HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 23 19992
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 23, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
Sutter stated that they would first discuss the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Amendments.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION REGARDING AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY (APO)
AND LAND EVALUATION SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) SOILS CRITERIA (AB99-
083)
Sutter stated that the committee determined that the criteria for opting out of the
agricultural protection overlay was not sufficient and asked staff to review more objective
measures to determine the viability of the agricultural land. The suggestions were to not base it
strictly on soil groups, but also consider issues such as road access, proximity to cities, urban
growth areas, availability of services, and intensity of nearby land uses.
Craig Olafson, Planning & Development Services Senior Planner, stated that they
reviewed the request as provided by Council. In doing the review, they utilized the technical
committee members, which include the John Gillies of the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS), George Boggs of the Whatcom Conservation District (CD), Craig MacConnell
of Washington State University's Cooperative Extension, and County Planning Department staff.
He provided a letter drafted by the committee members stating their concerns about the APO in
general (on file).
John Gillies, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), stated that they
participated with Planning and Development Services. Regarding the protection of agricultural
land use within the rural zone, the issue of allowing for the increase in density would be
counterproductive to providing for the protection of agriculture. That is the essence of the letter.
They need to go through the process because the mandate to staff is there. At the same time,
they felt the need to go on the record stating that the increased density may not be in the best
interest of agriculture in the long run. Perhaps there are other options available, including using
the LESA system and transfer of development rights. They need to explore other avenues to
protect the agricultural industry in the overlay areas. There are thousands of acres. There are
conflicts when they increase residential density in an agriculture zone. The increase in density
increases the interface between agricultural and residential lands.
Sutter stated that the agricultural overlay doesn't increase density, it only concentrates it
on a smaller piece of land.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, 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
48
49
Gillies stated that it is an option to look at a zone, such as a 20 -acre resource protection
zone that would be one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Or they could allow one dwelling unit per 40
acres. There should be a provision for transfer of development rights so they protect the interest
of the folks who own the property there. R5 or R10 density, even when it is clustered, will
increase population and, at the same time, try to keep agriculture viable. That is a conflict.
Sutter stated that the issue is whether they want the density concentrated or spread out.
Brenner stated that clustering would not increase density. She questioned whether they
have done any transfer of development rights (TDR) projects. Olafson stated that there is not a
program for agriculture for TDR. They transfer development for the cluster development within
the parcel.
Brenner questioned whether it has been done with any site. Knapp stated that they have
not. Regarding clustering, the density isn't changing, they are just re- positioning the plats.
Gillies stated that there is an agriculture zone that has one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
Now there is a rural zone with densities of 5 and 10 acres. At the same time they are trying to
protect viable agriculture, they are going to allow a higher overall density mix in that rural zone.
That is where the conflict is. He suggested that goal ought to be to maintain a one dwelling unit
per 40 acres density where there is viable agriculture, allow people to transfer those development
rights to other areas within the rural zone where the important soils or the viable agriculture
doesn't exist.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated that they did not recently change agricultural land into rural land. There
has been rural land for a long time. There is still a balancing act. Her problem is with the APO
because people don't understand what it is. They think that they have one thing when they
actually have encumbrances on them. TDR sounds wonderful, but hasn't seen it happen
anywhere that is taking care of the problems. She wanted to ensure that they are not giving
people false hopes about what it is going to accomplish.
Marlene Dawson, Council Member, questioned whether they had put a cap on the
number of houses that could be clustered. Olafson stated that it might be 10 homes in a cluster.
Olafson stated that the presentation will include background, then a review of the key
things on which they have made suggested changes.
Craig MacConnell, Washington State University Cooperative Extension, gave
information on agricultural factoids. The 1997 agricultural census has just been released. The
farm gate value, which is the product before it is processed, is just shy of $250 billion in
Whatcom County. Out of 17 counties in Western Washington, Whatcom County is number one
by far. Out of 39 counties in the state, Whatcom County is number six. Out of 3,076 counties in
the United States, Whatcom County is 95th. Whatcom County is in the top 3% in the country for
dairy. For dairy, out of 39 counties, Whatcom County is number one. Out of 2,500 counties in
the United States, Whatcom County is number 12. The County is in the top 2% in the country.
This is viable agriculture. This is something they need to protect and preserve. In 1992, there
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 2
I were 91,000 acres in cropland. In 1997, there were 81,000 acres in cropland. That is an 11%
2 reduction in five years. They need to be vigilant about protecting their agriculture.
3
4 Brown questioned where the farms and agriculture would be without water rights. That
5 is what concerns him about this whole thing. There is no water.
6
7 MacConnell stated that agriculture is important here, even with that problem.
8
9 Brenner questioned what they are supposed to tell the retiring farmer when they haven't
10 been able to farm in years, no one is buying, and nothing is going on. His facts are opposite of
11 what she has been hearing from farmers who want to retire.
12
13 MacConnell stated that the agricultural census has been filled out by every farmer in the
14 County.
15
16 Brenner stated that they should be there when the Council gets requests for rezones from
17 retiring farmers.
18
19 Hoag stated that they are changing that.
20
21 Olafson stated that Gillies would provide an overview of the LESA program. LESA has
22 a variety of uses that go beyond what they initially had in mind for the APO ordinance.
