HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 5 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
November 5, 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:
Barbara Brenner
Sharon Roy
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE
TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2003 -361)
Elizabeth Olson, Planner, stated the first application is the Stargell
application. Aubrey Stargell is a forester. She walked the property. He is planting
several hundred trees. The property is prime for open space timber. The
application received a good review of the timber management plan.
The second application is the Schoeppach application. The Schoeppach
timber management plan is superb. The area is near the previous applicant's.
The third application is the Trillium application. The plan was superb. The
land was formally owned by Trillium. One acre will be taken out, so it is just under
the designated 20 acres. Ken Syre has a small nursery on the hill. The replanted
trees are in beautiful health.
The fourth application is the Sterk application. The property is long and
narrow. It borders open space /agriculture land. It is still in its original wooded
state, and is between two agricultural parcels. It has a good timber management
plan. The timber is as stated in the timber management plan.
The fifth application is the Moore application. The land is vacant, but is cut
through by a stream. That acreage has been taken out. There is an area close to
the road for a potential home site that has been taken out also. There is a good
timber management plan that describes the parcel of land.
The sixth application is the Dettman application. The land was in designated
forestry before it was divided. The property has fewer than the required 20 acres.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
McShane asked how the actual tax designation amount works. Olson stated
they won't know until it is approved and it goes through the point system.
Ultimately it is approved and then goes to the Assessor's Office to a current use
taxation. If taken out of this designation, the owner has to pay back taxes for the
past seven years.
The seventh application is the Anderson /Stern application. It's a superb
place for timber.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2),
WHICH INCLUDES RURAL LANDS (AB2003 -075E)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the committee received an overview of
the policy and made minor changes. The policies are good, in terms of the vision
statement for the rural area of the county. He handed out his presentation (on
file). He read from his presentation. The rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone
allows one house per five acres. If they develop at that density, they will have a
fairly divided up rural area.
He compared the development patterns in 1996 with 2001. In 1995 -1996,
there were about 250 parcels in a four square mile area northwest of Ferndale. In
2001, there are 328 parcels. Their options reduce rapidly as the divisions occur.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff identified those R5A parcels in agricultural
use for the purchase of development rights (PDR) program. Olason stated they
have not. There was a lot of discussion about this area as a target area. It's so
fragmented that it becomes difficult for someone who needs enough acreage to
farm to get that acreage together at a convenient distance.
Brenner asked if a lot of the property that has been parcelized will be used
for agriculture. Olason stated they may not be used for agriculture already. One
question is how much of this property that was parceled out is still getting
agriculture tax benefits. As they go from larger to smaller lot sizes, the value
someone has to produce to prove the property is in agricultural use goes up. When
these convert, there's a lag time when they're not using the property for
agriculture.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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.
Fleetwood asked if taking the designation away would increase the rate in
which the property would be converted to something other than an agricultural use.
Olason stated the designation doesn't go away until it's converted through a sale.
The tax designation is a contract between the landowner and the county. When
sold, the new owner might not be aware of the designation or understand what's
required. Those properties are often identified when appraised during the four -year
appraisal cycle.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the driver is for the development being done
at the eight- square mile East Smith Road location northeast of Bellingham. Olason
stated it is in the Lynden /Nooksack subarea. Five -acre zoning has been going on
out there for 20 years. It's close to Bellingham. It has great views. These areas
were farms that were marginal. They were the pastures, horse farms, and wood
lots. Nothing stops R5A -zoned land from being divided into five -acre lots.
He showed a series of aerial photographs of a farm on Smith Road, from
1951 through the present date. When talking about existing development patterns,
think about the impact to the lot, based on where the house is placed on the lot.
Placing the house at the epicenter of the lot doesn't allow for many other uses. The
property becomes just residential.
Fleetwood asked the benefit to the public if designated as open space.
Olason stated there isn't any benefit.
Brenner stated that if there were trees, it could be used for eagle habitat.
They can have open space and not provide public access, if there are certain
significant things to protect.
Olason stated the lots are big for residential use. If someone does not have
agricultural water rights, they can only irrigate up to a quarter -acre. A lot of these
areas won't have the water to have that kind of activity. Many of these areas don't
have good soil. The soil is wet in the wintertime, and doesn't hold up if there is
livestock on it.
