HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 27 20041
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 27, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2004 -023)
Caskey- Schreiber nominated Caskey- Schreiber.
Fleetwood nominated Fleetwood.
Brenner stated both would be good chairs. Councilmember Fleetwood
already asked her to support him as chair. No one else said anything to her at the
time, so she agreed. She would support Councilmember Fleetwood, but that's no
negative reflection on Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber.
Caskey- Schreiber stated meetings were not as efficient in the past year.
She'd like the opportunity to try to keep things on track.
Fleetwood moved to appoint Fleetwood.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2), WHICH INCLUDES
RURAL LANDS (AB2003 -075E)
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add the language of policy 2EE -6 as policy
2HH -4 on page 2 -74, "2HH -4: Ensure that business operations do not adversely
impact neighbors, compromise water quality and quantity, or infringe on
productive agricultural and forest land."
(Clerk's Note: This motion, on the table from the previous meeting, was not
discussed or voted on.)
Caskey- Schreiber stated that 1,000 Friends mentioned that the limited areas
of more intense rural development (LAMIRD's) should not be expanded because it
goes against the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Brenner stated this is the same language that exists in LAMIRD's.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is.
Brenner stated they can do expansion to make the outer boundary more
logical.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated they had one for the Faber Brothers
where the build environment extended outside the existing general commercial
zone. That's the type of thing that this would apply to. They could do minor
adjustments, but not major expansions of existing development.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's been proven in a court case that LAMIRD
boundaries were set in 1990. They're supposed to be very tight and to keep the
area from expanding. They want growth in the urban growth areas (UGA's), not in
these areas that are grandfathered in.
Aamot stated there may be cases where the boundary wasn't based on the
built environment when it was developed. That is the only exception. There might
be minor adjustments where the built environment extends beyond the general
commercial zone boundary.
Brenner stated the change may open them up to appeals to the GMA
Hearings Board.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add a new policy, "Policy 2HH -4: Infill should
be visually compatible with the surrounding rural area and the conversion of
undeveloped land into low- density sprawl developments will be discouraged. The
County will also protect against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and
mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. The County will
support the opportunities for small scale, rural -based employment and self -
employment, and permit the operation of rural -based agricultural, commercial,
recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with the existing and
planned land use patterns. Businesses must be compatible with the use of the land
by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of the
community and quality of life (RCW 36.70A.011)."
Brenner asked if there is anything wrong with the language. Aamot stated
he doesn't see a problem with it.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, asked if this language is quoted directly from
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). This language further emphasizes that
rural areas are rural. It respects the factor of quality of life. It's not where they
want business centers or industrial areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is.
Aamot stated some of those areas have a general commercial zone. It
allows a variety of land uses. He asked if they contemplate any zoning changes in
association with this policy.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't.
Olason stated they've talked about wanting to allow economic industry in
rural areas. Some of those industries may or may not be compatible with small
town commercial or crossroads commercial designations. He hesitates getting too
prescriptive.
Caskey- Schreiber stated infill should be visually compatible. Whatever is
there sets the character of what's allowed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced policy 2HH -3, "Minor €expansion of Crossroads
Commercial...." They aren't talking about major expansions.
Olason stated they don't want to give someone the impression that a major
expansion wouldn't have those limitations.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it might confuse the issue. The Faber Brothers
thing was more of a perceived correction versus a sanctioned expansion. The
logical outer boundary should not be expanded unnecessarily. In most cases, they
must keep a very tight boundary.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 2HH -3, "Minor €expansion
amendments to e€ Crossroads Commercial designations...."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Fleetwood opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner moved to amend policy 2LL -4, "Minor €expansion amendments to
e€ Suburban Enclave designations...."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Fleetwood opposed,
Caskey- Schreiber stated she was pleased with the amendments on chapter
page 2 -81 about limiting access to the Guide Meridian.
Brenner referenced policy 2NN -6. It's not written correctly. There needs to
be a comma after "Department of Transportation."
