Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 12 20021 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 12, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Sam Crawford L. Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner Sharon Roy COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR WHATCOM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 10 (AB2002 -087) Deb Lambert, Water District 10 Commissioner, stated the water district is required to update its Comprehensive Plan every seven years. There has been no substantial change resulting from this review. There was only discussion of the potential for an inter -tie between the water system in Sudden Valley to the City of Bellingham water treatment plant. If they are going to do the inter - tie,they needed to flush more of the plan out. It is there now. 2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2002 -084) 2002 A REVIEW - WHATCOM COUNTY PDS Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is the required five - year review of the Comprehensive Plan. The County has a September deadline to accomplish the review. However, if the Council approves a resolution saying when and how it will get the review done, the County doesn't necessarily have to meet the September deadline. This is something the County is required to do. Staff recommends approval of docketing this item. Staff will bring forward a revised schedule. This year, the staff is not going to be able to meet its normal schedule because of the magnitude of doing the five -year review and because of the number of applications that they've received. She would propose a lengthier schedule that would go on into the spring, as late as June, to complete this year's docket. That Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. will give the staff more time to fit in all the other projects they've been talking about. She submitted a revised project list with all of the timelines. After the staff knows how many items the County will docket, she will bring forward a timeline showing her estimate of how long it will take to do all the projects. This is one item the County has to do, whether it wants to or not. McShane stated some of these applications would obviously take a long time. He asked if there is a way to split the applications up. Goodwin stated the Council can only adopt one Comprehensive Plan amendment per year. They all either go this year or have to wait until next year. The exception is if the Council calls an amendment an emergency. McShane moved to recommend docketing item 2002 A. Motion carried unanimously. 2002 B BELLINGHAM UGA - GUIDE AND SMITH ROAD Goodwin gave a staff report. She would address this item and the next item, 2002 -C. The County has an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham about how to jointly process amendments to the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA). That agreement complicates this process because the County can't accept applications for amendment to the City of Bellingham UGA until December 31, 2002. When the agreement was approved, staff was thinking that the County Comprehensive Plan five -year review must be done in 2002, and they would accept Bellingham UGA amendments to consider them during 2002. However, that's not what the interlocal agreement says. There are a couple of options. One option would be to amend the interlocal agreement, which isn't likely to happen. A better idea would be to go with an amended processing schedule this year, try to fold any applications into the five -year review of the Comprehensive Plan, and then work jointly with the City of Bellingham to process them. Do not initiate them as independent amendments, or else it will be inconsistent with the interlocal agreement. If the Council wants to initiate them as an amendment, then the County must work with the City to amend the interlocal agreement. A third option would be to wait a full year. Staff has preliminary information from an extensive study that Pat Jones did. The study shows there may be a shortage of land in the Bellingham UGA. Neither the County nor the City has had time to analyze the study. She suspects that there is a shortage of supply over the 20 years. The County will evaluate its land supply using the data that the study provided and an independent analysis. If the County determines that there is a shortage of developable land in the Bellingham UGA, County staff would have to decide what to do as part of the five -year review process. Logically, they will look at the Caitec property. It is one of the five -year review areas in the Bellingham UGA. Whether or not the County initiates this amendment, it is something that they need to look at. Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. Crawford asked if the staff would bring forward all of the applications to amend the Bellingham UGA from private parties during the five -year review process. Goodwin stated there are only two applications in the Bellingham UGA. Once the County confirms a land supply in the City, the County will need to look at all of the areas within the five -year review area. How the County treats Caitec as an application is unclear. One reason to docket the Caitec application is so the County can collect a fairly substantial fee, which will pay for the public notice, the mailings, the posting, and some of the staff time. If it is folded into the five -year review process, the County won't collect that fee. The County could give Caitec the opportunity to financially participate in the environmental impact statement, because it would analyze their expansion. Crawford asked if Caitec could donate to the County the equivalent of all the fees. Goodwin stated she'd take it of they offered. Brenner asked if the Council should discuss with the City how Bellingham should grow if they determine there's a shortage, instead of just assuming that anything is okay if there's a shortage. Goodwin gave a presentation on this application. The criteria that the County Council must consider are in the Council's packet. She described the location. This application would affect a city's urban growth area. It would add 702 acres to the Bellingham UGA. It would not take away agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands. Another criterion to consider is whether the area would be considered at another date. Policy 2Q -1 says the County will review the urban growth areas for all jurisdictions every five years. The interlocal agreement says the County won't initiate it until December 21, 2002, which means it would be reviewed next year. There is a discrepancy there. There are agricultural soils, streams, wetlands, two major pipelines, and a golf course on the site. A fee waiver has been requested. She showed a map of and described the area. The zoning is currently rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). Approximately one - quarter of the site has agricultural soils. If it was in the agricultural overlay zone, which it is now, there would be clustered residential development. In reality, with the golf course there, there is going to be clustered development anyway and it will not be used for agriculture. There are buffers along the creeks in the area and some of the wetlands. The entire area is a seismic hazard area, which means the combination of soils and underlying geology makes it subject to shaking. Much of the county is that way. If they excluded seismic hazard areas, there wouldn't be a lot of development in the County. The Olympic pipeline is to the south and the Transmountain pipeline goes through the north of the property. Both pipelines are close to the property boundaries, with plenty of room for buffers in the middle. It's not in the 100 -year floodplain, and it doesn't have any slopes over 15 percent. It's not within any wellhead protection zones. Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. The main issue is that it is within a five -year review area. The Council, in previous years, has waited on these items until the five -year review process. The County has some obligation to at least look at it this year. Brenner asked if anyone requested to be included in the five -year review, but was excluded. Goodwin stated there was. One area was between Northwest Road and the Guide Meridian in the Slater Road area. Nelson stated the County has been trying to identify areas in the UGA that are applicable for transfer of development rights receiving areas. He asked how that plays out. Goodwin stated it is an issue. The County doesn't have strong Comprehensive Plan policies. There are policies that support allowing someone to acquire part of the rights to increase zoning density. Whatcom County designated the Lake Whatcom area as a sending area. The Council could condition this rezone upon purchase of development rights out of the watershed. The applicant expressed a willingness to discuss that option, and is interested in doing that. Once the County decides if there is a shortage of land and that this is the appropriate place for growth, then the County can negotiate the density. Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planning Director, stated the City anticipated reviewing this property as a part of the five -year review. It doesn't make sense to docket it as an annual amendment, because it's too large for an amendment. It can't adequately be considered during the annual timeframe because of the front -end work that needs to be done. The request should not be pushed to December 2002, and it should also not be initiated as of December 31, 2001. It should be batched with all the other five -year review areas. That would be consistent with the interlocal agreement. The Templeton property is another major UGA amendment. Both of the amendments should be considered in the five - year review process. The City staff are already integrating those properties into their analysis. Nelson stated fee collection could be done through the one -year process, but not the five -year process. He asked what would be required in the five -year process to pay for all the tasks needed to develop this as an urban growth area. Decker stated the City and County are both going to have to engage in State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) analysis for the five -year review process. The City did a SEPA analysis for the Comprehensive Plan and adoption of the urban growth areas in 1997. The City will have to do an expanded SEPA alternatives analysis for this approach. For something as large as this property, the applicants are going to have to do an environmental impact statement (EIS) at some point in the process. With the five -year review, there will be a decision by the