HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole October 12 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
October 12, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 12:32 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING FERRY FARES (AB2010 -354) (12:32 :48 PM)
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, submitted a handout on the
administrative cost allocation (on file), gave a staff report, and stated he's identified is a
ferry revenue gap. There are options to address the gap. He is seeking some direction at
some point. He would like a solution to get them through a two -year period. The target
goal is approximately $1.53 million. (12 :35 :25 PM) He read through the Council packet
documents. The current projected ferry fund balance is at a dangerous level.
Discussion included comparisons with Skagit County and Pierce County ferries, in
terms of size, distance, and number of trips; moving the dock expenses from the road fund
into the ferry maintenance line item; whether oversized vehicles are being charged the
appropriate fee; why the Lummi Tribe members are riding the ferry for fee, given the
agreement is no longer valid; whether the uses are paying their fair share of the 55
percent; whether there should be an increase in single trip summer fares; whether a bicycle
with driver should pay the same amount as a pedestrian; looking at the costs without
including costs associated with the docks; considering higher rates during peak use times;
amending the ordinance to begin charging a fare for tribal members; continuing a needs -
based fare discount; the reason for projected increases in travel, space rental, professional
services, overtime versus extra help, and the administrative cost allocation; whether they
can cross -train staff from other Public Works Department divisions to work on the ferry to
cover shifts, when necessary; the source of transfers into the budget; increasing rates on
small truck through trailers greater than 30 feet, not the individual drivers; how much work
is involved with loading a bicycle; the timing of preparing an ordinance given the Lummi
Tribe negotiations, and; increased fare costs to trucks and trailers being transferred to the
islanders.
Nelson moved to recommend that staff prepare on ordinance using option six.
Abart described the six options.
(1 :22 :28 PM)
Knutzen stated he is in favor of option six.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/12/2010, 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
Brenner stated remove docks from the 55 percent calculation, use a needs -based
discount instead of an age -based discount, and charge a bicycle and rider fare that
recognizes the increased work of ferrying a bicycle.
Kershner stated she would rather see a percentage increase to all commercial truck
traffic than a $2 across - the -board surcharge. Create a percentage that will generate the
same revenue goals and totals, and round up to the nearest dollar for administrative
efficiency.
Knutzen stated he would like to know about charging a fee to Lummi Tribal
members.
Kershner moved to amend the motion to recommend staff prepare a proposal
using a percentage increase to all commercial truck and trailer traffic than a $2 across -the-
board surcharge. Create a percentage that will generate the same revenue goals and
totals, and round up to the nearest dollar for administrative efficiency.
Nelson stated that isn't an amendment to his motion.
Kershner withdrew her motion to amend.
Crawford stated don't adopt an ordinance without a hearing. They can tweak fares,
including the increases to trucks and trailers, but the bulk of the revenue comes from cars
with drivers.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen and Nelson (3)
Nays: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Weimer (4)
Kershner moved to recommend that staff prepare a proposed rate schedule using
an approximate 50 percent rate increase across the board instead of a $2 across - the -board
surcharge, creating a percentage that will generate the same revenue goals and totals, and
round up to the nearest dollar for administrative efficiency.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Kershner and Weimer (4)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen and Nelson (3)
Brenner moved to pull out costs associated with the docks and put them back into
the road fund, as they were originally, so the overall amount needed to collect isn't as high.
Discussion included how much dock - associated costs would be and whether the ferry
docks should be considered a road instead of part of a ferry system.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Weimer (2)
Nays: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
(Clerk's Note: the Committee took a four - minute break at 1:56 p.m.)
2. 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
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/12/2010, 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
MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING
(AB2010 -072A)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report and
stated public comments are being posted on the Planning Department website. He
referenced the staff report in the Council packet.
The following people answered questions:
• Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office
• Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department
• Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department
Discussion included the current and historic definition of rural land and the Council's
reason for the amendments made during the last meeting.
Brenner moved to amend policy 2GG -4, "Rezones from
acre (R10A) zoning diStFietS te ene dwelling unit peF five acre (RSA) zening d StFiets, and
fFeng one dwelling per five acres (R5A) to one dwelling per two acres (R2A) are not
consistent with maintaining the traditional character of the surrounding rural areas and
should be discouraged."