He showed aerial photographs of the Silverado long -plat. There are
established one -acre building lots clustered on one end of the property. Those lots
are selling for just as much as the five -acre lots. The complaint about this example
is that it looks like they've dumped a subdivision in the rural area. Siting could
have tempered that complaint a bit. The question of rural character is an issue.
Brenner asked the source of water at that location. Olason stated they have
two community wells. They're probably class B wells. When valuing farmland, they
looked at cluster lots, which are required by the agricultural protection overlay
regulations. When clustering, there is a question of who owns the reserve lot.
McShane asked if it's too late to try and save the land in those areas, or if
there are other areas where a change in policy would do better in retaining rural
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
character and maintaining agricultural land, however that's defined. Olason stated
there are areas that are worth the effort. The policies are not necessarily creating
the problem. There's a lag between the policy concepts and the regulations. Today
they are looking at the policies. There's nothing wrong with the policies.
Implementing the policies is always the hard part.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she gave the
councilmembers a map showing all the lot sizes. That map tells them a lot about
the existing parcel areas. It shows which ones are five acres and the zoning is
overlaid. There are still a few areas that are not subdivided as small as they could
be. Those are the areas to preserve.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR 0.76 ACRES IN THE CROSSROADS
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF HINOTE'S CORNER (AB2003 -075F)
Elizabeth Olson, Planner, stated this is an application for a rezone at Hinote's
Corner. The acreage would have been an additional three acres of general
commercial zoning. The existing parcel of land at the moment is totally flat. It has
a long barn that was formerly used for agricultural purposes. The building has been
re- roofed. It straddles the existing general commercial zoning line.
Brenner asked if the current zoning is crossroads commercial. Olason stated
the Comprehensive Plan designation is crossroads commercial. The zone is general
commercial.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the crossroads
commercial also covers just the general commercial zone, and also cuts the
building in half.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Goodwin stated the crossroads commercial is just a Comprehensive Plan
designation. It doesn't have specific allowed uses.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when the area was designated. Olson stated it has
been zoned general commercial since the 1980's. It was designated crossroads
commercial in 1997.
McShane asked if the general commercial zone is consistent with the
crossroads commercial Comprehensive Plan policies for that area. Olson stated it
is.
McShane stated there are policies in the Comprehensive Plan for small town
crossroad areas. He asked if general commercial zone would be consistent with the
vision of a crossroads area or a small town, even if the general commercial zone
allows for unlimited commercial -sized development.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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.
Goodwin stated all the small towns now have changed zoning to the small
town commercial zone. The reason they left crossroads commercial areas in
general commercial zone is mostly because of Nugent's Corner and the IGA located
there. General commercial zone allows the larger buildings. They don't want to
encourage Home Base or Wal -Mart in a rural area, but they don't want such small
buildings that all they get are mini - marts.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Nugent's Corner and Hinote's Corner are very
different. Nugent's Corner is very rural. She referenced policy 2HH -3. Goodwin
stated policy 2HH -3 is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that has
not yet been adopted. They are looking to make it more consistent with Growth
Management Act legislation on areas of more intense rural development.
Olson stated the staff report includes a description of and uses in the area.
A major complication is the fact that the building straddles the zoning line. They
would like to include the entire parcel, over five acres. Presently, there is just
under two acres in the general commercial zone that fronts Hannegan Road. The
area around it to north, east, and south is rural with houses. Staff looked at the
fact that any changes would be to move the zoning line from straddling the building
to go east of the building and go across the width of the lot, but no further.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would recuse herself from any further
discussion because this is her neighborhood. She also assisted a neighbor who
brought forth a petition they'll see later.
(Clerk's Note: Caskey- Schreiber left the meeting.)
Olson stated that in looking at the situation of pushing the entire parcel into
general commercial, it would affect houses to the north, east, and south. There is
no great necessity for all the acreage to be in the general commercial zone. Her
recommendation is for one of four options. The Planning Commission decided that
the best option would be to push the existing zoning line from 320 feet to 425 feet.
It allows for truck turnarounds at the rear of the building.
