HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Feburary 22 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 22, 2011
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 (3:00:06 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Sam Crawford, Carl Weimer and Kathy Kershner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING A PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING MAP FROM RURAL 5 (RSA) TO LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) ON
35 ACRES WITHIN THE RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
(AB2011 -088)
Brenner asked why this is scheduled because they usually don't have a discussion in
committee.
Crawford stated that previously, the plat map was just brought to the Council Chair
for signature. There has been a change in policy, so the Council now needs to look at the
rezone. They can't take in any new information. This is not a Hearing Examiner appeal.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and stated the open record hearing was at the Hearing Examiner's office a few months ago.
The Hearing Examiner made a recommendation of approval based on conditions. The public
record is closed. Staff recommended approval to the Hearing Examiner, who moved the
development agreement forward. This is a site specific rezone. There's just a
recommendation from the Hearing Examiner.
Mann asked if the Council may make changes to the development agreement.
Schroeder stated the Council may talk about it.
Knutzen moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
There was discussion regarding whether the 50 -foot setback is enough; landscape
and buffers; whether there are storage buildings, and; the purpose and location of the
proposed buildings.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, 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
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2011 -104)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file) and gave a staff report.
Bellingham UGA Expansion
Aamot described the amendment and provided maps indicating the areas.
There was discussion regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan review; the staff
workload; prioritizing these amendments;
Knutzen moved to recommend approval of City of Bellingham UGA Expansion in the
King Mountain area.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: None (0)
Nays: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Lincoln Road Rezone
Aamot described the amendment.
There was discussion about working on this item outside of the rural element;
landowners east of Birch Bay who expressed concerns about the November 2009 downzone;
the City of Blaine not recommending higher densities; working first on the rural element;
whether one person owns the parcel; whether they can change the suggested amendments;
Lisa Starkenburg- Kroontje, Lynden, stated she is not working on this amendment,
but is working with a property owner regarding one that is coming up. The decision made
on this one will impact her property owner. When the properties were rezoned from urban
residential, four units per acre (UR4) to rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A), the property
owners were caught off guard. There wasn't any public notice to them. The more time that
goes by, the more people perceive they're receiving an upzone. In fact, they're just
correcting the discrepancy in how far downzoned they were. People are going to forget that
these folks experienced a significant impact. They are asking to come back to something
that preserves a zoning that allows their property to be planned in future years in a more
urban manner. Docketing this request will allow the Council to consider the entire area as a
whole. Handling these on a case -by -case basis, they may end up with spot zones.
Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated it's hard to imagine a worse place to put more
development. There is a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study in Drayton Harbor. There
is commercial shell fishing. Tribal rights could be impacted. The reason for going through
this process is to protect their natural resources. They are revisiting the rural element to
make sure these degraded areas can be restored. This isn't just about what property
owners want. It's in the interest in everybody. She has a right to live in a healthy and safe
environment. They have to look at the rights of the public as well. Also, zoning is not a
property right. No one is entitled to compensation for zoning changes. They have the
easiest vesting laws in the country. If people haven't vested their rights, they are subject
to zoning changes. Zoning is meant to change, be flexible, and reflect the needs of the
community. Zoning is a potential investment. Consider the interest in everybody, not just
the property owners. Consider the sensitivity of the area.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, 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
53
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated people who live in the rural
areas pay a higher property tax than Bellingham residents. They are going to allow more
people to move to the rural areas. He will have to pay for that. He asked why government
doesn't really describe the choices to the residents.
Knutzen moved to recommend approval.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen (1)
Nays: Mann and Brenner (2)
Drayton Harbor Area Rezone
Aamot described the amendment.
Discussion included changing the existing rural Comprehensive Plan designation;
whether calling these suggested rezones is a way of getting around the illegality of spot
rezones, and; how much it costs to pay for services.
Knutzen moved to recommend approval.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen (1)
Nays: Mann and Brenner (2)
Capital Facility Amendments
item.
Aamot described the amendment.
Mann moved to recommend approval.
Discussion included coordinating with the small Cities and the staff's priority for this
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Title 20 Amendments
Aamot described the amendment.
Discussion continued the staff's workload and whether this project would be more
involved than they anticipate.
