HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 25 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
Planning and Development Committee
October 25, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (3:02:29 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Tony Larson, Sam Crawford and Kathy Kershner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. REVIEW OF DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE, LYNDEN,
NOOKSACK AND SUMAS RELATING TO PLANNING, ANNEXATION AND
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS (AB2011 -340)
Matt Aamott, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and stated they've developed a draft interlocal agreement template that the County would
modify for each City. The Council can hold a public hearing on December 6, so the
Executive and Mayors can sign the agreements by the end of the year.
He described the different sections in the interlocal agreement draft template.
The following people answered questions:
• Amy Harksell, City of Lynden, submitted a handout (on file)
• Roxanne Michaels, Planning and Development Services Department
• Jori Burnett, City of Ferndale
• Michael Jones, City of Blaine
• Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department
• Rollin Harper, Cities of Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas
• Greg Aucott, City of Bellingham
• Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
handout (on file)
• Clayton Petree
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of:
• Whether they can make a transfer of development right (TDR) program
mandatory.
• Whether the Cities are working with the County to update their flood codes.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether all annexations would be done
by property owner petition. Include that requirement in the template.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/25/2011, 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
Mann referenced Section 2. He asked and there was discussion of:
• Why they would use the middle projection, and not the range of projections,
from the Office of Financial Management (OFM).
• He asked about the source of the idea for minimum urban densities.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of:
• Whether the City has to agree to an urban growth area (UGA) expansion.
• The reason for formalizing the Growth Management Coordinating Council.
Brenner moved to amend the draft of Section 2, item E, "...appreval consideration."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner asked and there was discussion on whether Section 2(E) is countywide, and
whether the County should decide on the countywide population projection.
Knutzen referenced Section 2.M. He asked and there was discussion of:
• Whether this subsection will address the Title 17 flood code update and the
levee program.
• Whether they can charge impact fees to schools, regardless of Growth
Management Act (GMA) compliance.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether Section 4.A addresses the
County's adopted zones within the urban growth areas.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of protecting property owners from eminent
domain during annexation.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of permit extensions.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether the 10 -year reimbursement for
public facilities is a disincentive for cities to annex.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of extending services and annexing areas.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of establishing a $50,000 sales tax
threshold.
Knutzen stated work out a transfer of development rights (TDR) program if they can.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the source of the language regarding a
TDR program and setbacks in Section 11.B and 11.C.
Brenner moved to amend the draft of Section 11.B, "...annexation areas as
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/25/2011, 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
Kershner asked and there was discussion of:
• The impact of the amendments to cities other than Lynden.
• If the City of Lynden wants to give up the control to decide agricultural
setbacks.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of deleting Section 11.0 and replacing it,
"The County and the City will work together to come up with a mutually agreeable solution
to setbacks," or deleting the second and third sentences in section 11.C.
Lutz stated this is really about the border between designated agricultural lands, not
between the urban area and UGA.
Harksell asked that it be in writing that designated agricultural resource lands does
not include agricultural -zoned land in established urban growth areas and urban growth
reserves. Lutz stated that is what the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) says for the
buffer issue. That is fine for the buffer issue.
Harksell said that the key issue is that the County designated 100,000 agricultural
acres, but they have less than that. Now, 600 of those acres are in her urban growth area.
The land is designated twice, once for urban uses and once for rural and agricultural uses.
That doesn't make sense.
Harper stated amend language so it identifies "100,000 acres excluding urban
growth areas and urban growth area reserves."
Brenner asked and there was discussion of amending the language in the agricultural
protection overlay (APO) to include land of long -term commercial significance.
Knutzen asked staff to address the setback issue in Section 11.0 further and bring
something back to the Committee.
(4:48:17 PM)
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of how Section 12.D on mineral resource
lands (MRL) will affect the Nooksack pit.
Brenner referenced Section 12.C. She asked and there was discussion of whether
they can use the open space /open space designation as offsite mitigation.
Aamot described the next steps, including a public hearing on December 6.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE 20.14 WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Mann stated this item would be held in committee.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Kershner stated she submitted a draft response to the City of Bellingham. She
hopes the councilmembers will review it and discuss it at the evening meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/25/2011, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Crawford stated and there was discussion of getting input from the Executive and the
Planning Department.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
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
Planning and Development Committee, 10/25/2011, Page 4