City and the County on whether or not a property should be added to Bellingham's urban growth area. That plays itself out in a variety of ways. Nelson asked what the requirements are and the financial implications to the City and County in that review process. Decker stated they haven't sorted all that out. She hasn't looked at the issue of the fee the applicant would pay as part of an Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. annual amendment process or wouldn't pay as part of a five -year review process. The City has to do this analysis anyway, so it will do its SEPA analysis. For them to implement an action as part of the City's UGA, the applicant will have to do some kind of an EIS that will go beyond the five -year review analysis. It will build on the SEPA analysis. The City's SEPA analysis will not be sufficient to deal with all the issues of their proposed development. That will be more detailed and would require an EIS. Nelson asked for an estimate of what the County's financial impact would be. Goodwin stated she didn't have a good estimate. She estimated that all the Comprehensive Plan docket items would take between 200 to 500 hours of staff time for each one. She suspected that the staff time required would be doubled for this application. It might take up to 1,000 hours of staff time. If a rezone is associated with it, there is also a public notice to everyone within 300 feet, which could be a couple hundred people. It depending on the level of detail and the information the staff receives from the applicant. If the County needs a supplemental EIS to its existing EIS that looks specifically at the expansion to this UGA, the applicant would provide that information. Generally, the applicant pays for an EIS of that nature. Brenner asked about the request for fee waiver. Goodwin stated the Comprehensive Plan application fee is $400. The rezone fee is approximately $2,100. Brenner asked if the applicant has to pay for all the staff hours. Goodwin stated no. The $400 application fee doesn't even pay for the most simple of applications. It barely pays for the clerical time to transcribe the Planning Commission minutes. The EIS is based on time, and is generally done by a consultant. Caskey- Schreiber stated she has serious concerns about the impact on infrastructure, such as the schools and the traffic. The only way she would ever support something like this is if the applicant does a lot of purchase of development rights (PDR) on agricultural lands along the Guide Meridian. That kind of program is not in place right now. She asked if the County has any kind of program in place now where the County can stipulate conditions on what the applicant would have to do to get this size of a development. Goodwin stated the answer is yes to all of that. The County doesn't have a PDR program for agricultural land yet. It probably will by the time this moves forward. The PDR committee is working on it and has a deadline of April. The County has a TDR program for the Lake Whatcom watershed, which may be more directly related to this. The Council could condition the proposal under SEPA or make a condition of the rezone. The SEPA review would look at the impact to the infrastructure. The traffic could be mitigated to actually decrease traffic on the Guide Meridian if the development connects from Cordata to Smith Road, and develops a road parallel to the Guide. If they limit access on the Guide, it may reduce traffic. The applicant has talked about putting a school site in the project. The Council has the authority under the GMA to assess school impact Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 5 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. 1 fees. Whatcom County has never done that before. Many counties have impact 2 fees up to $3,000 or $4,000 per unit for school impacts. 3 4 Caskey- Schreiber stated transportation corridors were not adequately 5 addressed in the proposal. She asked if the County could stipulate that the 6 developers add an overpass from Aldrich Road onto I -5. She is serious about trying 7 to alleviate traffic on the Guide. Goodwin stated it wouldn't be part of the rezone. 8 It would be part of the Planned Unit Development, once they get the rezone. The 9 County would have to show a really strong need that a 1,500- or 2,000 -lot 10 subdivision would require a freeway interchange. That might be a bit much for this it project. Those are things that the County would look at during the SEPA process. 12 The County doesn't have traffic impact fees in Whatcom County. All of the traffic 13 mitigation is done as a part of the environmental review. 14 15 Brenner stated the State makes the decisions on freeway interchanges. 16 Goodwin stated the State does approve interchanges. The Bellis Fair mall 17 contributed to that one interchange that goes directly into the mall. She didn't 18 know how that was done. All of that would be looked at when they get to the stage 19 of having a development proposal. 20 21 Crawford stated all they are considering now is a Comprehensive Plan 22 amendment for the UGA to be changed. They are not looking at a rezone or a 23 planned unit development. Goodwin stated they are looking at a Comprehensive 24 Plan amendment and a rezone from R5A and R10A to urban residential -mixed and 25 General Commercial. The applicant proposes a simultaneous rezone and 26 Comprehensive Plan amendment. Another option is to make the Comprehensive 27 Plan amendment a part of the five -year review, and to look at the rezone in June. 28 The applicant wants some certainty that they are moving towards his goal before 29 participating in an EIS and working cooperatively with the County. 