HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 11 20031
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 11, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
(Clerk's Note: Due to an audiotape malfunction, this meeting was not
recorded. The minutes are taken from the clerk's notes.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS
(AB2003 -086)
Elizabeth Olson, Planner I, stated there are six open space applications.
The first is the Nolte application. It received a high rating. The property
has access to the river. Nothing else can be done to the land. It is a high priority
area for wildlife and fish.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the Nolte application for Open
Space /Open Space.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olson stated the next application is the Estate of Mayfair Clauson
application.
A motion to recommend approval was made.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olson stated the next two are the Scott Walker and Janice Walker
applications in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The timber management plan is
accurate.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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 recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olson stated the next application is the James application. She visited the
property and noted what had been replanted. The timber management plan is
accurate.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olson stated the last is the Lummi Island Heritage Trust application. It is a
new timber management plan. The trust bought the land that was in Open
Space /Timber previously, but it did not have a timber management plan. She
requested a timber management plan to bring the file up to date. The timber
management plan is accurate.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2003 (AB2003 -075)
Docket #2003 -A: PDS, Review and Update
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is part of the Growth
Management Act (GMA) requirement to review and update the Comprehensive Plan
as needed. The original deadline was 2002, but it has been extended to the end of
2004. Five chapters are done. This year, they will do the Bellingham urban
growth area (UGA), rural lands, housing, forestry, and environment. The
Bellingham UGA review is one of the five -year review areas. Mr. Templeton has a
property at the south end of Lake Whatcom. Last year, the Council gave direction
to include that area in the five -year review area. She would like clarification on
that direction.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket #2003 -B: PDS, Essential Public Facilities
Goodwin stated those essential public facilities include things such as
airport, state education, transportation, correction, solid waste, water, and other
similar facilities. They are things the GMA requires the County to look at for
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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
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.
essential public facilities. They have had work sessions with the Planning
Commission to work through that document. This item would allow amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to address those issues.
This is required as part of the Comprehensive Plan review.
Nelson asked who is involved in the capital facilities planning. Goodwin
stated a committee was appointed by the Executive and confirmed by the Council
last year. The document they created was completed in December 2002. It has
not been sent to the Council yet because it will go through Planning Commission.
It is a good report.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval.
Crawford stated they need to get staff in touch with the Substance Abuse
Advisory Board on the methadone treatment law. Siting of treatment centers will
become similar to the way the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) sites
power plants. It will not be up to them locally. The planning effort will have to be
clear about who has jurisdiction for siting of the facilities.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber asked that staff think about getting a cell phone tower in
the Mount Baker area when discussing the Utility Chapter.
Docket #2003 -C: Bellingham UGA, Smith and Guide Meridian
Goodwin stated this is a proposal by Caitec. It is to amend the County
Comprehensive Plan rural and transition corridor to the UGA for over 700 acres.
It's part of one of the five -year review areas. The proposed zoning would be urban
residential, mixed use (UR -MX) development and general commercial (GC). More
information is in the February 6, 2003 memo. The Council is supposed to look at
the net amount of acres to be added or subtracted from the UGA equaling 700
acres. This application does not affect forestry, agricultural, or mineral lands. It is
currently rolling hills and a golf course.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is premature to expand the Bellingham UGA
when County will study the issue this year with City. Goodwin stated that is part of
the process. They will look at population projections, infill, and whether there is a
land supply deficit. One of the areas they will look at will be this area. It needs to
be a concurrent process with the City. They are proposing a joint process,
including joint Planning Commission meetings and joint Council meetings. The City
is ready to have work sessions on all the five -year review areas.
McShane asked why they are separating this area when it will already be
considered in the five -year review. Goodwin stated that if this is initiated
separately, they could collect fees from the applicant for the environmental impact
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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.
statement (EIS). They already know they are going to look outside the UGA's.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, have to look at these five -year review areas.
Fleetwood stated they are going to consider this area either way. They
might as well docket it.
Brenner stated she is concerned about this property. There would be a huge
impact on the Guide. They need to look at this right now. It seems like a bad idea
to create development appendages outside of the city boundaries. They have an
obligation to have a more regular UGA boundary.
Crawford asked about the preliminary estimates on population growth
projections. He asked if they are taking into the existing urban growth areas.
Goodwin stated there are several different ways to calculate it. The State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) gives high, medium, and low projections for 20
years. The County worked with City, Port of Bellingham, and small cities to do an
independent appraisal. Their median is slightly lower than OFM median. They are
talking about 288,000 as the high projection. The low projection is a population of
approximately 210,000. The medium is approximately 236,000. Another
independent study also looked at population projections and came up with very
similar estimates. Pat Jones has also done an independent population projection,
and those numbers are also similar.