Brenner asked if it would affect any neighbor's property. Olson stated it
would not. There are two small homes to the north. Only the subject property is
affected.
Brenner asked if there is a problem with making a straight boundary
irregular. Olson stated there is no problem with it.
McShane stated the staff recommendation was to move the line back to
include the entire building, plus some distance more. The Planning Commission
recommended the line be moved even further back.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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 if light industrial use is allowed in the general commercial
zone. Olson stated it is not. The staff report notes that there has not been a
specific business noted except for the fact that there could be a large building. In
the Planning Commission meeting, they asked the applicant whether it would be a
construction yard, which is not allowed in the general commercial zone. The
applicant would use the front of the lot to build the building. It would have to be
used for an approved general commercial use.
Roy asked if the Council is certain it's not a light industrial use. Olson stated
the use would have to be consistent with what is allowed in the general commercial
zone.
Fleetwood stated they'd hear from the neighbors if the use weren't allowed.
Brenner asked what happens if the use is not allowed. Goodwin stated the
County would issue a correction notice, then fines.
Roy asked if they are sure it's not being used for light industrial use at the
moment. Olson stated she has not seen inside the building.
Lesa Starken burg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated she represents the
Faber Brothers. This property was discussed by the Council in February. Since
then, the applicant went through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, as
the Council recommended. The Planning Commission recommendation is to not
accept what the applicant asked for, which is that the entire legal lot be moved into
the general commercial zone. The recommendation alleviates some issues, but
doesn't address the larger question of the split zone. With that in mind, the
Planning Commission recommendation would be what this committee looks at.
This building that is split in half by the zoning line has posed a big problem
for the owner to design what can be in this site. They've been working on this for
two and a half years. The eastern portion of the building has to comply with
different codes than the western portion of the building. There is no plan for what
will happen on this site because they don't know the zone. All the neighbors to the
north, east, and south support the rezone and re- designation of the entire site.
There are a number of different bumps in zoning lines throughout the county to
follow legal lot lines. The Faber Brothers would like to use the entire site for
general commercial use. The Planning Commission recommendation does alleviate
the issue with the building, which also allows for access to the rear of the building
in accordance to the development standards in the County codes, the required 25-
foot landscaped buffer, and legal access. The building started out as a chicken
building when it was built in 1950. There is an entire basement under it.
McShane asked if the bay doors were part of the original building.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated she didn't know.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
Fleetwood asked how the building will be used. Starken burg- Kroontje stated
Faber Brothers is looking to put their design division in the building. It would be an
office use. There will be buildings on the entire site for different uses. Once that
plan was nixed because of the zoning issue, they put their plans on hold. They
would still like to build a building on the front portion of the property that would be
used for the design division. They would use the existing building on the site for
storage related to the design division and also to lease out portions of the building.
Those are tentative plans based on whether or not they can use the building.
When looking at a rezone, the Council is to look at the impacts to the
property and the surrounding area, based on the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan and the rezone questions, not based on the uses. Uses can change over time.
The use needs to be specific to the general commercial zone allowed use.
Roy asked if the purchaser knew about the split zoning when he or she
purchased the property. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the line had never been
designated to the level where it bisected the building. They found it out when they
had their meeting with the Planning Department to do a remodel.
Roy asked if the proposed use is design, not construction. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated they understand what the general commercial zone allowed uses
are and that they must comply with those uses.
Brenner asked if the owners are going to renovate the building, or destroy
and build anew. Starken burg- Kroontje stated they would not destroy the building.
The building has been partially renovated, but even the required fire code is
different for each end of the building.
In the event that the councilmembers are just interested in resolving the
question of the building, then she recommends moving forward with the Planning
Commission recommendation, which allows two acres in the back to remain in the
rural zone. If the councilmembers want to alleviate the split zone altogether, it will
require a public hearing.
Crawford asked if the applicant is willing to accept the Planning Commission
recommendation or wants what they requested. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the
applicant wants a little of both. The applicant feels that this property was split, and
shouldn't have been. However, the recommendation gives them relief for the
immediate issue, which is the building.