30 31 Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, Inc., Bellingham, stated he represents the 32 applicant, Caitec Corporation. The applicant will pay all fees and costs that are 33 associated with processing the application. It is not an issue to them. The Planning 34 staff can figure out a way to extract the fees from a willing participant. That is the 35 applicant's position, for the record. The applicant also doesn't want the Planning 36 staff to spend an enormous amount of County money in the processing. He is 37 comfortable with picking up the costs that are associated with their application. 38 39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 40 41 Jones continued to state that it's Caitec's intent to transfer density as part of 42 this proposal. The TDR program will never work unless there are large receiving 43 lands. Trying to use TDR's for infill is impractical and ineffective. He did a land 44 supply and demand study for Caitec. He looked at the entire city and the UGA, 45 using state -of- the -art geographical information systems (GIS), Engineering and 46 Planning staff, and other science specialties in his firm. They evaluated every 47 undeveloped parcel in the city and UGA, neighborhood -by- neighborhood. They did Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. a development plan for those areas. The bottom line is that there is a significant shortfall in the supply. There is about half of what the requirements are in the 20- year plan. Staff will review his study. He's worked closely with the City when he did the study. Hopefully, his study will help the City to finalize its evaluation. With the expectation of moving the project forward to an ultimate planned unit development (PUD) application, they are involved in doing a traffic study and looking at the traffic issues in an area that encompasses Smith Road to the north, the Guide Meridian to the east, and Interstate 5 as the other boundary on the triangle. They are doing studies for the extension of utilities and infrastructure dealing with water supply and storage, and extension of sanitary sewer along the Guide Meridian, including lift stations. They are looking at the critical areas and wetlands. A geo- technical study and a hydrology drainage study for the project are underway. He is working closely with Water Resources Division Manager Bruce Roll trying to work out a program to incorporate an education and research center for water quality. That's lacking in the Pacific Northwest. It's a program being worked out with Washington State University. They've done a lot of work on this project thus far. A couple of things were clear when they took this on. First, they weren't going to pursue annexation into the UGA if the City of Bellingham did not believe it was a good idea. Second, he understood that this year was the year to submit their application. Regardless of how the scrivener's error occurred in the document, they are where they are. He is comfortable with Ms. Goodwin's recommendation to include it into the five -year review process. The complexity and nature of his project doesn't allow them to do it in one year. Traffic is a big problem. Some of the things that the project will do will substantially mitigate the situation on the Guide Meridian. Until the traffic study is done, it is premature to talk about what those answers ought to be, other than an obvious north -south connection. McShane moved to recommend a resolution to include this amendment in the five -year review and not docket it this year as an independent item. Goodwin stated the motion is to include item 2002 -B in item 2002 -A. Donna Macomber, 159 Larsen Road, stated she is opposed to the rezone and the development. The city boundary should be even, without any land sticking out of the boundary. The Caitec property extends the land that is already sticking out, creating an irregular boundary. The Boundary Review Board said it would not accept any more annexations in the uneven boundaries. Consideration of any change in the boundary should include a discussion of whether the City of Bellingham should grow in an east -west direction or expand in a northerly direction. One option might be to extend the urban growth boundary in an east -west alignment from the Cordata PUD along the proposed east -west connector to Interstate 5. Another suggestion was to square off around the Klein Road. The Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. additional property could be rezoned to allow a mix of residential property, providing a gradation of density intensities and uses between the projected city limits and the County's R5A zone. The City and County should expand to the east and west. The Meridian School District, which has always been very supportive, was denied the last levy because everyone is tired of subsidizing the development. Impact fees don't cover one child's education for six months. Consider the request at a later date. The people in the area would like to put it off for another five