPMENT FOR LABOR AND RENTAL OF
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO ALL BIDDERS, WITH THE INTENT OF
OBTAINING FIRM PRICING AND TO ENSURE PREVAILING WAGES ARE PAID
ON ALL ON -CALL PROJECTS IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT COULD BE MORE
THAN $35,000 FOR A SINGLE VENDOR - AB2011 -142
OTHER ITEMS
1. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT,
CONCURRENT WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, OF CRAIG FUNSTON, TO
THE BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITIES BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS - AB2011 -143 (8 :32 :01 PM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 8
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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE
ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES)
GREATER THAN 500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A
CUMULATIVE RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100 KILOWATTS - AB2011 -145
(8:32:22 PM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
CONSENT AGENDA
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TETRA TECH, INC. FOR BIRCH
BAY CHARACTERIZATION AND WATERSHED PLANNING PILOT — URBAN
STORMWATER SUBWATERSHED MASTER PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $156,458
- AB2011 -137
(Clerk's Note: The Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone
District Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda item two.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER ITEMS
3. APPROVAL OF LETTER TO BE SENT TO WASHINGTON STATE ELECTED
OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - AB2011 -027
(8:35:43 PM)
Knutzen explained the intent of the letter. The Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE) is trying to take over the dairy nutrient management program from the
Department of Agriculture. This letter is in support of the Conservation Districts. He
proposes that the letter be sent to the Governor, Department of Agriculture Director,
Senator Erickson, Representatives Buys and Overstreet, Conservation District Executive
Director Boggs, and Department of Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant.
Brenner stated the Conservation District provides the services in a financially
efficient way. Farmers, especially in the dairy industry, have a very positive relationship
with the Conservation District. It would be costlier for other departments to provide the
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 9
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
service. There are ways to find the money in other places. George Boggs says the letter is
excellent. The Department of Ecology didn't want this program in 2003. The Department of
Agriculture has done an exceptional job. Support what they're doing.
Kershner asked what happened to the relationship.
Knutzen stated the Department of Ecology contend that the Conservation Districts
weren't doing an adequate job with the farm plans.
Mann stated he hesitates wading into a turf battle at the State level without knowing
the full story. The Conservation District is great.
Weimer stated he supports the Conservation District but not the letter. The
Department of Ecology letter explained the bureaucratic disconnect between which water
quality manual they will use. He agrees it's a bureaucratic argument for which the County
Council hasn't heard both sides.
Brenner stated this isn't about Ecology versus the Conservation District. This is
about protecting local farmers by working with an organization they've already worked well
with for years. It's not about a bureaucratic fight. Don't do anything to ruin the
relationship between the farmers and the Conservation District.
Knutzen stated that for the past three years, Ecology has brought in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to inspect dairies. It's inefficient for several
jurisdictions repeat work and all take time to supervise these dairies during a time of budget
cuts. The farmers in the community want the Council to take a stand for the Conservation
District.
Weimer stated he agrees that the Conservation District ought to do this technical
assistance to the farmers. However, that's not what the letter is about. They are crossing
many issues in the letter. He's uncomfortable with that without knowing what the letter
addresses.
Crawford stated he is in favor of a simpler letter in support of the Conservation
District. In writing a letter to the Governor, be very clear about the exact nature of the
issue and be very factual in characterizing that issue. He doesn't have command of the
facts in this situation, so he's not comfortable sending the letter. It goes too far to assert
that the State should close other offices. Councilmembers may write letters on their own.
Brenner stated the letter doesn't tell the State to close other offices. It suggests
that the State may do that if it needs to find money. George Boggs wouldn't approve of the
letter if it included something misleading.
Kershner stated she wants to support the Conservation District by making this letter
simpler. Put forward the Council's support of the Conservation District and hope that issues
are resolved. Don't try to help the State agencies resolve their issues.
Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Kershner. He would support the letter if
paragraphs three through six were removed from the letter. The letter doesn't have to
delve into what issues may be going on behind the scenes. Simply make the letter a
statement of support.
Brenner moved to approve sending the letter without paragraphs three through six.
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 10
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 read the letter into the record.
Kershner stated send the letter also to Representatives Lytton and Morris and
Senator Ranker.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (8:55:05 PM)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20,
THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES
RELATED TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING - AB2010 -072C
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a handout
(on file) and gave a staff report on actions from the Special Committee of the Whole
meeting earlier in the day. He described changes made to the findings, Comprehensive Plan
policy 2MM -10, the zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps for Acme, Laurel, Hinotes Corner,
Emerald Lake, and Birch Bay Lynden & I5. He made the changes from earlier today
regarding building sizes in various zones. One building named Specified Fittings is shown
with multiple buildings built next to each other than could be considered one building.