23
24 Gillies stated that he wanted to take the committee members through the LESA process,
25 so that it sets the framework for where they are at and the kind of proposal that they recommend
26 for the rural area. LESA is the Land Evaluation Site Assessment. It came about in 1983 as an
27 output from the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. The LESA program is two parts. The
28 first part is the land evaluation part, which consists of evaluating soils that are productive in the
29 County and ranking them locally. There are many ways to do it. They are grouped. There is a
30 maximum of 100 points, the minimum can be zero for soils that have no agricultural utility. The
31 second part is the site assessment. It requires local input and is done through a process of
32 consensus. They develop site attributes such as land within an urban growth area. There are
33 examples of better producing soils that are rated lower when compared to other sites, based on
34 the attributes. The attributes can be as broad or as narrow as they make them.
35
36 Brenner questioned when the County came up with the LESA. Gillies stated that they
37 worked on LESA in 1991 or 1992. He doesn't recall that the process was ever carried through to
38 adoption. It was something that was in process.
39
40 Brenner questioned whether it was just advisory.
41
42 Hoag stated that it was never completed. Gillies stated that it was not. Whenever there
43 are projects that involve federal money that may impact agricultural land, he has to fill out a
44 LESA evaluation. He just does the land evaluation part. There are not any site attributes to use.
45 He looks at the soils and does an evaluation.
46
47 Gillies continued his presentation to state that, if the County had the site attributes, they
48 would look at the soil evaluation, which is a maximum of 100 points. The maximum points on
49 the site assessment are 200. 2/3 of the factor is based on the site attributes, not on the soils.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 3
1
2 The objective of LESA is to facilitate the protection of important farmland. It is not to
3 facilitate the conversion of farmland. There is an understanding that choices have to be made.
4 Some choices are very difficult. Some counties have 95% of their land base that is prime
5 farmland. A system like this has to legitimize the decisions that are made.
6
7 LESA has stood the test of the courts. There is case law on the LESA system. In one
8 instance, a farmer requested a rezone of 160 acres to be developed. The courts upheld the
9 County zoning based on the LESA system.
10
11 The benefits of LESA are that it is defensible, can be applied consistently, are flexible to
12 local conditions, assist the decision - makers in making decisions, and it includes local values. It
13 is consistent from the national level on down because there is a framework. The factors and
14 attributes are all locally developed.
15
16 Brenner questioned whether there have been any other state or federal cases where a
17 rurally zoned parcel was down - zoned. Gillies stated that he did not know, but he would research
18 that.
19
20 Gillies continued the presentation and stated that the uses include a myriad of purposes,
21 including the TDR concept. He envisioned that areas within the rural zone could receive
22 development rights and areas that would be "down- zoned" but a person would retain
23 development rights that could be transferred to another area.
24
25 Brenner questioned whether the County could purchase agriculture development rights
26 with the conservation futures fund. Olafson stated that they would have to establish a program,
27 but law does not prohibit it.
28
29 Hoag stated that the wording for Conservation Futures allows for the purchase of
30 agricultural land.
31
32 Gillies stated that the 1996 farm bill provided funding to counties and states for the
33 purchase of farmland development rights, but the counties and states had to have a program in
34 place before they could apply for the money.
35
36 Gillies continued his presentation and stated that the overlay criteria are a simplified
37 LESA system. Groups one through three were only used and given a new label. They are
38 proposing to call it the agricultural protection overlay soils. The proposed site assessment
39 attributes are similar to the original language in the Comprehensive Plan. It considers parcel
40 size, open space tax status, and current use. In the Whatcom County Agricultural Overlay
41 District it applies to 20 acre and larger parcels in the rural zones that meet the criteria. More than
42 50% of the parcel area would have to contain soils that were on the soil list, the parcel must be
43 currently enrolled in the agricultural open space, and the predominant use has been agriculture.
44
45 Brenner stated that recently there was a request for land to be removed from the
46 agricultural open space. She questioned whether it was evaluated this way.
47
48 Syliva Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manger, responded that
49 this was not adopted yet.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, 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
48
49
Gillies stated that the section from the Comprehensive Plan Resource Lands Action Plan
involved developing a LESA system and using it to evaluate lands for possible inclusion in the
agricultural zone. This infers that there was a notion to look at increasing the agricultural zone
or redefining the agricultural zone, and using LESA as a tool to make that happen. No action has
taken place on this yet. They are open to pursuing this action plan. There is benefit to using a
system that is consistently applied, objective, and can be defended.
Brenner questioned whether the Council is restricted so that they must allow the open
space designation if the criteria are met. Gillies responded that it might be. He is not familiar
with the specifics. They may have to sign a document stating that they comply with the
requirements.
Brenner questioned whether they could specify in that process that the land would be
zoned agricultural. Goodwin stated that they would research that option. They could write a
policy in the Comprehensive Plan. It would probably eliminate most of the applications for
agricultural open space. They will look into the legality of it.
Gillies stated that 139,000 acres enjoy that tax benefit. There was an argument that there
is not that much agricultural land in the County, but there is data that supports that number in
terms of participants in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. He
provided another handout by Lloyd Write from USDA (on file).
Olafson stated that the last issue to discuss is about the buffers. They have to be creative
at times to fit everything in. In some cases there can be limitations. After they did the first draft,
they tried to apply it to some sites. They evaluated setbacks using simple examples and looked
at buffering requirements between the reserve tract and the clustered lots. Originally it was a
100' setback. They found that a number of approved projects had wells in the reserve tracts.
They tried to minimize that and allow the wells to be on the site. They also looked at the
restrictions that should apply to the reserve tract and ended up with a 50 -foot setback on both
sides. That would be to limit application of manure fertilizer and chemicals. The setback for a
cluster tract would be the same as the setback requirement for a house. Buildings could be
within 35 feet. The drain field and well should be within the cluster lot, rather than in the reserve
tract. Typically people are looking at a short-plat, which is 4 lots or less. To get their four lots,
they would have to eliminate any potential development on the reserve tract, which they are
typically leaving one development right on the reserve tract. They would also have to go
through a long -plat process. The majority of the ones coming in are three lot clusters. They can
configure the cluster for four lots.