years because it isn't necessary. The Planning Department's guidelines for growth put the burden of proving changed conditions and benefit to the general welfare of the community on a rezone applicant. Also, a site - specific rezone is not to create a discriminatory benefit of one group to the detriment of the neighbors or community at large without adequate public advantage. Fred Haskins, 4754 Aldrich Road, stated he is opposed to the rezone and the development. It should be put off until the time is appropriate. Neighbors he's talked to are also opposed. The proposal is to install all the utilities. He questioned where the utilities would come from. There are many acres between Caitec and where the utilities are currently. The City said there would be no more expansions from the ravine north of Horton Road until access roads were put in. He's not seen anything from the County about extending Slater Road, The Meridian School District is already overloaded. The impact to the community would make it more urban. McShane withdrew his motion. This needs further discussion during another committee meeting. They need to carry this over. The committee will also need to discuss the next item further. Caskey- Schreiber moved to put this off for five years. Decker stated the City of Bellingham is looking at Caitec in its five -year review process anyway. The City said it would do that when it adopted the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. The Templeton property should also be included in the five - year review. The City doesn't have any problem with Councilmember McShane's resolution, even if it isn't approved, because the City already agreed that it would look at those areas as part of the five -year review process. The fact that the applicants have done a lot more background work in order to get their 700 acres considered in the five -year review was totally at their own discretion. No one has encouraged or discouraged them from doing that. None of the councilmembers need to feel like there is some obligation because the company has hired Pat Jones to move forward with more work on their behalf. Regardless, the City will do its analytical job and look at the five -year review areas, including the other application that is on the table. She agreed that it doesn't make sense to do this during the annual amendment process. Roy asked if the five -year review would include projected population growth and different configurations of the UGA. Decker stated it would. They are using the Office of Financial Management (OFM) projections from the State, doing their Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. own independent projections, looking at their own land use infill capacity needs, and evaluating the areas that were being requested five years ago. Five years ago, they identified areas that don't belong in the City's UGA's at that time because the City couldn't justify them. The area between Northwest Road and the Guide Meridian was one of those areas. There wasn't enough demand to justify including it or the Caitec property. They don't know whether or not they have enough demand to justify it now. They are going to look at that question. Brenner asked if the extension of Slater Road would create development along it. Goodwin stated that if Slater Road connected toward the Guide Meridian, it would have development along it. The area that was originally proposed for a five -year review area goes all the way up to where Slater Road would go across. If Slater Road goes through at the northern edge of that, then all the area to the south would be in some form of development. It would come into the UGA if selected. Brenner asked how they keep cities from bumping into each other as they grow. Goodwin stated that is something they have to continue to work on. Now, the Ferndale UGA already touches the Bellingham UGA. They all have to work on coordinated open space planning. The City intends to look at it this year, and the County will work with the City on that. Nelson stated the City needs to have tools in their toolbox to do this five - year analysis. The City has to look at transportation, water, and sewer capabilities. All areas aren't conducive for those needs. Taking this out for five years and not including it in the toolbox will have dramatic impacts on what the City is trying to accomplish. Maintain the toolbox and get the information necessary to make decisions on community planning. McShane stated it sounds like it will be reviewed, no matter what the County Council does. He was concerned about putting out too much of a message of support now, and then having to withdraw some of that support. It will be included in the thorough review, as other areas will be. He's not sure a resolution is necessary. It's not a good idea to docket at this time. It's not something the County can work through this year anyway. Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion, since the City of Bellingham will review it anyway. 2002 C BELLINGHAM UGA - SAMISH WAY Heather Wolf, Langabeer, Tull and Lee, stated she is pleased that they've been included in the City of Bellingham five -year review process. She supports Ms. Goodwin's timeline. She supported a resolution to be included in the five -year review process so it doesn't get left behind. There is a residential land supply shortage. Have an environmental review of these Comprehensive Plan applications when they look at alternatives. Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. Decker stated this area would be added to the five -year review. Caskey- Schreiber moved to include this item into the County's five -year review process, item 2002 -A. She has fewer concerns about this area. It is close to the city limits. The Council cannot docket this because of the interlocal agreement. Decker encouraged the committee to not docket as an annual amendment. It needs to go through the longer process. Motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: Discussion of Comprehensive Plan continues following the next item.) 3. REQUEST APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO OBTAIN A POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING GROWTH PROJECTION STUDY FOR WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITIES WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 (AB2002 -100) McShane moved to recommend approval. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the City of Bellingham already contracted with Eco- Northwest. They are moving forward on the proposal to study population projections, look at Office of Financial Management (OFM) data, and divide all of those projections between the cities and their urban growth areas. The County just received a grant, which would fund this project. Staff recommends approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2002 -084) (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.) 20021 R2A TO GC - POLE AND HANNEGAN Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the proposal is on Pole Road and Hannegan Road, and to go from a rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) zone to a general commercial zone. The proposal would amend the Comprehensive Plan map from rural to crossroads commercial, and change the zoning map from R2A to general commercial. It's about eight acres. It is not affecting a city urban growth area (UGA), forestland, mineral land, or agricultural land. There are no plans to look at the area at a future date. It is in an aquifer recharge area. Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Goodwin continued to state that there are agricultural soils on the site. The applicant did not request a fee exemption. The acreage has residential development to the west. There is some commercial development at the corner. At this point, it is just a field. There is one house to the east. The intent is to expand commercial use at the intersection. Lesa Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated she represents the applicant. She described the area on the map. The general commercial zone already borders this proposal. It moves all the way to the west to include the mini - storage units and the Hinotes Corner development. The applicant purchased the piece of property that abuts the Hannegan Road. This property was a split zone. The zoning line of the commercial property did not match the legal lot. What the applicant owns is about five acres of R2A zoning and two acres of general commercial. The commercial property has a house. As they go back to the east, there is a long building that is split in half by the zoning line. The applicant first started looking into an amendment to get the building all into the general commercial zone. They are dealing with different building codes and land uses for each half of the building. After talking with their neighbors, they determined that the proposed boundary would be a more logical boundary. The applicant had an option to just request a change for their piece of property, or to square up the corner. The adjacent property owned by the Millers is vacant, and the Millers requested that it be included. That would bring the commercial property all the way to Pole Road and would address potential access issues. Now, the property is zoned R2A. The Miller property could be developed into housing units in the back portion, and the Faber Brothers' portion could be developed into housing units if they came into compliance by taking down the current building or were granted a rezone to get around it. Now, the parcel is tied up in a zoning dilemma. Fleetwood asked if the Comprehensive Plan describes how expansive a crossroads commercial zone can be. Kroontje read the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Fleetwood asked what sort of additional information they can expect that the committee won't get here, if this item is docketed. Goodwin stated staff will write a staff report, look at the Comprehensive Plan policies, and look at the Growth Management Act. There are policies in the Growth Management Act about these areas of more intense rural development, which is what crossroads commercial areas are. The Growth Management Act says they shouldn't expand beyond a logical outer boundary, and that the County has to establish where those boundaries are. Whatcom County has some latitude because the 1997 Comprehensive Plan was adopted prior to the amendments to the Growth Management Act, which defined these areas of more intense rural development. When they go through the staff report, they will do an analysis of the water, traffic, Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 11 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. 