Aamot suggested an amendment at the bottom of chapter page 2 -84
reflecting the Lake Whatcom rezone the Council recently approved. They need to
update the date and numbers, with the new zoning. He suggested language.
Fleetwood moved to delete the last paragraph on chapter page 2 -84, and
add language Mr. Aamot recommends, "In 2003, there were approximately 2,730
existing dwelling units in the Lake Whatcom watershed located outside of the
Bellingham UGA. Under the zoning adopted in January 2004, the gross potential
build -out in this area is about 6,507 total dwelling units. Therefore, even under the
more restrictive zoning adopted in January of 2004, there could be a significant
amount of new development in the watershed."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced policy 2NN -7. She asked for an explanation.
Aamot stated there was a previous policy that said to consider additional industrial
development along the Guide Meridian. The intent was to qualify that policy with
the areas of more intense development criteria when a person can only do that if
there are buildings that existed as of 1990, and other criteria are met.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend policy 2NN -7, "Consider additional
industrial development if„— he Need d;etates, if appropriate infill is occurring and a
logical outer boundary can be established...."
Aamot stated he doesn't object. It is an additional criteria that is in the local
code.
Olason stated the motion removes the requirement to show there is a need
to expand. A person has to show there is a need, and the need is the County's
need, not a personal need. The term "if need dictates" may be vague.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend policy 2NN -7,
"Consider additional industrial development if the need dicta if there is a
demonstrated need for an increase in industrial lands, if appropriate infill is
occurring, and a logical outer boundary can be established...."
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated neither suggestion satisfies the question of whose need they're
talking about, the individual's or community's need.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend policy 2NN -7,
"Consider additional industrial development Of the need dietates if there is a
demonstrated community need, if appropriate infill is occurring, and a logical outer
boundary can be established...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood referenced goal 2RR. One of those three entities may not like a
particular policy direction, but they're obligated to seek balance. He asked how the
Council can make policy it believes in if it is obligated to seek a balance.
Brenner moved to amend goal 2RR "Seek a balance ".,t.•..,en resolutions
that satisfy the requirements of...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced policy 2RR -1. She asked about putting that same
language in the section for crossroads commercial, suburban enclaves, resort
recreational, and other areas that are actual LAMIRD's. Goodwin stated they could.
The key is if they meet the criteria of the RCW. If they take a close look at those
Lummi Reservation suburban enclaves, they'll find that they probably don't meet
these criteria.
Brenner stated she could decide to look at them in the future.
Aamot stated the stricken language is contrary to the GMA, so they tried to
figure out language that is appropriate. The closest things they represent are these
limited areas of more intense rural development.
year.
Goodwin stated the language is fine. They could take a close look at it next
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber referenced chapter page 2 -93 and stated that ensuring a
long -term supply of mineral resources is not sustainable. Also, she asked how they
value a mineral resource being more valuable than an agricultural resource. Olason
stated that when they start looking at designated resource lands, mineral resources
land is the only non - renewable resource lands. An overlay goes over the zones,
which becomes the de facto zone during the time the designated area is being
mined. Part of the test in practical terms is to look at how much area and volume
are outside the other designated resource lands. If there is sufficient amounts at
the time someone makes a request, there's a question about perceived need at this
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
period of time. At some point, they've mined everything out. The areas that are
not designated mineral resource lands are depleted and not available, then they
come back and they have to make trade -offs. That's a failure of GMA. This
language parallels the State language in terms of having to designate these lands.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that at some point, they would have to reach the
question of whether agricultural land or mineral resource land (MRL) is more
vulnerable. If they choose mineral resource land, they will lose agricultural lands
and can never get them back. It's easier to import mineral resource land than
agricultural land. She moved to amend, "To ensure a long -term supply of mineral
resources to suit the needs of the county's residents and previde Predictability in
land r -as e .
Fleetwood stated the issue is with the legislature.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a lot of gravel is being exported to Canada daily.