Brenner stated that now they are not restricted to non - agricultural soils. She questioned
whether that would that eliminate a lot of the clustering because many of the parcels have all
agricultural soils. Olafson stated that they propose to prefer the cluster was not on agricultural
soils.
Brenner questioned whether Planning was suggesting that someone not cluster at all if all
the soils are prime agriculture. Olafson stated that they are not suggesting that.
Hoag questioned the reason for preferring that the drain fields be on the cluster site. She
would like to see the wells and drain field separated as much as possible. Olafson responded that
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 5
I the reason is because the drain field and well are servicing those lots. If they are taking the
2 agricultural and clustering to a certain size, but expand uses into agricultural reserve tract, then
3 they are essentially limiting the use of the reserve tract.
4
5 Sutter questioned whether they can put drain fields in the buffer between the property line
6 and the agricultural reserve tract. Olafson stated that the well head protection area could extend
7 out. One can plow a field that is a well head protection zone, but not put fertilizer on it. It could
8 be pastured.
9
10 Sutter questioned the use of the buffer. Olafson stated that it is to not apply chemicals,
11 pesticides, or fertilizers. Grass or organic farming could be done there. Planning's
12 recommendation is that it be required within the cluster.
13
14 Olafson continued the presentation and stated that the follow up is that this would be a
15 text amendment that this goes forward through the zoning process. It will have a public hearing
16 and will go through the Planning Commission.
17
18 Brenner questioned where this is on the priority list. Goodwin stated that is a priority two
19 item.
20
21 George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District (CD) Coordinator, stated that CD Board
22 reviewed their activities for the future. Land use activities and dealing with the erosion of the
23 agricultural base in Whatcom County disturbed the Board to the extent that it has become a
24 priority for them to address. They will address the rezones, conditional land use permits, and
25 other similar items to ensure that this important resource is protected.
26
27 Sutter stated that the committee would continue discussion of the second item on the
28 agenda.
29
30 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
31
32 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
33 AMENDMENTS (AB99 -074)
34
35 Sutter stated that she wanted to talk about the priority list. She recommended that
36 priority one items be docketed. Priority two items should be held until after the discussion on the
37 agricultural soils. Priority three items will require some discussion before a decision is made.
38 The committee will first discuss the Killiam mineral resource land (MRL) designation. She was
39 not inclined to approve this request. They went through this during the Comprehensive Plan
40 process and there have been no changed conditions that would warrant rezoning this area as an
41 MRL.
42
43 Kathy Keena, attorney with Simonarson, Visser, Zender, & Thurston, stated that she
44 represented Killiam and that she was unaware that this was part of the rezone process.
45
46 Sutter stated that they went through the process when they went through the
47 Comprehensive Plan. She hasn't seen any changed conditions that warrant sending it to the
48 Planning Commission.
49
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Keena stated that the changed conditions are that there is currently an operation in the
area that is more extensive than it was in the past. That is what they are relying upon as a
changed circumstance. There will be more residential development in the area. The MRL needs
to approved now because if they wait five years, there will be more people complaining about
the MRL pit. It is better to deal with the MRL now, before the people move in to complain.
Sutter questioned whether this site provides a need that cannot be met elsewhere. Keena
stated that this area was originally included in the 50 -year aggregate amount that was needed.
After that, it was removed.
Sutter questioned whether she was aware about the natural gas pipeline. Keena stated
that she was aware of that and there will be setback requirements.
Brenner stated that the need to be satisfied is for more gravel in the community. She
would like to hear from staff on the changed circumstances.
Sutter questioned the type of material that would be removed. Keena stated that the
valuable gravel is in the area that they are asking to be designated as an MRL.
Sutter questioned whether the zoning in the area is currently residential one unit per ten
acres (R10). Keena stated that it is.
Hoag stated that the expansion would bring the MRL border up to Cedar Springs, which
has been there for a long time. There is not anything new there that would change. Also,
sending items to the Planning Commission costs the taxpayer's money. The Council doesn't
send things to the Planning Commission unless it is appropriate and fits in with where the
Council is trying to go. In addition, the currently designated MRLs allow the County 200 years
worth of gravel. The point that this area used to be designated in the 50 -year supply for the
County no longer matters. Lastly, this pit is sending all of its gravel to Canada.
Keena stated that the issue is about the changed circumstances.
Sutter stated that she does not see a changed circumstance that warrants another look at
this issue. Keena stated that the changed circumstance is that development will prevent the
designation in the future. Increased activity constitutes a changed circumstance.
Brown questioned whether the Council established 200 years' worth of mineral
resources.
Hoag stated that former County planner Jeff Griffen took the amounts that had been set
aside in the MRLs and compared them with the projected growth. He determined it would be
200 years' worth of mineral resources.
Sutter stated that, based on the information that the Council was given, they made the
determination to put the MRLs where they are.
Brown stated that he feels that people have the right to present their evidence and their
reasoning for wanting their rezone to go through. This process is a hindrance, which stops
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 7
I people from presenting a hearing -type of situation, which they would get at the Planning
2 Commission.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Sutter stated that a year ago there were many hearings before the Planning Commission
and the County Council on this very issue.
Brown stated that people have paid a fee to go through this process.
Knapp stated that there is a fee, but if it does not go through the Planning Commission, it
would be refunded.
Hoag questioned whether a fee from a frivolous request covers the cost of reviewing that
request. Knapp stated that it depends on the issue and how controversial it is.