Brenner stated there should be a statement that it is one building. Davis stated they
can add that to the findings in a motion. It's common for the Assessor's Office to separate
uses even if they're adjacent.
Brenner stated it's one building with different functions within that building. That's
how the Assessor separates it by function, but not by the building. Make it clear that it's
one building with different uses inside.
Knutzen moved to amend to change rural industrial manufacturing (RIM) zone
section 20.69.301, "Except as otherwise... shall not exceed 12,000 22,000 square feet or a
size that is consistent with the size, scale, use or intensity of similar uses that existed on
July 1, 1990 within the areas currently zoned RIM and designated as a rural community."
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to amend, "...shall not
exceed 12,000 22,000 square feet or a larger size that is consistent...." Make the intent
clear to accommodate someone who needs a larger building.
Knutzen did not accept the friendly amendment.
Kershner asked if staff can interpret the language to not allow a building of that size.
Knutzen amended his motion and moved to amend the rural industrial
manufacturing (RIM) zone section 20.69.301, "Except as otherwise... shall not exceed 12,909
22,000 square feet or a larger size that is if consistent with the size, scale, use or intensity
of similar uses that existed on July 1, 1990 within the areas currently zoned RIM and
designated as a rural community."
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 11
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
Kershner stated make that change in all the language regarding building size.
Crawford stated the proposal is to do an allowable building size based on analysis in
the RIM zone, which is based on the Specified Fittings building that was one building in
1986, or a number of buildings connected by a roof system. That is the reason they can
consider that building size in the RIM zone. Based on the research, that size existed before
1990.
Mann stated interpreting this code will be very difficult. It's not streamlined and
efficient. He preferred they pick a number and stick with it.
Crawford stated his concern is alleviated based on Mr. Davis's suggestion. If
someone wants a building that is 26,000 square feet, staff could allow it if it is based on
similar uses. That burden of proof would not fall on staff. It would fall to the applicant.
Mann stated it would fall to the staff to judge what the applicant provided, which is
subject to interpretation and appeals.
Crawford stated staff can be objective if someone demonstrated whether something
existed.
Larson asked why they would not use the size of the Specified Fittings building
instead of 22,000 square feet.
Knutzen stated he's willing to go with staff's proposal of 22,000 square feet.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Kershner moved to change all sections in the code that deal with building sizes
"...square feet or a larger size that is if consistent with...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Brenner stated change the columns in the handout to indicate that some of the
structures listed are one building, and that the Assessor separated the sizes by use, not by
structure size. Davis stated the handout is background information. He can make the
change. Staff can research the correct building sizes. This is just supplemental
information. It's not a finding.
Brenner stated this background supports the reasons the Council made its changes.
This should be a part of the record.
Brenner moved to reconsider a motion made in Committee of the Whole regarding
the residential overlay in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
The motion to reconsider failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 12
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
(9:26:14 PM)
Knutzen moved to accept the Introduction Items, including item two as just
amended.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FOURTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,016,482 - AB2011 -144
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20,
THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES
RELATED TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING - AB2010 -072C
3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL PLANNING TASK
FORCE - AB2011 -078A
4. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER THAN
500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A CUMULATIVE
RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100 KILOWATTS - AB2011 -145A
OTHER BUSINESS (9:26:56 PM)
Brenner stated the Council has introduced a resolution about forming a Jail
Committee. Anyone can suggest changes. Applicants can apply at the Executive's Office.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (9 :27 :50 PM)
Weimer stated he is going to Washington D.C. next week to address transportation
issues.
Knutzen stated he was in Olympia last week with the Washington State University
(WSU) Cooperative Extension Reorganization Committee. He's concerned that the Food
Sense program won't be funded.
Crawford stated the Bellingham City Council proposed joint Council meetings on the
Emergency Management Services (EMS) issue. He proposed discussing that option in
Committee of the Whole in two weeks.
Brenner stated the Olympic Coordinating Council is moving fast. Work with the Port
Commissioners as soon as possible to work with them on a better outcome.
Roxanne Michaels, Planning and Development Services Department, stated a
Planning Commission work session on changes to the rural element Comprehensive Plan
policy is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on Monday, April 25 in the County Council Chambers, and
a Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. that evening, also in the
Council Chambers. The work session will be on only the changes to the original Planning
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
26
27
Commission recommendation regarding the Comprehensive Plan policies and
Comprehensive Plan maps.
Crawford stated the Council may have a work session on April 26. It will have a
public hearing on April 26 during the regular County Council meeting. If there are more
changes to the Comprehensive Plan portion of the rural element, the Council may have to
introduce those changes on April 26 and have another hearing on May 10 that is just on any
Comprehensive Plan changes.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 4/12/2011, Page 14