The question is how they can provide enough land for an industry that exports that
much material. Olason stated they don't have the authority to limit exports. That
is also a legislative issue. It's market - driven. There's not a good legislative
answer, and the County is not in a position to limit exports.
Fleetwood stated one could argue that this language may benefit people who
don't like mineral resource lands. Ensuring a long term supply may be a reason to
only permit mineral resource lands expansion to areas sparingly, because they
have to ensure there is a long -term supply.
Olason stated this section of the chapter dictates how they map the
designated areas. The motion puts policy into the map descriptor process.
Aamot stated the mineral chapter will address this in more detail. They will
discuss that this year.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's concerned about designating agricultural
lands as MRL's. She moved to amend the locational criteria for mineral resource
lands, "...agricultural lands generally with non -prime farmland soils and when
dernenstrated te be ef higher value as a mineral resource than as an agricultural
tee; and designated forestry...." She's concerned that agricultural lands will
always be valued less when compared to mineral resource lands.
Olason stated the discussion needs to be through the policy section where
they identify how they would have to prove a higher value. Put some additional
detail into what the analysis will have to show to get approval. Don't change the
mapping criteria. This may not be the place to assert that policy.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would withdraw her motion only because
this deals with how they map the mineral resource lands.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced the Land Use - Action Plan section on chapter
page 2 -105. She moved to amend the first item, "Refer to a technical advisory
committee to change review the following:" A change might not always be
warranted.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why they need an overlay. Olason stated that
when the original process was underway, there was concern about the east county
and rural county having some sort of economic development. There was a proposal
in the original plan to have an industrial overlay zone. Staff attempted to tie it
back to limited areas of more intense rural development. They wanted to limit it,
and not allow it throughout the county without a tie to an existing development
pattern.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't want it paired with a LAMIRD. They will
be bound by whatever logical outer boundary is set. An industrial overlay is not the
intent of the LAMIRD. This is akin to a town, which have UGA's. Olason stated the
rural backlash of the GMA was that they need to have some development
opportunity in the county. The question was where it would go. When the LAMIRD
language came in, it pulled that concept into a pre- existing developed area that
might be compatible.
Aamot stated the Council could make a change to direct them to small towns
and urban growth areas instead.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to delete the second bullet point in item five on
chapter page 2 -105.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to add a bullet between the last two bullets in item 34 on
chapter page 2 -109. "Cities shall show evidence of meeting their infill goals as
identified in their comprehensive plans."
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot referenced item 49 on chapter page 2 -112. The committee is already
established and operating.
Fleetwood moved to delete item 49 on chapter page 2 -112.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated there was a County ordinance or resolution to allow one more
pier only at Cherry Point. Aamot stated there was an ordinance done in 1997 that
said if the two existing shoreline permits issued for piers at Cherry Point expired,
there could only be one more pier. He doesn't know if those two permits have
expired.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to delete item 37 on chapter page 2 -110.
Bob Tull, attorney, stated he represented the applicant the Shoreline
Hearings Board case that was settled. One of the items in the agreement was that
the private entity would support and the County would process amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and shoreline master program that would limit dock
development at Cherry Point. Since then, no activity has taken place with the
Cherry Point facility. The Pacific International Terminal, also known as the Gateway
terminal, has been moving forward to put together preliminary fisheries studies
that had to be done several years in advance of construction. Once settled, the
State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) process would be completed. They'll
be able to issue these conditions subject to completion of the Corps of Engineer's
permit process. That project is still alive.