Brenner questioned whether staff has an opinion on the appropriateness of this item.
Knapp stated that the committee's assessment is probably correct. At some point, they
need to evaluate where they are with the MRLs. This is R10 zoning and is not an urban growth
area.
Brown stated that he believed there was to be a study of mineral resource lands. Hoag
stated that the study was for agricultural MRLs.
Knapp stated that this is not an urban growth area (UGA). Massive development will not
happen in the area that would preclude this in the future.
Keena stated that any development in the area is going to lead to a controversy in the
future. The Killiam's have retained a noise expert and someone to look at the aquifer discharge
area. They are trying to do this in a responsible manner. There is case law that supports that
issue is changed circumstance. She requested an opportunity to put this before the Planning
Commission.
Brenner stated that their charge is balancing all of the interests. The changed
circumstances should be about the need in the County. It should be something that everyone
could measure.
Knapp stated that the staff has not done an analysis of changed conditions. The intent of
the area is not for significant growth. The GMA doesn't allow much growth in the area.
Rick Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas, stated that he is an adjacent property owner to
the Killiam MRL. This is the very same proposal that was voted down. Concerns haven't
changed. When the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, they indicated that the
designated MRL met the 50 years' need. He read from his letter (on file). The only activity at
the current pit is a power - screener and a front -end loader. There has been very little extraction.
Hoag stated that the expansion would put more exposure along the natural gas pipeline.
Benner stated that was correct. There are three gas lines in the area. They are in the 20"
diameter range. There is about a 1/2 mile area that would be exposed to aggregate impact on both
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
sides of the pipeline. That was a concern that the pipeline be avoided last time this issue was
before the Council.
Hoag questioned whether the expansion is bordered by Cedar Springs. Benner stated that
is correct. His property also borders the property. He has 30 acres that could be broken into
three 10 -acre parcels. Two of those potential parcels would be adjacent to the MRL.
Debra Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas, stated that the pit is not active. There has
been sporadic digging of topsoil in the last four months, but that has been the only activity.
Keena stated that she drafted a document based on a lease that they entered into and
mining will begin in three weeks.
John Bargain, founder and director of Cedar Springs, stated that 15 years ago the
Planning Commission granted approval to open the Cedar Springs area. It has turned into a park.
Last year, 12,000 people visited. He questioned why they would allow an incompatible use next
to the park when they were granted approval to create the park. They are going to expand. The
County has granted a permit to build another 20 -unit motel.
Keena stated that those are the changed circumstances. They must keep focused on the
issue. Who was there first shouldn't be relevant. They have to keep to the issue of changed
circumstances, which are about the increased activity. The life of the pit will be seven years.
The idea is to get it designated now for future use.
Sutter stated that what is in the area first does matter. That is Keena's argument.
Killiams want to be there first so that other things don't happen around them.
Keena stated that the gravel pit has been there for thirty years. People have moved into
that area knowing that the gravel pit is there.
Sutter stated that they did not move in knowing that there was a potential for expansion to
the requested size.
Hoag questioned whether the lease was public information. Keena stated that it is not.
Sutter moved that this not be included on the Planning Commission's docket.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that she wanted to break this discussion and have the presentation regarding
the agricultural soils.
(Clerk's Note: The committee went to the first item on the agenda)
(Clerk's Note: The following is a continuation of the discussion of item #1)
Sutter stated that the committee concurred that the priority one items (Docket numbers
1999- B, C, D, and F) will go forward to the Planning Commission. Priority number two is the
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 9
I LESA soils (Docket #1999 -H) and the committee concurred to send that to the Planning
2 Commission.
3
4 Hoag moved to send priority one and priority two items to the Planning Commission.
5
6 Goodwin clarified that the APO /LESA soils review would be zoning text amendments,
7 which wouldn't be docketed until June and handled next year. Olafson was addressing the
8 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The review of the zoning text changes about the
9 APO/LESA soils was done because the Council Planning Committee requested an update of the
10 LESA soils by Valentine's Day. It doesn't have to do with today's docket. They are two
11 separate issues.
12
13 Olafson stated that the last time they met, there was confusion about the Comprehensive
14 Plan amendment proposal that was drafted to address the issue of maps and LESA narrative in
15 the Comprehensive Plan. He requested to go over that with the committee. He provided a
16 handout that describes the issues of concern and what they are proposing to do (on file). The
17 committee should put this item on the docket.
18
19 Motion to forward priority one and two items to the Planning Commission 1999 docket
20 carried unanimously.
21
22 Sutter stated that the next items are priority three items. They have already handled the
23 Killiam request and the committee concurred that they do not want that on the docket.
24
25 Sutter stated that the next item is the Columbia Valley /Kendall UGA (Docket #1999 -G).
26 This has to do with establishing an urban growth area in the foothills vicinity. There is also a
27 concurrent request for some light industrial zoning in that area.
28
29 Goodwin stated that there was also a request from the Steering Committee to waive the
30 fees on this issue. They are a committee that has been working on economic development. They
31 initiated this and requested that they not be charged a fee because it addresses a large area to
32 make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with existing zoning. The only rezone that is requested
33 is 80 acres of light impact industrial (LII) along the Limestone Road. The rest would be
34 maintaining the existing zoning. The committee needs to address that request.
35
36 Brown stated that he believed that they would look into whether or not the area could be
37 made into its own town in the future. This is something that came about because of the County's
38 actions when the development was put in. It makes sense to absorb the fees.
39
40 Sutter stated that the most of the current zoning is UR -4, which is urban zoning. The way
41 the area is growing, it seems to be appropriate to be designated as an urban growth area. Her
42 concern is making the LII provisional, as they did in Custer, so that it remains in its current
43 zoning until someone comes forward with a plan for the area. The Planning Commission should
44 consider that option.