1 surrounding uses, and other information. At this time, they don't spend a lot of 2 staff time on it. The staff has not mailed out a notice to people within 300 feet. 3 4 Roy asked if approval would allow anything on the property that is 5 commercial. Kroontje stated the general commercial zone allows for uses that are 6 already happening out there. The Faber Brothers tried to come up with a logical 7 boundary, because the Comprehensive Plan says there should be a logical 8 boundary. The Faber Brothers want to have their site problem fixed, but they tried 9 to do it in accordance with finding a logical boundary to square off the boundary. 10 Docketing the item doesn't mean the Council has to move forward with all of the 11 acres that have been requested. The applicants are only interested in fixing the 12 problem that occurred when the zoning went down the middle of the building. They 13 are not really interested in ten acres. 14 15 Caskey- Schreiber stated she has lived just west of the proposed site for ten 16 years. She has 35 neighbors on her street who are strongly opposed to this. There 17 are many reasons why she opposes this. The general commercial zone that is in 18 the area goes up and down the Hannegan Road to the north and south. None of it 19 goes east and west. This is a heavy truck route and a State route. East Pole Road 20 is a narrow road. There is not room for shoulder expansion. It is a very dangerous 21 intersection. There are quite a few accidents each year. The school bus stop is at 22 the end of her street. She doesn't understand why they want to put a commercial 23 zone in the middle of a residential growing area. She encouraged Kroontje to look 24 at RR2 as a zone, since a house was just built to the northeast corner of the 25 property. Homes are continuously being built around Raspberry Ridge. She 26 strongly opposes this proposal, and does not want it to go any further than it has 27 already. Kroontje stated the Council's decision to move this forward is not based 28 on the neighborhood input at this point, because it hasn't been heard. The 29 applicant hasn't had a chance to present their application, other than trying to meet 30 the criteria for the initial screen. At some point, Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber 31 may not want to participate in the process if she has personal opinions, having lived 32 there. That is up to her. The application has merit in moving forward through the 33 initial screen to talk about and look at those things that Councilmember Caskey- 34 Schreiber brought up. This is a State route, and the Council has to determine 35 whether or not to allow the access for some of the existing commercial areas onto 36 the State route or leave them going only onto the Hannegan Road. The Council 37 also has to look at how they remedy the problem they created by placing the 38 Comprehensive Plan line and zoning line directly over someone's building, without 39 any input from the owner whatsoever. This is the County's chance to remedy that 40 situation by moving the proposal forward. The Council may elect to not make the 41 boundaries as big as they are on the map. 42 43 Fleetwood stated that incrementalism is a problem, and this is an 44 incremental creep. At some point in time, they have to draw the line. Kroontje 45 stated that they've already incrementally zoned up as they get to the corner. The 46 fees that the applicant would have to pay, compared to having to tear down their 47 building because they can't afford different codes on both ends, is not sending the Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, 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. applicant on a wild goose chase by saying the Council will consider trying to resolve the dilemma. If the ultimate answer is to only move the zoning line 200 feet, that would take care of the building use. They only get to that answer by moving it forward to consider it. Roy asked if there is another way of getting at the building, without moving this forward. Goodwin stated she couldn't answer that question. She hasn't done a lot of research, and won't until it's initiated. Fleetwood moved to hold this item in committee until they get more information. If there is a method to resolve the problem of the building being split in two, without going through the process, he would like to hear it. McShane stated that if there isn't a solution to the problem elsewhere, then he would support docketing this in two weeks. The Council can give direction to the Planning Commission when it's docketed. He would direct the Planning Commission to not include the additional piece that drops it down to the Pole Road. (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.) 2002 D FERNDALE UGA - PORTAL WAY AND ENTERPRISE ROAD The remainder of the items will be held in committee for two weeks. 2002 E SUMAS UGA - AG TO UGA (58 ACRES), UGA TO AG (48 ACRES 2002 F RR2 TO R2A - LAKE SAMISH 2002 J AFFORDABLE HOUSING - KULSHAN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 20020 UPDATE - BIRCH BAY SUBAREA PLAN OTHER BUSINESS Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the councilmembers are all invited to the short course in planning on March 7, 2002. At that time, they could jointly work on priorities if they don't get to it before. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2002, Page 14