HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole February 17 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
Special Committee Of The Whole
February 17, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen and Tony Larson.
Absent: Ken Mann, Kathy Kershner and Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING 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
(AB2010 -072A)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, answered questions
and gave a staff report.
Discussion included when it's appropriate in this process to change zoning
boundaries and limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) boundaries.
Laurel Map
Davis described the background of and proposal for this area.
The following people spoke:
• Gary Honcoop, 5977 Guide Meridian, spoke and answered questions. He
stated his property is adjacent to the school. The impact comes from
proposed increased setbacks. He will lose a significant amount of property.
He doesn't have a concern about the school's proposed zone, as long as it
doesn't impact adjacent properties. One of the impacts is the landscaping
requirement differences between the two zones. His existing septic field falls
within the buffer. It can stay, but the Health Department wants a larger
repair area, outside the buffer.
• Mary Dickinson, 2933 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, stated contact the school
district to see what zone they want and find out their future, long -term plans.
Make them aware of this process.
• Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated they are supposed to be updating the rural
element, but they're talking about site - specific rezones. That's not what the
Growth Management Act (GMA) process. This isn't an opportunity for
individual property owners to advocate for their individual interest. There is a
reason they make property and uses nonconforming. They are supposed to
Special Committee of the Whole — Rural Element, 2/17/2011, 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
eventually go away. Balance the interest of the property owners with the
interest of the public. Put more emphasis on protecting agricultural land and
rural land from sprawl, and less emphasis on what property owners want.
Discussion included the School District's opinion of the proposed LAMIRD area;
rezoning the High School property; the LAMIRD status of properties owned by specific
citizens; permitted uses in the rural general commercial (RGC) zone; the purpose of
nonconforming uses; whether it's appropriate right now to tweak zones to reflect what
existed in 1990; removing the general commercial (GC) zone from properties; making the
east LAMIRD boundary the same as the current zoning boundary; whether the entire
property owned by Carol Burton should be included in the LAMIRD boundary, or only the
property with historic and current use, and; creating an abnormally irregular boundary.
Pole Road & Guide Meridian Map (1 :00:09 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Knutzen recused himself from the discussion and left
the room, due to his ownership of property in this area. There was no quorum during this
portion of the meeting.)
Davis described the background of and proposal for this area.
Discussion included the LAMIRD status of properties owned by specific citizens and
the effect of the proposed rural residential (RR) density overlay.
Wiser Lake Map (1 :17 :39 PM)
Davis described the background of and proposal for this area.
The following person spoke and answered questions:
• Lesa Starkenberg, Hytech Roofing Representative, stated this is just like a
Pole Road property that staff decided to place in the general commercial zone.
This is an opportunity to make the zoning match the actual use, rather than
go through a site specific rezone. It's not a spot zone, because there is
commercial zoning across the road. This is not a location for residential
zoning.
Discussion included the LAMIRD status of properties owned by specific citizens; the
reason the Planning Commission ended up with RR2 zoning on the west side of the Guide,
and; the size of the Hytech and Mariad lots, which are both under the same ownership.
Knutzen moved to change the Hytech Roofing and Mariad LLC properties, to change
the two northern -most horizontal properties on the west side of the Guide from R2A to RGC.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen and Larson (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann, Kershner and Weimer (3)
Wiser Lake East (1 :37 :21 PM)
Davis described the background of and proposal for this area.
Special Committee of the Whole - Rural Element, 2/17/2011, 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
Discussion included the status of a property from received comments; the reason for
a split -zone of a six -acre parcel rather than go around the property line, and; whether this
is not a LAMIRD because of the rural, two -acre zoning.
Hinotes Corner (1:43:13 PM)
Davis described the background of and proposal for this area.
Discussion included the historical naming of Hinotes Corner; the LAMIRD status of
properties owned by specific citizens; street improvements, and; water line sizes in the area
in 1990; how the staff determine where to apply the overlays and LAMIRD boundary.
Knutzen moved to include two parcels to the north of E. Pole Road and east of
current LAMIRD boundary east of Hannegan Road and rezone to Small Town Commercial
(STC).
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to only include a sliver of land owned
by Mohinder at 988 E. Pole Road on the west side of the west, by extending the LAMIRD line
to E. Pole Road.
Knutzen did not accept the friendly amendment. He withdrew his motion.
The following person spoke
• Paul Isaacson, 3940 Isaacson Road, asked how the staff decides where to
place the LAMIRD boundary in relation to average parcel size. The boundary
lines are very subjective.
General Comments (2:22:08 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Honcoop spoke regarding the Laurel area. The LAMIRD boundary should
follow the existing zoning line, and not split parcels. A concern regarding the
church property is that it may become vacant for more than 12 months,
which would end the allowed church use, leaving a vacant church building.
The community wants to know what else can go in that building, under the
allowed zoning. Commercial use would be very limited. The only thing that
can go into that structure is something allowed in the R5A zone, as a
conditional use. Appropriately zone it now, so the building won't become
derelict. A 12,000 square foot building limit discourages potential new
owners. He will comment on Title 20 when appropriate.
• Clayton Petree, Bellingham, spoke on the Hinotes Corner map. A zone of R2A
in the LAMIRD, but the built density is four units per acre. He asked if the
adjacent property owners will only be able to build to R2A. They should be
able to infill within the LAMIRD at the higher density. Review the density of all
the areas within the LAMIRD boundary. He asked about the method for
calculating density in an overlay, with the 500 foot diameter and whether that
would also apply to LAMIRD areas. When looking at the overlay boundary,
consider the entire zoning base boundary area. For any area built more
dense than the base density, they should average the developed lots
throughout the entire zoning boundary. Figure out which lots are more dense
than five acres, and average them, to determine the character of the area
and the density people should be allowed to subdivide to. Do that as an
alternative to 500 feet. Also, many partially developed areas, done after
Special Committee of the Whole - Rural Element, 2/17/2011, 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
1990, were removed from the urban growth areas. Those areas were
guaranteed to be allowed to be developed for 20 years. It is not a goal of
nonconforming uses to return them to their original use. An overlay may be
an answer, since they were built to an urban density after 1990. Figure out
what to do with those types of areas. Last, he agreed with the comments
about the limiting 12,000 square foot building size.
• Isaacson stated staff are picking and choosing the information they want to
use, such as lot averaging. Sacrifice the deadline to consider everything they
need to consider.
• Dickinson, Mary Dickinson Law Office, PLLC, stated she represents the
Isaacson family in the Emerald Lake area. According to the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), they must develop a record, which includes
talking to individual property owners. Regarding the Isaacson family
property, it's slated for the largest downzone by 568 acres. They should not
have the burden of rural character throughout this process, to benefit the rest
of the County. Last, a Thurston County Supreme Court case says a county
may consider local circumstances.
Discussion included whether they can continue to talk about overlays in the future
and the upcoming meeting schedule on this issue. This would be scheduled again on
Tuesday, February 22, 2011.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
119
3
3 Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
3
3 official, signed copy:
3
31 360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
39
40 Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole - Rural Element, 2/17/2011, Page 4