45
46 Hoag questioned whether there are any community or neighborhood objections to doing
47 this. Goodwin responded that she has not heard of any, but there may be. This would initiate a
48 public hearing.
49
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 10
I Brenner stated that it is a great idea.
2
3 Brenner moved to include this item on the docket.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 Goodwin questioned whether the fees should be waived.
8
9 Sutter stated that, by looking at it as a provisional UGA, it would be up to the applicant to
10 pay the fee when a plan for the zoning is brought forward.
11
12 Brenner stated that it includes more than an LII.
13
14 Sutter stated the other portion would be to make the area a UGA.
15
16 Goodwin stated that there are two sets of fees. A Comprehensive Plan fee is $400 and a
17 State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). Then there is the rezone fee, which is $2100.
18
19 Sutter stated that they are not going to determine the fee now, because the Planning
20 Commission has to determine whether or not the rezone should be provisional. An applicant
21 would have to come forward with a plan that meets the criteria in order to get the rezone, which
22 means that they will have to go through the process to get the rezone.
23
24 Goodwin clarified that Sutter's intent was to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment
25 without the rezone.
26
27 Sutter stated that it is up to the Planning Commission.
28
29 Goodwin stated that a $400 fee is required to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment
30 unless Council sponsors it or it is waived.
31
32 Sutter questioned who asked for the area to be a UGA. Goodwin responded that it was
33 the Mt. Baker Steering Committee, a nonprofit group. There is no property owner that is
34 requesting this.
35
36 Sutter stated that the committee decided at a previous meeting to initiate a
37 Comprehensive Plan change if a rezone requires it. If it does not require a Comprehensive Plan
38 change, then it is not appropriate for the Council to do the initiation. This is a Comprehensive
39 Plan change.
40
41 Goodwin stated that there are other applications in which a property advocates for the
42 change and pays a fee. That is how most of these applications are. Either the Council could
43 waive the fee for this item or the Mt. Baker Steering Committee would have to come up with
44 $400 to sponsor this. The difference is that there is not a property owner advocate. It includes
45 thousands of different property owners, none of which are sponsoring it.
46
47 Hoag questioned whether staff has a recommendation on this issue.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Goodwin stated that staff recommended waiving the fees because the Comprehensive
Plan said that this area should be looked at as an urban growth area. This would be to implement
the Comprehensive Plan.
rezone.
Sutter stated that she is not willing to do that on the LII portion.
Goodwin stated that they could initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment without the
Sutter stated that is what she wanted to do
Goodwin stated that there is also a rural forestry portion.
Sutter stated that she would like to deal with one issue at a time. Goodwin stated that
they could write it up so that the rezones are not included.
Goodwin stated that the owner of the LII area, Tilbury Cement, is not sponsoring the
rezone. They don't have any current plans for it. They wouldn't mind having the area rezoned.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Goodwin continued to state that it is in timber open space now. They don't have any
current plans for it. They are going along with it because there may be some future potential.
Sutter questioned whether it is appropriate to include timberlands in an urban growth
area. Goodwin stated that it is if it is a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Brenner moved that the Planning Commission look at this strictly as a UGA and deal
with rezone requests as they come through the appropriate channels.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that the next item is the Bellingham UGA — Cordata North, (Docket Item
1999 -I).
Hoag stated that the City of Bellingham recommends against initiation because it would
be premature at this point. She agreed and moved to remove from the docket.
Sutter stated that their argument is that it would be premature in light of their arguments,
but, if initiated, consideration should be given to the proposals involving phased additions to the
UGA. They are not saying outright not to do it. They are saying that consideration should be
given to their points.
Brenner stated that the City is saying not to do it because it would be premature.
Pat Anderson Carmen, City of Bellingham Planner, stated that the City points out that the
recommended boundary is irregular. There are other considerations regarding the timing of the
proposal. It is premature. If the Council decides to initiate, the Planning Commission should
evaluate the four issues that are specified. This would require a great deal of work on the part of
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, 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
48
49
the City and the County. The City is working with the County fire districts, the County, and a
program for TDR.
Brenner questioned whether the City recommended against doing this. She stated that
they would like to review this at its original time line, in five years.
Brenner questioned whether the City has enough land for growth in the opinion of the
Planning Department. Carmen stated that they do have enough land for 20 years of growth.
Bob Tull, 709 Dupont, Bellingham, stated that the conclusion by the City that reasons
why it is premature are items that won't be evaluated unless they all are working forward on an
official platform. Things don't happen unless there is some impetus. A specific point is that a
multi -year, multi -phase planning, servicing, and development process is contemplated by this
amendment. They recognize all the issues by the City have to be addressed. They have done a
residential land supply analysis. There is an already existing residential land supply shortfall of
between 1,500 and 1,800. They have begun to think about how this property could play into the
issue of transfer of development rights. One of the reasons that the issue of transfer of
development rights has been kept on the shelf is because no one has been anxious to figure out a
way to work with it. They need to have the active, early cooperation of landowners to develop a
program. His incentive is to get a useable long -term plan for the property now instead of in 10 to
15 years. This landowner has been very patient. They are coming forward saying that they want
to do a multi -year, multi - phased plan. They are working on TDR, schools, and transportation.
As this year comes to an end, and the Planning Commission sends the Council a package on this
proposal that doesn't address both the City's and County's issues, then the Council can send it
back for more work. They need an opportunity to work through this. If they don't have this to
structure the hearing process, the environmental review process, and the exchange of information
between County and City staffs and the applicant, then it will not work. He requested that this be
added to the docket so that they can do the studies and analysis.