Crawford stated he prefers the language in the memo from staff in the Council
packet on page 105. He is against the motion.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Weimer (3)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (4)
Crawford moved to approve the recommended language for Policy 2GG -4 as
proposed in the staff memo dated October 5, 2010, "Rezones within the Rural designation
should be consistent with the established rural character and densities within the area
proposed for rezoning."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Nelson and Weimer (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford moved
areas of traditional rural
residential developments
F-esi'"aca rrc;al densities less
ran =al densities, heweyeF,
contained...."
to amend policy 2GG -2, "The rural designation should include
uses and densities, which have ranged from scattered, dense
to dispersed, less dense large- acreage zoning. Generally,
kve been __tabus"._. More intensive development should be
Nelson stated policies should be accurate to be credible.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford and Kershner (2)
Nays: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Nelson and Weimer (5)
Kershner stated make sure a neighborhood convenience store can be located in a
rural area. Include that type of use as a conditional or accessory use.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/12/2010, 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
53
Brenner moved to amend policy 2GG -6 "...than the underlying zone, particularly
when necessary to protect critical areas and high value resource lands."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner and Weimer (4)
Nays: Mann, Knutzen and Nelson (3)
Brenner moved to amend policy 2GG -13, "...and conditional uses, sheuld shall take
into account...."
Crawford asked if there is something like this in the Comprehensive Plan already. He
asked how this would be administered. Davis stated this is new. This acts as guidance for
when staff is processing a conditional use permit. This gives the deciding body guidance to
work on. It allows them to look at the cumulative impact. It exists as a mechanism for
preserving rural character.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Crawford stated he wanted to just remove it. (2 :51:11 PM) He asked where they
stop when considering cumulative impacts. He asked for background on that question.
Brenner moved to amend Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development
(LAMIRDs), Type III to remove "small scale" or better define to allow mills, processing
plants, and similar things. Davis stated these are direct quotes from the Growth
Management Act. This is not a policy, but is background information.
Brenner stated there are things in the county that don't have a small scale character.
Crawford stated he is opposed to changing any direct quotations from the Growth
Management Act.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Crawford stated he wanted to amend policy 2HH -1 to add three items to policy 2HH -
1(B): "4. Prior or existing zoning, 5. Existing vested projects, or 6. Land owned in common
or by affiliated companies." Look at additional locational criteria.
Brenner stated some people own lots of land. Those other things would cover it, if
it's appropriate. She's not sure about that. They're separate lots.
Crawford moved to amend policy 2HH -1 to add two items to policy 2HH -1(B): °4.
Prior or existing zoning, 5. Currently vested projects." Consider historical zoning patterns.
Brenner stated it seems that there are things other than prior or existing zoning that
are more important to a LAMIRD.
Crawford stated how people acquired these problems and their values are
significantly important. The issue of value regarding LAMIRD is a problem. This section is
about things that may serve as additional criteria. For a property owner to be considered
for a LAMIRD, it's reasonable to consider the zoning that existed at the time the property
was acquired.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/12/2010, 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
Brenner stated it was about services and built environment that were in place in
1990.
Nelson stated this is establishing LAMIRD designation criteria. They are going to
designate the LAMIRDs later on the maps. This motion would allow them to consider not
only the three conditions in this section, but also the prior, historical zoning that existing at
the time the property owner acquired the property and whether or not there is a vested
project. If a property is platted, it's vested. He asked if Councilmember Crawford wants to
consider allowing a property to have a higher density if it was zoned with a higher density
when acquired.
Crawford stated that's correct. Review and consider the prior zoning.
Nelson stated some prior zonings depended upon sewer and water services. In order
to have rural, one unit per two acres, for example, the owner had to have water and sewer
service to divide the property. The concern with the motion is that it says to put the
property in a LAMIRD even if it doesn't have water or sewer service.
Crawford stated that would be one criteria for consideration of a LAMIRD.
Nelson asked if they can consider policies that may or may not exist.
Crawford withdrew his motion. He will bring his motions forward in writing in
two weeks.
Brenner moved to amend policy 2HH -2, item (B)(2), "...but not new.. except as
allowed as an accessory use to businesses per Whatcom County Code, and" If they aren't
going to allow new development, then at least allow an accessory unit for someone to live
in, that is accessory to a business that gets built.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Nelson and Weimer (7)
Nays: None (0)
Abstain: Mann (1)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:12 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
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/12/2010, Page 5