Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 14 20091 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Planning and Development Committee 3 4 April 14, 2009 5 6 Committee Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in 7 the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 8 9 Present: Absent: 10 Bob Kelly None 11 Carl Weimer 12 13 Also Present: 14 Seth Fleetwood 15 Sam Crawford 16 Barbara Brenner 17 18 19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 20 21 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF WHATCOM 22 COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO REORGANIZE AND RELOCATE SETBACK 23 STANDARDS FOR CLARITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH ZONE (AB2009- 24 175) 25 26 Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff 27 report. 28 29 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 30 31 Discussion included whether the forestry setbacks from homes are safe enough. 32 33 Motion carried 3 -0. 34 35 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADOPT 36 REGULATIONS WITHIN THE URMX ZONE, MODIFY DEVELOPMENT 37 POTENTIAL WITHOUT PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, AND AMEND 38 THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS IN THE UR, URM, AND URMX 39 ZONES (AB2009 -176) 40 41 Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff 42 report. 43 44 The following person spoke: 45 46 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, answered 47 questions. 48 49 Discussion included the reason for setting a maximum density; urban residential 50 (UR) zones without density designations; using a reserve tract as a building lot; defining the 51 use of the reserve tract, and; whether this affects lot consolidation. 52 53 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Planning and Development Committee, 4/14/2009, Page 1 1 2 Motion carried 3 -0. 3 4 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 5 AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM 6 COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF 7 ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES THE CORDATA PARK 8 ANNEXATION (AB2009 -203) 9 10 Kate Koch, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report. 11 There is a substitute for Council packet page 239, which is Exhibit C. Some items are 12 missing from the substitute list, including the Cordata Park annexation and Van Wyck 13 annexation. Staff recommends holding in committee for two weeks. 14 15 Weimer moved to hold in committee for two weeks to correct Exhibit C. 16 17 Motion carried 3 -0. 18 19 20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21 22 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE VAN 23 WYCK /JAMES ST. AND QUEEN MOUNTAIN AREAS OF THE BELLINGHAM 24 URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2009 -202) 25 26 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a 27 staff report. The question today is whether or not the committee wants to invoke 28 jurisdiction on these two issues and have the Boundary Review Board review these issues. 29 If the Council. does not, the staff will bring forward the interlocal agreements in two weeks. 30 He is concerned about whether these annexation requests are timely, given the amount of 31 density that is still available in the city. He recommends going slow. 32 33 Discussion included whether the interlocal agreement will address these concerns, 34 and whether the Boundary Review Board can address the concern. 35 36 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 37 38 Discussion continued regarding picking a low population projection; whether the City 39 recognizes it will lose it's urban growth areas (UGA's) due to choosing a small number; how 40 annexation does not encourage infill; what happens if one party doesn't fulfill the interlocal 41 agreement; whether this is an opportunity to fix other UGA problem areas, such as Yew 42 Street, Hillsdale, and Geneva; communicating directly with the City to work things out, and; 43 Council input to staff about what needs to be in the interlocal agreement. 44 45 Weimer asked to include language that says the County wants the annexation to go 46 forward, but it also supports the City Council's message about protecting rural lands. The 47 County would like to work with the City to get at least these 54 development rights that 48 would have been retired if the County had made a different decision. 49 50 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated that invoking jurisdiction is just to 51 allow more time to study the situation. 52 53 The following people spoke: Planning and Development Committee, 4/14/2009, 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 Ralph Black, 4071 Hannegan Road, stated continue to move forward with the annexations. Dan McShane, 1451 Grant street, Bellingham, stated the City is talking about a small number, but is planning for a much larger number. The County will end up having to set the number for the City. They are going to have to develop a PDR or TDR program for expanding urban growth areas and annexations. If necessary, the County Council can use these annexations as a reason to remove other inappropriate urban growth areas. The County must unilaterally remove urban growth areas in the Lake Whatcom watershed now. It won't happen jointly with the City. Heather Wolf, attorney, stated she represents the Queen Mountain annexation. The County Council approved this annexation last year. Don't mix comprehensive planning issues with annexation issues. Approve the annexation. Cindy Anderson, 347 Van Wyck Road, stated move forward with the Van Wyck Road annexation. Jack Weiss, Bellingham City Council, stated the City Council would consider a higher number. The City wants to engage in a discussion of alternatives with the County to resolve infill problems. The City is willing to accept more, but it needs the County's assistance. Discussion included a number the City could live with comfortably Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to have more time from the Boundary Review Board. In the interlocal, bring forward the issue of TDR's and PDR's. Have a discussion about their goal to have the County reduce development rights in the rural lands, and how this process may be a part of that. Brenner stated don't hold up this annexation. There are many issues to discuss, but don't hold up the annexation. Don't invoke the Boundary Review Board. Fleetwood stated try to get an extension of the Boundary Review Board deadline to allow the City and County to communicate on the interlocal agreement issues. Koch stated that working out these issues is exactly the reason there is a provksidh` 1d']nypke jurisdiction. ,��.; a '�. .."' �,,.; a ��� y��✓, Crawford asked what happens if there is no interlocal agree rn�er iw� $�5' alhermnst� te"cb there is no more legal conversation between the City and County. - d There was discussion about whether or not the County gives;. up Forma] .discussions with the City on planning issues; options for ensuring the City and Council` have these planning discussions; the County's Leverage over the City.;, (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) There was continued discussion regarding what bad things would occur if the County doesn't invoke jurisdiction; an oversized urban growth area; infill issues; trying to get development out of the rural areas, and; the County Executive's ability to invoke jurisdiction. Kelly moved to invoke jurisdiction. Have formal, official discussions between the two governments. Planning and Development Committee, 4/14/2009, Page 3 1 2 Motion carried 2 -1 with Weim 3 4 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THI 5 (AB2009 -052) 6 7 David Stalheim, Planning and 8 and an update since the last Growth 9 10 The following person spoke: 11 12 • ' Rebecca Craven, Council P 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 OTHER BUSINESS 24 25 There was no other business. 26 27 ADJOURN 28 29 The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p. 30 32 33 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 34 35 36 `(a coo 37' ��� •••• �' 4T • — 42; CSa Turn�3a�is, Cct�ncil Clerk 43% �•.9SyING'\.•• er opposed. URBAN GROWTH AREAS REVIEW PROCESS Development Services Department, gave a staff report Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) meeting. )]icy Analyst. Discussion included when the Council would make decisions on accepting GMCC recommendations; the Birch Bay community's reaction to the no action alternative, and; the City choosing population numbers with the intent to protect the existing urban growth areas. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Committee will schedule a special meeting next week to continue discussing this item. M. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey Schreiber, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 4/14/2009, Page 4