Crawford asked if there is a number attached to the existing urban growth
areas, as to how much of that additional population will fit into the UGA's.
Goodwin stated that there is. They are now projecting that number to be higher
based on new information. The Council hasn't decided yet whether to go with the
low, medium, or high population growth projections. That has to be worked
through the process. Ultimately, the capital facilities plans have to match the
population projections.
Crawford asked if there is any opposition to the fact that the UGA has to
grow. Goodwin stated there is not. The City is undecided about its target
population. They also haven't decided how much infill they can get in the city
limits. They may be able to accommodate a portion of the population by infill.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has new
standards to mitigate stormwater east of Ferndale because that population is
bigger than in the city. Goodwin stated expanding to south of Bellingham is
constrained by Chuckanut Road and mountains. Expanding east is constrained by
the mountain. About their only options are to the north, into the farmland, or
toward Lake Whatcom.
Brenner asked why they are not making a regular boundary instead of
having an appendage extend out of the boundary. She is talking about the area
east of the Guide. Goodwin stated the Dewey Valley has a considerable number of
residents in opposition to expanding. It is also farmland.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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.
Brenner stated she is talking about the King Mountain /Spring Creek map.
Goodwin stated these are the areas that were approved by the Council. The
Comprehensive Plan stated that they have to look at the five -year review areas
and can also consider additional areas.
McShane stated they should keep in mind that it is a collaborative effort
between the County and City. Hopefully they will be cooperative. Those issues are
what the City will have to deal with. The City and County will have to be sensitive
to each other's concerns.
Nelson asked what the City's ability is to provide water and sewer in the
UGA area. It's important to know that information when considering this issue.
Goodwin stated they would look at that when they update the urban fringe plan by
adding potential chapters for the five -year review areas. They will look at all
services. The City Planning Commission wants to get down to the detail of
designing infrastructure to see if the City can service them.
Pat Jones, Jones Engineering, stated he represents Caitec. He submitted a
letter (on file). He is comfortable with having a separate inclusion on the docket
and paying the fees, or looking at the north study area as one item for efficiencies
sake.
He conducted an extensive analysis of the land supply in the City of
Bellingham and Bellingham UGA. They looked at each parcel individually so they
can truly assess the supply and capacity of undeveloped land. He concluded it
about a year ago, and gave it to Planning staffs at the County and City. The City
independently conducted a similar analysis. He was told by Patricia Decker that
the results were within a couple of hundred. What's being suggested as the
available supply in Bellingham under current zoning is the numbers that Ms.
Goodwin gave. He did an independent population forecast. He looked at 30 years
of actual growth in Whatcom County. He also looked at 40 years of history. He
came up with the average of those growth rates. He came up with a number of
the average growth rate that is a bit higher than the consultant's results. The
results were very close. The numbers before the Council are solid. From two
different organizations using different methodology, they have come to the same
conclusion.
There was more discussion.
Jones continued to state that he prepared preliminary studies for the
extension of sanitary sewer and water in connection with the Caitec projects, in
coordination with Highway Department and the City of Bellingham.
Fleetwood asked if there is any difference to docketing this request
separately. Jones stated he wanted to save some work and paperwork on behalf
of staff. It would save the project some fees.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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
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 what happens if the Council decided to only include part of
the Caitec property. Jones stated the Council can do what it chooses, but it is
illogical. The area is in one ownership. If they left part of the northern area zoned
rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) next door to commercial and UR -MX, it is
almost like spot zoning.
Goodwin stated the County could do that. It doesn't make sense to have
the city limits split along one property.
Bob Tull, attorney, representing Caitec, stated a question was to the
procedure. He referenced a letter from Bellingham Planning Department Director
Patricia Decker. The reality is that the specific application is superfluous when
doing the five -year review. Caitec will participate in a number of studies now and
in the future. When and how the densities are developed is a part of this. The
solutions have to pass the scrutiny of the Hearings Board. Infill is a difficult
process. He's not sure if any of the City of Bellingham neighborhood plans include
full density.
There was more discussion.
Fleetwood asked if they could accommodate additional growth in the city
boundaries if the UGA increases density. Tull stated it is a combination of market
and politics. The common view is that a short supply results in a higher price.
That causes more people to commute from outlying towns, which has impacts on
transportation. Intensifying density in Bellingham and every other community is
difficult to achieve politically, especially in areas already developed.