Tom Schreiber, 6879 Raspberry Drive, Everson, stated he is against the
application. The land surrounding the area has open space and is zoned for rural,
one unit per two acres (R2A) and agriculture. He listed the businesses that serve
the community. Faber Brothers also built large commercial and industrial
structures in addition to residential uses. They know the zoning regulations. Two
and a half years ago, Rick Faber said he would build their new building and offices
and warehouses there. This property is zoned general commercial and R2A.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
When the Lynden /Nooksack subarea was formally adopted, Hinote's Corner
was on its way to being established as a commercial crossroads. There was a need
for the County to think of adequate commercial coverage to serve the general
community. At that time the County extended the eastern line delineating general
commercial and rural zones 320 feet eastward. This created a straight consistent
line. Thus, two zoning uses on this parcel was created. The building is a 60 -year
old chicken coop that has since received a makeover by Faber Brothers. It is used
as a storage garage, according to the staff report.
The Faber Brothers application was heard by the Planning Commission. They
announced an intention to build office buildings for clerical use. There was no
mention of warehouses, storage yards, or shipping and receiving. They also
mentioned that the 5,000 square foot Quonset but was for storage of employees
personal recreational vehicles.
He showed pictures of things going on at the location. There is now a
Quonset but that encases racks of building materials. Commercial trucks pull in
and out of the but and the yard. This is not the manner of storing a recreational
vehicle, but of consistent daily use. This property is used as a construction
company business site. This violates current county zoning ordinances. General
commercial zoning does not permit construction contractors businesses, offices,
storage, or construction yards. Only light impact industrial zones allow for such
use.
Approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments shall find four
conditions. The amendment must conform to requirement of GMA, the
Comprehensive Plan, and countywide planning policies. This does not. It seeks to
create an industrial park where none has been planned before. There must be a
changed condition showing the need for an amendment. The only change was that
Faber Brothers purchased land and updated the chicken coop. The Council is being
asked to make good their speculative investment. The fourth finding that must
occur is that an amendment must not be an illegal spot zoning, which this is. This
request opens the door for all property owners at all four corners to make such
applications. Deny this application. He submitted a petition of neighbors and
businesses that oppose the request for the rezone. Hold the line on illegal spot
zones, urban sprawl, and disservice to the public interest. He asked the purpose a
construction company would have for a five -acre general commercial lot.
John Goodland, 6885 Raspberry Drive, stated he signed the petition against
the rezone. It won't do the neighborhood any good. In long run, the Faber
Brothers' goals are to create a construction operation in that neighborhood,
including materials storage.
Brenner stated the pictures show a light industrial site, not commercial. She
asked why.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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.
Crawford asked about option two, recommended by staff. Olson stated that
recommendation was for an extension of the zoning line by 390 feet. The Planning
Commission extended the staff recommendation to 425 feet.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated Faber Brothers understands this is not to be a
general contractor site. A request for a spot zone to light industrial is not in front
of the Council. One -third of this property is already zoned general commercial.
There is general commercial zones on neighboring parcels.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Starkenburg - Kroontje continued to state it's not a spot zone. There's no
intention to use the property outside the uses allowed by the zone.
Crawford asked if the Planning Division received compliance complaints on
this property, and if they've been checked out.
Olson stated there was a complaint in the very beginning, a few years ago.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the Faber Brothers has not received any
correspondence from the Planning Department on compliance issues. The question
of the Quonset but was based on whether it was permitted. The Planning
Department worked with Faber Brothers to say that was the structure they could
put up. They could not do anything permanent until the zoning issue is resolved.
Fleetwood stated a rezone request does not constitute illegal spot zoning. It
does have to identify a changed public circumstance and public benefit. He asked
what those are. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated they are looking at a Comprehensive
Plan change and zoning amendment. Those are based on a mistake being made, or
changed condition, or both. In this case, there is a building that was split up by a
different zone. That takes away any value of that building that could be used for a
legal use. It was not taken into account in 1986 and in 1997, which was a mistake.