Mann moved to recommend approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, Page 3
1
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
Periodic Update - Comprehensive Plan Chapters Eight Through Ten
Mann moved to recommend approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Concurrency Amendment
Knutzen moved to recommend approval.
Warner Webb, Fire Marshal, stated there are no specific implications (3:58:42 PM).
The language is bad, and needs work. Instead of getting rid of the language altogether,
work on language, get it out of the zoning code, and put it into the Comprehensive Plan is
more appropriate.
Kershner stated her proposal is to docket this item so the Planning Commission can
look at it. The issue is the letter requirement, not concurrency. They would not get rid of
the requirement for a developer to show adequate services. This is a section of the Code
that was included a long time ago, and was an umbrella for concurrency. Now that they
have the Comprehensive Plan, it is a redundant section of the code. Streamline the
permitting process. Make the Code up -to -date. It's fine if the Planning Commission decides
to just change language. It's an area that needs discussion.
There was discussion about amending instead of deleting the section and making the
language not onerous to the developer.
Brenner suggested they amend the description, "Suggested amendment to delete
amend to create a better, more workable process for all"
Larry Moore, Deming, Fire District 14 Fire Commissioner, stated don't change this
application for concurrency and a will -serve letter. Their volunteer fire department is all
volunteer. They cannot provide an urban level of service. Leave the District the ability to
write a will -serve letter if possible.
Doug Campbell, attorney, stated they should have the discussion. He supports
approving this item.
Brenner moved to amend the description, "Suggested amendment to delete amend
to create a better, more workable process for all"
Harris stated there is confusion between capital facility requirements and
concurrency. Concurrency puts a time relationship. It means the money is there for the
proper level of services at the time of the development. Service providers should determine
whether or not there is sufficient funding and infrastructure to provide the level of service.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Mann (1)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, 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
53
The motion to recommend approval as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Mann (1)
Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Expansion - Lummi Island
Aamot described the amendment.
Discussion included whether mining is currently going on in this location; whether
they can change an MRL if there is a Comprehensive Plan violation; the impacts of an MRL;
the reclamation plan for the gravel pit, and; whether the Council can hold this item.
Meredith Lynch, Lummi Island, submitted and read from a handout (on file) and
stated the property owner has mined beyond the MRL boundary by 125 feet in two
locations. The owners received a notice of violation and are appealing their notice of
violation.
Lesa Starkenburg, Owner Representative, stated the owner is mining within the
permit area. The MRL boundary and permit boundary is inconsistent. A survey is occurring
to determine the correct boundary. This amendment would help correct the inconsistency.
The appeal is on hold while the County and applicant can determine the process to resolve
the situation. The question today is whether there are sufficient MRL for Whatcom County's
future.
Brenner moved to hold this item in committee.
The motion to hold in committee carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
MRL Removal - Aldrich Road
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Wind Energy Systems
Brenner moved to recommend approval of re- docketing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
MRL Expansion - Saxon Road Area
Brenner moved to recommend approval of re- docketing.
Knutzen moved to hold in committee.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, 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
Motion to hold in committee carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.)
Birch Bay Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Discussion included a pending Supreme Court decision and countywide level of
service for fire services.
Webb stated much has changed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). This
amendment will address many of those changes. This was docketed last year. It went in
front of the Planning Commission, with no recommendation.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen stated this resolution would be held in committee.
MRL Expansion - Saxon Road Area
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Starkenburg stated the Saxon Road item has already gone through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. It is scheduled for a public hearing. (4 :37 :53 PM)
Re- docketing is just to continue it forward on the docket, not to make a contrary decision.
There is no additional discussion. It comes back to the Council after the Planning
Commission. The item has already been docketed. It's now in the public process.
Knutzen stated he has no problem putting the item forward, but he has some
questions about it he would like to discuss.
Aamot stated there is a Code section that says they must re- docket something that
isn't done by December 31.
Knutzen moved to rescind his motion to hold in committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to recommend approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: None (0)
Abstain: Mann (1)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, 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
Harris stated it's inappropriate to make a decision based on the advice of an attorney
for one side in a litigation.
Starkenburg stated there is no litigation.
Weimer asked for the prioritization list and Doug Goldthorp at the next meeting.
OTHER ITEMS
There were no other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
Bill Knutzen, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2011, Page 7