McShane stated his neighborhood is zoned multi - family, but is
predominantly developed single - family. It is cost prohibitive to develop multi-
family housing because of parking restrictions. Tull stated the fact is that people
hate two things: sprawl and density.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are at a point where they can assess impact
fees for a development of this size. Goodwin stated the Council has the means to
do impact fees. The question has been whether there is the political will. It will be
addressed in the future. In the EIS process, they have to look at traffic and school
impacts. There is potential to look for infrastructure development at that area.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Brenner asked about taking traffic off the Guide and onto the Smith Road.
Goodwin stated these are things that they need to look at.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated it is better to plan for more people
than fewer people. They are not planning.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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.
Donna Macomber, citizen, stated that property was being used for
agriculture. Last year, the owners killed all vegetation on the property. They were
not issued permits because it is allowed in the agricultural zone.
She stated she attended the City Planning Commission work session. It had
a very aggressive work plan for the year. They won't get it done. The City and
County should not consider population and land supply data provided by the land
development industry. Take into consideration the community that would be
destroyed by this development. She and her neighbors do not want to be
included.
Jones stated the vast majority of the neighbors asked to be included.
Fleetwood stated he is in favor of going forward with this project to trigger
further review.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Docket #2003 -F: Rural to Commercial, Hannegan Road
Goodwin stated the proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from
rural to crossroads commercial and the zoning map from rural, one unit per two
acres (R2A) to general commercial for three acres. The property is at the
northwest intersection of Hannegan Road and East Pole Road. The area would not
affect a UGA, agriculture, forestry, or mineral lands. It is not currently zoned for
agriculture, although it was historically an agriculture use. At one point the
building was a chicken coop. The Comprehensive Plan designation is crossroads
commercial for rural areas that have established commercial uses at an arterial
crossroads. The County zoning is general commercial or tourist commercial. She
doesn't know if it meets the County crossroads commercial designation
requirements because it has not been used for commercial in the past. It has
agricultural soils.
Nelson asked if this was before the Council last year. Goodwin stated it was
as a larger area. It is different than the last application.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, attorney, representing the Faber Brothers,
stated last year they presented a change in the Comprehensive Plan zoning
designation to include property that went to Pole Road. At that point, it was not
docketed. The discussion centered around whether or not the additional area to
the south was necessary. The applicant amended the application to include only
their property. There is one legal lot that is split by a zoning boundary between
R2A and general commercial. The result is that one - quarter of a building is in an
R2A zone and three - quarters of the building is in the general commercial zone.
The applicant has exhausted his possibilities with Planning and Development
Services Department to create a functional use for that site, given the different
zoning requirements. The building is 24 feet by 160 feet. The building has a full
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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.
basement. In the upper area, the roof peaks at 12 feet. The issue with the
building is that there is not a way in which it can be expanded. The applicant
would have to tear down the building if they wanted to split the property into two
pieces to match the zoning. The site is functional as one site. The class B water
system that services the Grange to the north and the general commercial portion
of this property sits on the R2A portion of the property.
All the neighbors have been contacted and have provided letters indicating
support of the request. Docketing this triggers review and a healthy debate. That
is what they are seeking. The applicant has enough information to show that a
mistake was made in setting the zoning boundary through the property. There is
only one access to the two areas, through the general commercial portion of the
property.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the owners are now running an illegal business.
There is an enormous Quonset but that should not be there. It is a violation of the
GMA. They should look at the Guide Meridian and zone light industrial. She read
the definition of crossroads commercial in rural. A construction company whose
forte is enormous steel structures doesn't fit this definition. Not only are they
operating illegally, they are horrible neighbors. They burn trash illegally right next
to the neighbors.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated this is beyond the discussion for docketing. A
councilmember is giving testimony to the merits of the proposal. A temporary
structure is all the Planning Department would allow. Until this boundary is
remedied, this structure must stay there. Both homes that were built nearby were
built since the Faber Brothers occupied the property. The neighbors support the
proposal. Whether or not they are operating legally or illegally is for the Planning
Department to address. Faber Brothers has been to the Planning Department a
number of times on this issue.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the focus is on the chicken coop. At the time the
zone cut the building in half, it was a chicken coop. It should not be allowed.
There was more discussion.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated this is key to the issue of economic
development. It is a long -term, stable company that has been led along. It wants
to restore a building. Businesses need affordable locations. If it was zoned
incorrectly in the first place, correct it.
There was more discussion.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
There was more discussion.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/11/2003, 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
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.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Docket #2003 -H: Residential Density Policy
(There are no clerk's notes on this discussion.)
Docket #2003 -I: Affordable Housing
(There are no clerk's notes on this discussion.)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 - WATER RESOURCE
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 -
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
CHAPTER 20.85 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
20.97 - DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
This item was not discussed, and was held in committee.
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, 2/11/2003, Page 9