Fleetwood asked if there is a policy in Whatcom County that there can only
be one dock allowed, and, if so, would item 37 be moot. Tull stated this item
probably pre -dates the 1997 agreement. It's contradictory to the 1997 settlement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to recommend the chapter as amended to the full
Council for a public hearing on February 10, 2004.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber left the meeting at 4:45
P.M.)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN - GENERAL, URM AND URMX
POLICIES (AB2003 -075G)
Troy Holbrook, TDR /PDR Coordinator, read his power point presentation(on
file) into the record.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Holbrook continued to read from his Power Point presentation regarding the
urban fringe subarea plan recommendations and urban residential, mixed use (UR-
MX) zone policies.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 436, policy 1.14 should be amended
to specify Bellingham's urban growth area and areas within the city. They're going
to do transfers of development rights (TDR's) in areas other than in urban growth
areas. People in the urban fringe areas are protesting that all the growth is getting
dumped on them. The County needs to let them know that they are talking about
doing this in areas in the city, also.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they just did some
changes to the TDR program that encourages TDR receiving areas within cities. It's
in the TDR program policies, which is where it belongs.
Brenner moved to amend page 436, item 1. 14, amend, "...within the
Bellingham urban growth area and within the city as receiving areas ... within the
urban growth areas and within the city and decrease densities within the
watershed...." The people in the urban fringe will read this and need to understand
that they're not the only ones who will get the impacts.
Fleetwood stated he supports the concept, but won't support the motion.
Their ability to do this in the city will not be limited if they don't include the
language of this motion.
Goodwin stated it might constitute a substantial change and require a public
hearing.
Brenner stated that's not the point. Her motion is for people in the urban
growth area who read this language.
Fleetwood stated this section relates specifically to the urban fringe.
Brenner stated the urban fringe includes people in the Bakerview Road area
near James Street Road. Those are the people she's been hearing from.
Fleetwood asked if the motion would be considered a substantial change.
Goodwin stated it probably would not be substantial enough to trigger a public
hearing.
Fleetwood asked if the urban growth area includes the cities. Holbrook
stated it does not. It is the unincorporated area outside the cities.
Fleetwood stated that it seems harmless and is not a substantial change, so
he would support the motion.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber out of the room.
Brenner stated the interlocal agreements should require developers to pay
for services and be able to collect latecomers' fees, so the services are not provided
by utility local improvement districts (ULID's). There are people on Bakerview Road
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
who are paying the high cost of a road that should have been a regional road.
Make sure they don't bankrupt and force people to foreclose. Interlocal
agreements should include the concept that developers will pay for the roads and
charge latecomers' fees, and not bankrupt anyone. They are asking people in the
UR -MX zones to absorb a big impact. Do something to make sure they can stay in
their homes. She doesn't know where language like that would go. Holbrook
stated that after the adoption of this plan, they will have to re -work those interlocal
agreements.
Fleetwood asked if this concept could be incorporated into the interlocal
agreements.
Brenner stated that's where she wants it.
Holbrook stated that concept is appropriate for the interlocal agreement. He
would work on it.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council as amended.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTERS 20.22 (URM) AND 20.24 (URMX) (AB2004-
060)
Troy Holbrook, PDR /TDR Coordinator, stated these amendments would
implement the policies they've just reviewed and to facilitate transfer of
development rights (TDR) program, making it easier to obtain the minimum density
within the zoning districts. He read his Power Point presentation (on file) regarding
the zoning text amendments to the urban residential and urban residential mixed
use zones.
Fleetwood stated he understood that the minimum density was changing, as
proposed by the City, from an urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4) zone to
an urban residential, ten units per acre (UR -10) zone. The prospect would be for a
minimum of ten units per acre. It sounds like that's not the case. One could get
up to that with these TDR allowances, but the whole area can build up to UR -4.
Holbrook stated the zone is currently urban residential, mixed use (UR -MX). Right
now with a minimum of four units per acre. The proposal is to change the density
to a minimum of six units per acre and use TDR's to go up to ten units per acre.
The other proposal is to make a new zoning designation of urban residential,
medium density (URM), which allows a person to buy to the minimum density of
ten units per acre, and then buy up to a maximum of 24 units per acre. After the
maximum density of ten units per acre, additional density is acquired through
TD R's .