The changed condition is that the building is still being used for a legitimate
purpose. The idea that a structure has to be torn down because Whatcom County
chose to make that property worthless by placing a zoning line that runs through it
is not fair and doesn't serve the public purpose. If the line is moved, the building
can be used. The public benefit is that existing infrastructure can be used. By
moving the line, they are still allowing what they would otherwise have, which is
one house site and a general commercial site, without the need to demolish a
structure. There is no public burden to moving the line 110 feet internally. She
asked the detriment to moving the line internally. It should have been done in
1997, or should not have happened in the first place in 1986. Both the staff and
Planning Commission recognized in their findings that the recommendation is
consistent with the necessary criteria.
Fleetwood stated his inclination was to go along with the Planning
Commission recommendation. The photos Mr. Schreiber presented are persuasive.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated this isn't a hearing. The Planning Commission dealt
with things at a hearing where Faber Brothers could attend and present
information. This is a determination as to whether or not the Council wants more
information. She cannot provide more information on the photographs that were
just presented.
McShane stated Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje wouldn't have any more time to
address the photos at a public hearing, either. The councilmembers are getting
information now and taking input to make a determination. This back - and -forth
discussion wouldn't happen at a public hearing.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the $400,000 photo shown in one photo is
owned by a property who signed a letter of support for the entire acreage to be
rezoned to general commercial.
Fleetwood asked for more information on a proposed buffer. Starkenburg -
Kroontje stated the County code requires a buffer.
Brenner asked about the Quonset hut. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is in
the R2A zone and would be in the R2A zone according to the Planning Commission
recommendation. The County approved it only as a temporary structure.
Roy asked if the buffer is visual. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the code
defines that it be an all- season solid barrier to separate incompatible uses or to
protect adjacent roadways from unsightliness or visual distraction.
Roy asked the definition of temporary. Olson stated it is subject to an
administrative decision.
Goodwin stated she would have to look at the conditions on the building
permit.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council to schedule a public
hearing on moving the zoning line 425 feet as recommended by the Planning
Commission, but return it to the current zoning line 60 feet north of the building.
Sixty feet allows for a buffer and driving. It resolves the immediate problem of the
split building. They're addressing a mistake. There is value to the community to
use that building to its best purpose. Beyond that, there is no benefit to the
community and great benefit to the property owner.
Crawford stated the motion is worth considering. When they look at the
general commercial zones, there are lots of jags and corners in an attempt to follow
property lines to some degree. Yet, that wasn't done with this line. He asked if
Councilmember McShane's proposal is okay, in terms of not following the property
lines. Olson stated that at the time the line was drawn, the building was a chicken
coop. It was assumed that the building would be demolished or put to specific
commercial uses.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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.
Crawford asked if matching the property line was a concern at the time.
Olson stated it was not.
Crawford stated that other than this one property, the general commercial
zoning line followed property lines. Olson stated it does, generally speaking. The
commercial uses were on relatively small parcels of land. Even though the line is
jagged, it does follow, but it included those particular commercial uses around the
corner.
Crawford asked if there is one precedent that they need to stick to, one way
or another. Olson stated there is not.
Brenner asked if they knew when the line was drawn that it bisects a parcel.
Olson stated they did know that. At that time, the property was a homey chicken
farm. It had a house that fronted onto Hannegan Road in the southwest corner of
the property. General commercial uses don't require an enormous acreage of land,
so they chose the 320 foot strip for general commercial.
McShane stated they worry about uneven lines and lines splitting properties.
That makes sense. He also looks at the way this line was drawn. When it was
done, a fair bit of deference was given to creating a commercial zone in an area
that may not have been commercial in the first place. The property immediately to
the south is an apartment building. It's not commercial. The property to the north
that jogs out again is because of immigrant cabins. There is also a Grange Hall.
It's not like this area was already commercial in the first place. Staff at the time
decided to run the line up the back of the properties, and the building was a
chicken coop that probably would be torn down. He recalled that Faber Brothers
realized that the building was useful. It comes down to what they should do with
the old farm building. It makes sense to allow it to be commercial. It resolves the
mistake, if it could be called a mistake. Adjust the line because the building has
more value than they thought. The mistake that was made was in assuming it was
a building that should be torn down. They have a rationale for fixing the mistake,
which is the building, not the entire property.
Roy asked the general timeframe of the photographs. Schreiber stated the
photographs were taken during two weekends during June of this year.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber absent.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/5/2003, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 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, 11/5/2003, Page 12