HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 16 20101
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
March 16, 2010
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
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner
Absent: None
Also Present: Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Sam Crawford
OTHER BUSINESS
Knutzen stated the Council will schedule an April 12 or April 15 meeting of all urban
growth area (UGA) parties.
Crawford stated the purpose of the meeting is to talk about the timeframe issue and
the details of what the County needs to get done to have a defensible position on another
look at the UGA's. They will have a talk about what the appellants want and what the
Council's concerns are. They will do this in a very public process. The folks in the
community made it clear there is too much at stake to work on deals quietly. The venue
will allow everyone to sit at the table.
Dominique Zervas, Ferndale, Sumas, Nooksack, and Caitac attorney, asked if this is
characterized as a public hearing or just a meeting.
Crawford stated it is not a public hearing so far, but the Council would like an
opportunity to talk about County concerns, issues, and priorities to develop the best
outcome possible, and also allow time for the appellants to state their cases, with the idea
of creating a dialog. They have been granted an extension of time to work toward some
kind of resolution. He hopes to allow appellants to attend, present, and dialog. He doesn't
know if there will be a back - and -forth discussion.
Brenner asked if Ms. Zervas represents Caitac collectively with Ferndale, Sumas, and
Nooksack. Zervas stated there are about 20 parties in this matter. The petition for Caitac
is separate from the petitions from the cities. Everyone has different interests, and need to
be represented separately.
Weimer asked who would run this meeting. He asked if they need an independent,
third party to run the meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, 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
Crawford stated he has an appointment with a professional facilitator to talk about
that issue. One of the challenges of a facilitated meeting is all the history. The level of
complexity of these issues will make it difficult for a facilitator to have the good judgment to
direct conversation.
Brenner stated the County councilmembers are as diverse as it can get, and can run
the meeting, rather than have someone else run it.
Crawford stated it will be advertised and run as some kind of Council meeting.
Jack Petree, citizen, asked that the meeting be held sooner. Anything that goes to
settlement after April 1 has a 60 -day review by the Department of Commerce. They will
already be past the 90 -day extension. The law allows a board member from another
Hearings Board to facilitate.
Crawford stated let staff look into that issue, and don't decide it today. On another
issue, the City of Bellingham has extended time limits for plat approval. The County Council
is requested to do the same. He submitted information (on file). In two weeks, introduce
an ordinance, and have a hearing in four weeks. He read the title of the proposed
ordinance.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY MAYFLOWER EQUITIES, INC. FOR
"MONTEREY HEIGHTS" (PUD2007- 0001), PRELIMINARY LONG
SUBDIVISION (LSS2005 -0004) (AB2010 -122)
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2010 (AB2010 -113A)
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
The following person answered questions:
• David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director
Discussion included whether they can do this before the rural element; staff time;
adding items to the docket; allowing the Planning Director to submit changes at any time of
the year; the rationale used to rezone some folks near Birch Bay from urban residential,
four units per acre (UR4) to rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A); the affect of adding items
to the docket list on staff time and effects to other existing work items in the department;
not working on the agricultural program update, item 2008 -G; alternatives to help the
agricultural community; staff hours allocated to the agricultural program update; whether
the process allows the Council from changing the existing docket; whether the County loses
any funding by removing the Parks component in the plan; staff hours allocated to the Parks
amendment; whether or not the areas in the UGA petitions should be included on the
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, 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
docket; staff time allocated to PLN 2010 - 00005; the number and types of private
applications to the docket; the requirement to review mineral resource lands (MRLs) in
2011; whether docket items 2009 -G and 2008 -M were done when the Council made the
UGA decision last year, and if they are supposed to have concurrency in place; docketing
settlement issues whether or not they are settled; working on items regardless of whether
they are docketed; whether it is appropriate to docket the UGA petition applicants; whether
there is water and sewer service at Vista Malloy;
Brenner moved to amend to add the two items on the top of Council packet page
288 to the docket: the Council Initiation of zoning amendments and Rezone R10A to R5A in
Birch Bay. If they need to make room on the staff's workload, don't do lot consolidation
and the Parks amendment this year. Delay them until later.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend to remove lot consolidation item 2009 -H from the list.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Mann (1)
Brenner moved to amend the agricultural program update description on Council
packet page 294 to delete the entire description except the last sentence.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend the docket to delete docket #PLN2010- 00005, a rezone
from agriculture to rural, applied by Gerard /Stoner.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann (1)
Nays: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
The following people spoke:
• Lisa Starkenburg - Kroontje, Attorney, spoke on an MRL application.