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked the developer's incentive to have a higher density. She asked
if that's what they really want. Holbrook stated they have to look at the cost of the
development, and see if the additional TDR's will be profitable. Right now, it's
difficult to reach the minimum density. Combined with the other zoning text
amendments, the density is easier to achieve. The incentive is a larger profit. The
three -to -one ratio changes the market value.
Fleetwood stated that's how it works theoretically, however it's like that the
area will develop at six units per acre. Some people view that as a density that's
not acceptable or appropriate.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the possibility is that the
zone will stay at UR -MX, with a minimum density of six units per acre. They did
make the URM zone minimum density at ten units per acre. It's a provisional
rezone if a developer meets the criteria. Once the developer is rezoned to URM,
the minimum density is ten units per acre. They have to use TDR's to get there.
There is still the possibility that they will stay at six units per acre.
Fleetwood asked where the URM and UR -MX zones are, and what is allowed
for each zone. Holbrook stated that right now, UR -MX exists in the urban growth
areas. They propose to raise the minimum density of UR -MX from four units per
acre to six units per acre, with a maximum density of ten units per acre if TDR's are
used. The URM zone is a brand new zoning designation with a minimum density of
ten units per acre and allows a maximum density of 24 units per acre. The
underlying, existing zoning is UR -MX with a density of four units per acre. If a
developer requests an upzone, the developer will have to pay for two TDR's to get a
maximum density of ten units per acre, given the three -to -one ratio. Then the
developer can use TDR's to go up to 24 units per acre if the site specific rezone
requirements are met.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 465. She asked why they allow
URM -12, and not just use URM -18. Holbrook stated there are no URM -12 or URM -
18 zones in the urban growth area. Since they are only working on the urban
fringe subarea plan, and trying to implement it through the zoning text
amendments, other areas of the County would be affected because it goes beyond
the scope of the urban fringe subarea. They'd have to look at the impacts to the
entire county.
Brenner asked why they would want to allow someone a URM -12 zone
instead of a URM -18 zone. Holbrook stated these zones exist currently.
Carl Batchelor, Planning Department, stated the URM zone is an old zoning
designation. The URM -12 and URM -18 zones exist on the zoning map today in
other parts of the county. They'd have to determine whether a density of URM -18
would be appropriate in areas zoned URM -12, on a site -by -site basis.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN, MAP 13 MAP, AND TEXT
(AB2003 -075H)
Brenner referenced Whatcom County Code section 20.22.665(2)(b). She
asked if they are creating something that only large developers can do. She asked
what they are doing to protect the people who are stuck in this zone.
Troy Holbrook, TDR /PDR Coordinator, stated the language from that section
applies only when the zoning is requested. All the property owners within the
property area have signed the petition or consented to be in the rezone.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 483, Whatcom County Code section
20.24.161. Amend the language, "...meeting prior to application for the purpose of
hearing incorporating neighborhood concerns and suggestions regarding the
proposal." Otherwise, all they have to do is have a meeting, without making
changes.
Fleetwood asked if that will obligate the decision -maker to make a change,
even if it's not appropriate.
Brenner stated it helps to have the language in there that says that's what
they have to do. Holbrook stated that's why this is being changed from an
administratively approved use to a conditional use. There will be a public hearing
in front of the Hearing Examiner, who would take the concerns into consideration.
Brenner referenced section 20.24.161(1)(a). She asked if only two gasoline
pump islands per each market or within the entire area is allowed. Holbrook stated
this language was in the administrative approval use section of the code. They just
moved it over to the conditional use section of the code.
Chris Comeau, City of Bellingham Planner II, stated the neighborhood
centers allowed in this zone have criteria that specifically states they can't be closer
than one -half mile apart right now. There won't be one popping up on every
corner. There are location criteria. This suggests there will be a neighborhood
center that is limited in the size and scope. The entire neighborhood center is
limited to only two islands per center.