Hoag stated that the proponent would not be the only one working on this if it goes
forward to the Planning Commission. She questioned the current use of the majority of the
acreage. Tull stated that the majority of the acreage is a golf course and the rest has been used to
grow hay.
Hoag questioned how much of the land is in agriculture. Tull stated that he did not know
at this time.
Hoag stated that this is Bellingham's UGA. This area was set aside as a five -year review
area. It will be reviewed in 2002. In the meantime, studies will be done. The County added to
the Blaine UGA without their approval. The City of Blaine stated that the County would then be
financially responsible if it was not approved by the Hearings Board. She doesn't want to be in
the same position with the City of Bellingham. Tull stated that the County has to make sure that
growth management is occurring and that an adequate land supply is being provided. Currently,
there are only 20 low- priced lots under $50,000 in the City of Bellingham.
Hoag stated that all of these arguments were made in 1997, and the land was set aside for
20 -year growth and review in 5 years. She agreed with the City of Bellingham that this is
premature.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brenner questioned whether they have received the land supply study. Tull stated that
the County Planning and Development Services has a draft.
Brenner was concerned that everyone should be on the same playing field. Also, she
believed that the property for the east -west corridor was at the property already annexed. Tull
stated that he was pointing out that there are major transportation issues, as pointed out by the
letter from Ms. Decker at the City of Bellingham. If they want to control the timing of the road,
then they need the involvement and cooperation of the people who are going to be developing in
connection with it.
Goodwin stated that several options have been tossed around on the east -west connector.
Kelly Road to Aldrich was one option. Klein Road was another option. The idea is to get the
people from the interchange at Slater up to the Mt. Baker Highway. At this point, it hasn't been
decided.
Brenner questioned whether the City will do an evaluation during the five year process.
Carmen responded that they will be completing a number of studies. They will have lived with
the urban growth boundary for five years. There are some concerns about transfer of
development rights into certain areas. The Urban Fringe Subarea Plan identifies the UR -Mix
zones as receiving zones for transfer of development rights. This area is also one that could
receive additional density. They have not completed another land supply study because they felt
that what the City and County adopted was appropriate for at least the next five years.
Sutter stated that her concern was that the City of Bellingham, when they did their
analysis, forgot to add the land that was needed to allow more than 1,000 acres of parkland and
greenways that are called for in the City's Parks and Open Space element of the Comprehensive
Plan. They didn't allow for that 1,000 acres. When the City's greenways levies passed and $200
million became available, the only land that could be purchased was already zoned for
residential, commercial, and industrial, which means those would be taken out of the supply. It
is important that the County works with the City on this. They may need to start working on this
now so they are not operating in a crisis -mode in five years. It is important to develop the TDR
program for the Lake Whatcom watershed. Not having adequate land supply to put those
densities in creates another potential crisis situation. She supported sending this to the Planning
Commission. There is enough of a question to examine this further. It does give the opportunity
for all the parties to become involved and discuss it.
Brenner stated that the City feels that they have a supply in the urban growth area to
handle TDRs if it ever gets off the ground. Also, having more land does not mean that lots will
be cheaper. She wanted to see that they proceed on an orderly process that they have worked out
with the City. If the City changes their mind, that is fine. This is the same argument as the
Killiam pit, in reverse. There is nothing different from a year ago. She doesn't see enough of a
changed circumstance to reconsider.
Sutter stated that the lack of a land supply was a red flag for her. She doesn't necessarily
support the project, but would like it looked at by the Planning Commission.
Hoag stated that the City does not want this in their UGA at this time, it is not
contiguous, there is not any fire protection, and because the census has not been done yet. There
are so many reasons not to do this.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag moved to remove the Cordata North item (docket #1999 -I) from the docket.
Tull stated that the City staff said that Bellingham didn't need any industrial or
commercial land added to its UGA. By the time the process was completed, they agreed that
they needed quite a bit. It was only the result of public process. He asked that the Council allow
the landowner to submit to that public process and work with staff, neighbors, and service
providers.
Brenner stated that they would find exceptions to the rule about whether or not he City
was correct in what they did. She can give just as many examples of the County requiring the
City to do things that they did not want to do, and the County is still hassling with the City about
those things. At some point, the County and City need to cooperate.
Sutter stated that they are only asking that the process is begun. It can be denied,
approved, or conditioned. It deserves a look.
Donna Macomber, Bellingham, stated that Bellingham believed there was enough of a
commercial and industrial land supply before Trillium removed 300+ acres from that supply and
turned it into residential land. The County and City must have thought that there was enough of
that land supply to allow the conversion to residential. When the last annexation of the Cordata
property went before the Boundary Review Board, they were upset about the finger of land that
extended out. They said that they would not allow another annexation that allowed such a piece
of land to stick out of the boundary. Approval of this project would extend that finger into an
entire arm. None of the neighbors knew about this process.
Sutter stated that the public process is when it goes before the Planning Commission.
Macomber stated that, during the Comprehensive Plan process, one of the proponents
said that they were fine with the five -year review, which would be 2002. This is premature.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
Sutter stated that the next item to review is the Bellingham UGA — Marine Drive (Docket
#1999 -J). This rezone would create a light impact industrial zone between a UR -3 residential
and heavy impact industrial zones.
Jack Swanson, 1200 Harris Ave., Bellingham, stated that this is a company named
Conveyor Dynamics. They are new to Bellingham and have acquired this property. They hope
to develop it for industrial purposes. Conveyor Dynamics has a proposal for developing the
property, which is in the process of being pursued. They are working on a site plan, and they
hope to have their headquarters and other buildings on the site. They are a mining engineering
company. They specialize in making things out of rubber. They are the designer and builder of
one of the world's longest conveyor belts, which is 75 miles long. Part of the technology they
are developing is how to deal with materials that react differently, depending on the
environment. They have a staff of 18 people.