• Cal Leenstra, 514 S. State Street, stated docket the Yew Street UGA.
• Dominique Zervas, 709 Dupont Street, stated docket Vista Malloy in Ferndale
and Caitac.
• Jack Swanson, Beachmont Representative, stated docket the Beachmont
application.
Kershner stated they could add these UGA requests to a provisional docket.
Brenner moved to amend to docket Ferndale UGA -Vista Malloy, PLN 2010 - 00011.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated she is concerned about structuring a
provisional docket. The Council needs to decide at what point settlement succeeds or fails.
If settlement fails, the Council would have to decide at what point Caitac would pay for the
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, 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
now - docketed application, unless the Council is saying that the application is only docketed
for consideration in the context of settlement. If that is the case, the applicant would not
pay Comprehensive Plan amendment application fees. She is concerned that, absent some
bright line, it will get fuzzy in terms of when private applicants settle and when there is a
full Comprehensive Plan amendment docket item.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann and Knutzen (2)
The motion to recommend approval of the resolution as amended carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
CLARIFY AND REVISE THE DEFINITION AND STANDARDS OF HOME
OCCUPATIONS (AB2010 -047)
Brenner moved to recommend approval and moved to amend 20.84.150(5) on
Council packet page 308, ,
equipment. There shall be no change ...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Discussion included the differences between a home occupation and people living
their normal lives in the home; differentiating between number of employees and number of
full -time equivalent (FTE) employees; balancing neighbor concerns versus allowing business
owners to work; square feet limitations; a potential inconsistency of the threshold between
home occupation and cottage industry; creating a proposal for a fee structure for the
second tier administrative review for cottage industries, rather than changing this
ordinance. lot sizes in the rural residential and rural residential, island zones; making
exceptions to preserve older buildings; setting standards for exceptions, and; whether
three -phase motors are only used on an industrial scale.
The following people answered questions:
• Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department
• Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department
Knutzen moved to amend 20.84.150(2) on Council packet page 307, "No more
than two people at one time, other than household members...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
The following people spoke:
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, 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
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated square footage shouldn't
matter. The impact comes from the employees. He likes the idea of
specifying the employee FTE number. Set the gross weight at 105,500
pounds to accommodate a logging truck or large equipment operators.
Encourage that kind of thing. They are talking about rural areas. Don't
specify between two -phase and three -phase motors. He agrees with
comments from Richard Gilda.
Roger Almskaar, 233 S. State Street, stated the changes so far are good. He
asked why one can't have a home occupation as a permitted use in certain
zones. Remove reference to the rural residential zone and rural residential,
island zone out of 20.84.150(4). A lot of land in those zones are larger than
five acres. Also change the gross vehicle weight as Mr. Wiesen
recommended. Don't apply a vehicle size limit to the rural residential and
rural residential, island zones. Amend language in 20.84.150(7)(1)(b and c),
"...nominal five acres...."
Dan Watkins, citizen, answered questions about the gross weight of a dump
truck and other heavy equipment.
Brenner moved to amend 20.84.150(7)(1):
• Amend subsection (a), "(a) On a lot of record one acre or less in the RR, RRT
€!, YR, URM, and YRMX; two vehicles, each of which shall not exceed 60,000
lbs. gvw, and which may include heavy equipment."
• Add a new subsection in the place of subsection (b) "(b) On a lot of record
which is one acre or greater in the RR or RR -I zone, two vehicles which may
include heavy equipment regardless of weight."
• Renumber all the existing subsections (b -d) from smaller to larger lot sizes.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend 20.84.150(4), "In all zones except ... home occupations
shall not exceed a total of 1250 square feet of buildings or floor area, whether located in the
dwelling, accessory structure(s) or combinations thereof. Exceptions shall be made in cases
where buildings existed before 1975. In the RR, RR- I...."
Harrison stated Dick Gilda suggests the exception is for accessory buildings only, not
the residential building. This puts staff in a position of making capricious decisions. There
are no standards or limits for those exceptions. There is still an inconsistency.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to amend 20.84.150(4), "In all zones
except ... home occupations shall not exceed a total of 1250 square feet of buildings or floor
area, whether located in the dwelling, accessory structure(s) or combinations thereof.
Accessory buildings up to 8,000 square feet, if they were constructed before 1975, would
still be considered a home occupation. In the RR, RR- I...." Let the staff craft the exact
language.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen stated that staff can incorporate these amendments into an updated
version, and bring it back to the committee in two weeks.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
19
20
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Bill Knutzen, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/16/2010, Page 6