Brenner referenced section 20.24.161(3)(f), and asked why they have to
have sidewalks that are a minimum of eight -feet wide. Holbrook stated he doesn't
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
know the history of this requirement. In a neighborhood center, it's to facilitate
pedestrian access.
Comeau stated the reason for the eight -feet provision is to facilitate
pedestrian use. The neighborhood centers are supposed to be neighborhood
gathering places and focal points where people spend time. Wider sidewalks
facilitate that kind of use. They're trying to make a pedestrian - friendly
environment. These criteria have been in the County code for six or seven years
now.
Fleetwood stated that rationale is appropriate.
Brenner asked if there is data that shows wider sidewalks creates more
friendliness. Holbrook stated it also provides more separation from the street.
There's no room for a business to have a table in front of the store or a newsstand.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this sidewalk wouldn't be
the entire length of a road. It would just be in the tiny section where the
neighborhood grocery store or center is located. There could be room for a bike
rack or a bench for people to sit.
Comeau stated this entire area for the provisional rezone already has water
and sewer approved. There was a bit of urgency to do something in this area. The
developer is already entitled to develop at four units per acre right now. Even if
they go to only six units per acre, it's more density than what they would get.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTERS 20.22 (URM) AND 20.24 (URMX) (AB2004-
060)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber absent.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN, MAP 13 MAP, AND TEXT
(AB2003 -075H)
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 13
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Holbrook continued to read his Power Point presentation (on file) regarding
the requirements for a provisional rezone. They're trying to avoid a development
that is a series of culs de sac with one feeder road.
Fleetwood asked if a developer is automatically entitled to a rezone if all the
criteria are met. Holbrook stated that's not correct. The provisional rezone to go
up to a density of URM -24 must meet the criteria, then apply for a site - specific
rezone. To get a site - specific rezone, the developer would have to submit a very
detailed site plan, have concurrence with adjacent property owners, and meet other
requirements. The application is reviewed by County and City staff, goes to the
Hearing Examiner for a hearing, and the County Council makes the final decision.
They're trying to ensure that the big picture is looked at.
The public facilities and utilities include existing public facilities, water, and
sewer.
The environmental features include a lot of steep slopes, wetlands, and
streams. That gives them the opportunity to tie in the larger five -acre tracts to
ensure they have open space corridors, possibly going up to King Mountain and
open stream corridors.
Brenner referenced the next -to -last sentence of the second paragraph on
Council packet page 448. The language should be amended to remove "should."
Fleetwood asked who would be in charge of enforcing that buffers would be
maintained.
Brenner stated that the County would be in charge if it's in the county, and
the City would be in charge if it's in the city.
Fleetwood stated he preferred the word "shall."
Holbrook stated that's a minor amendment.
Brenner referenced the last sentence of the first full paragraph on Council
packet page 449. It should also be amended to say that there will be a need for
school facilities. Holbrook stated it's up to the school district to determine.
Comeau stated they work with the school districts, but they have a separate
long -range planning procedure to address their needs. It is separate from these
planning efforts. The City and County can't dictate if there's a need for a school.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 14
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner moved to amend the next -to -last sentence of the second
paragraph on Council packet page 448, "Adequate buffer widths from the streams
and tributaries shea+d shall be maintained or enhanced."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber absent.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council as amended.
McShane asked if the City thinks it can handle the total amount of
development in this area, or more. He asked if they are as dense as they could be.
Holbrook stated it was discussed at the City and County planning commissions and
City Council meetings. Both planning commissions and the City Council
recommend approval of the rezone. In the next year, the City is beginning to look
at their infill capacity.
Comeau stated that a subcommittee looked at all the UR -MX areas. The
entire urban growth area has been looked at. This is just a small piece of that.
There have been recommendations to change the zoning in other portions of the
urban growth areas (UGA). The Council will see in the next year the whole urban
growth area to come up with a development pattern that makes more sense. They
will look at infrastructure capacity and what they think they can get in certain
areas.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber absent.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 15
1
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2004, Page 16