Brenner questioned whether there are concerns from the neighbors. They haven't heard
anything about that. Swanson responded that is why they have the public process and public
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
hearing. There are two houses on the waterfront side of the railroad tracks. To the west, there is
one house on a large lot, and a couple of houses beyond that.
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated that there is an
aerial photograph of the site that they will submit for the record.
Sutter stated that it looks like a good thing to buffer residential and heavy industrial with
light industrial.
Swanson stated that the topography of the site is well suited for this zone. The property
slopes down toward the heavy industrial, and the railroad tracks buffer this property and the
residential. They will abandon the proposal to put any light industrial on the water side of the
railroad tracks. They are only interested in the area north of the railroad tracks. It is not well
suited to be next to the two houses. Also, there is a small piece of property on the east side of the
parcel, not owned by Conveyor Dynamics, which is included in the rezone. It should be
industrial as well.
J).
Sutter stated that the City of Bellingham has considered this as appropriate to review.
Brenner moved to approve the Bellingham UGA — Marine Drive rezone (Docket #1999-
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that the next item for discussion is the Bellingham UGA — Mt. Baker
Highway (Docket #1999 -K). The location of this rezone is at Britton Road.
Brown stated that it is where they are doing the filling.
Sutter stated that it is across from where Britton Road enters the Mt. Baker Highway.
They are putting in a lot of fill in the area.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, 1401 Astor St., Bellingham, stated that
the map is inadequate and he distributed a better map. This is the same map that was in the
application filed on December 31, 1998. This is a small piece of property. It is under the power
line and there are filling operations going on. This piece is unique because it is in the path of
progress. There are major changes in the neighborhood that warrant this for consideration. One
of the changes is the new high school. There are also improvements being planned by the State
Department of Transportation (DOT) that would create a five lane highway to the intersection of
Britton and Mt. Baker Highway. The believed that DOT is moving more rapidly. This property
owner has been asked to consider a storm detention pond on this property, for this project. That
indicates that they are considering acquisition and moving rapidly ahead. Another factor that
makes this unique is that the supply of UR -MX property leading up to this intersection has
already been utilized. This is the next piece of property in the line of progress that has already
happened. They are asking the Planning Commission to look at this as a piece of property that is
currently in the line of development. There is a new school being proposed. A lot of things are
happening. It is being assessed for water connection. It has to be an urban use. Also, there is a
neighbor across from the property who has not come into conforming use. It is appropriate for
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 16
I this piece to be considered for UR -MX and the next neighborhood expansion beyond the
2 Sunset/McLeod intersection. They were comfortable with the staff's recommendation.
3
4 Brenner questioned what they are going to develop under the power lines. Campbell
5 stated that no housing can go under the power lines.
6
7 Brenner questioned whether the area that is not served by the Bellingham's water service
8 is going to be a problem. Campbell stated that it is a small piece. It won't be a problem.
9
10 Hoag questioned whether the water supply would supply urban or rural level of service.
11 The City of Bellingham said that the water service is consistent with rural densities and does not
12 permit urban development. Urban levels of development would not be allowed under the current
13 water service zone. Campbell stated that the City annexed properties that were being served by
14 the City of Bellingham along a Van Wyck Water Association water line. The City made
15 improvements, and is charging the properties a front footage of $28 per frontage foot. This
16 property has to pay $18,000. A single family user will not connect. That is the intent of the old
17 language in the service agreement. They are prepared to present to the Planning Commission
18 and the neighbors that this is consistent with the services that are being drawn off of that water
19 line right now and that urban levels of service can be supported by an abutting extension of UR-
20 MX zone. Of the nine factors affecting annexation, this property would qualify as a rational
21 extension of the present service and zone.
22
23 Hoag stated that the City is opposed to linear forms of development along major arterials,
24 particularly when commercial strip patterns may result. Also, the City said that UR -MX
25 designations along the Mt. Baker Highway have led to proposals to locate service stations at
26 every major intersection. This pattern has generated considerable opposition from adjacent
27 residential neighborhoods. Campbell stated that there are no provisions for service stations in
28 this application. The UR -MX zone is specifically designed for orderly transition from urban to
29 rural setting. It is a mixed zone. This property affords itself that opportunity. No one could do
30 another UR -MX project within' /4 of this intersection, but the intersection does qualify. Also,
31 this property is not in Dewey Valley.
32
33 Brenner stated that she wanted to hear from the City of Bellingham. She didn't believe
34 that this is linear at all. Also, this property is right on the city limits.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
37
38 Carmen stated that the City worked with the County in developing an area that would
39 accommodate Bellingham's growth when they worked on the urban growth area. They are
40 looking at this entire area east of Hannegan Road North. The UGA is the existing boundary, as
41 shown on the map. The City and County did contemplate these areas to the north of the existing
42 urban service boundary, which was Bellingham's boundary for extension of sewer and water
43 services. It became the interim urban growth boundary. Through discussions and public
44 hearings, the City included that portion that was R5A in the County and up to Britton Road, in
45 the urban growth boundary. This property was considered adjacent to an area that was
46 environmentally sensitive in terms of the Dewey Valley. This area was included in the Van
47 Wyck Water Association. In 1992, the Association asked Bellingham to annex this portion into
48 the City. They took over that water association at rural levels of density. It is in the water
49 service area. It is only to be served one house per five acres. There was no intention for the City
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 17
I to increase any of these areas beyond rural development. That includes this particular piece.
2 They were looking at curtailing development further northeast of the City of Bellingham.
3
4 Sutter questioned whether it remains at one unit per five acre zoning, until it is annexed
5 and as long as it is the urban growth area. Carmen responded that it does if it is in the UR -MX
6 zone. The UR -MX zone in the County allows for 10,000 square feet, which is four units to the
7 acre. It can increase up to 10 units to the acre. It is a single - family zone. If there are two acres,
8 they could be developed into a commercial site if it meets criteria. There is already a non-
9 conforming use across the street in a UR -MX zone.
10
11 Brenner questioned whether the Mt. Baker Highway is going to be widened. Campbell
12 stated that it will.
13
14 Carmen stated that she spoke with the person from DOT who submitted the plans. This
15 area will be between five and ten years out in terms of receiving funding. Currently the City is
16 lobbying for funding to extend the roadway from Orleans Street to Hannegan Road. No one that
17 they know of is lobbying to extend the roadway from Hannegan to Britton Road.
18
19 Sutter stated that DOT has, or is going to soon have, the money for preliminary
20 engineering.
21
22 Campbell stated that they are in the process of environmental review. This property was
23 targeted for storm detention, impacting some of the value of the property for the purpose of
24 building this highway. They are in the line of progress. The issue is whether it is timely, makes
25 sense that this is the next UR -MX zoned property, and fits all the criteria, and is orderly designed
26 and submitted. They want to do a well- thought out proposal that is tied to the DOT proposal.
27
28 Brenner moved to include the Bellingham UGA — Mt. Baker Highway (Docket #1999 -K)
29 on the Planning Commission docket.
30
31 Brown stated that this is the time to settle access issues and they should be allowed
32 review of the proposal.
33
34 Hoag questioned whether there will be water to service the proposal if they send this
35 forward and it is rezoned. Carmen stated that existing ordinances say they can serve the
36 association customers. There is one home currently on the property. They have their water
37 serviced. The ordinance says that line was improved to accommodate the association and for
38 property owners at rural densities. They cannot extend out beyond the urban growth boundary.
39
40 Brown stated that a church is being constructed on the same water system and under the
41 same scenario. City of Bellingham is providing the water.
42
43 Campbell stated that the water line was upgraded because it was leaking. The City, to
44 take over the distressed water association, said they would build a 10 -inch water line out there.
45 Also, the City said that they would continue to provide protection to those commercial
46 businesses that exist. There is fire supply and potable supply. They also have a well, although
47 they don't propose to use it for this service. They would like to work through those details with
48 the City. Sewer service is also not far away.
49
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 18
I Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
2
3 Sutter stated that the next item to discuss was the Commercial Forestry to Rural Forestry
4 (Docket #1999 -L) by the Nielsen Bros. logging. It is by "Y" and Jensen Roads.
5
6 Jack Swanson, 1200 Harris Ave., Bellingham, stated that there are a lot of changed
7 circumstances. The land that immediately adjoins this property is being platted into four
8 separate short plats. The adjacent zoning adjoins the property to the west and is zoned rural,
9 RSA. There are four 20 -acre tracts that have been approved for short plat by the County. They
10 have been through the technical review committee and will be completed in the next few months.
11 A County standard road has been built to this property. It will be paved this spring. There has
12 been a new house that has been constructed on one of these lots that is now occupied. In
13 addition, three wells have been drilled. They have water. All the sites have been approved for
14 sewage disposal. Almost everywhere else in the County, there is a buffer of rural forestry
15 between commercial forestry and the rural zone. That buffer doesn't exist at this location. The
16 topography of the property is such that the buffer is important.
17
18 Sutter questioned whether the adjoining property is surrounded by commercial forestry.
19 Swanson said that there is commercial forestry to the east, north, and south. This property has
20 been paying full real estate taxes. It has never taken advantage of the special tax classification.
21 The idea behind rural forestry is to allow a continued forestry activity on a lower level basis that
22 fits in with this type of context. The commercial forestry can occur on the other side of the hill
23 and not impact the houses that will be built on these lots. The rural forestry activities can take
24 place on a smaller scale and not be as obtrusive.
25
26 Brenner stated that she would like to see it go forward, but in a way that the property
27 owners pay for the cost, not the County. Swanson stated that they would pay the filing fees.
28
29 Hoag stated that this is between Carpenter Creek and Olsen Creek. It is the Lake
30 Whatcom watershed. They would be adding more houses. She did not agree with his logic.
31 Commercial forestry is a better buffer for commercial forestry. There should be buffers between
32 housing and commercial forestry, but the commercial forestry is already all the way up to the
33 housing. If they want to protect the commercial forestry, they are not going to do it by adding a
34 buffer with some houses. The same thing goes with buffering the residential. The rural forestry
35 can still be logged, it just allows for houses.
36
37 Swanson questioned the likelihood of someone clear- cutting the property if their house is
38 on it.
39
40 Hoag stated that the likelihood is low, but only around the house. This property is 80
41 acres. Claiming this as a beneficial buffer is dubious. Leaving it commercial forestry better
42 protects the commercial forestry at all.
43
44 Swanson stated that it doesn't protect the houses.
45
46 Hoag stated that the houses are already going to have logging activity. There will not be
47 any protection.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Swanson disagreed, because that has not been his experience so far. In the rural forestry
areas, people take care of them and steward them. They don't want to trash their own backyard.
When they do log, they log very carefully, the appearance of the area doesn't change
dramatically. When a logging company comes in to a commercial forestry area and takes
everything out, all the people in the homes will look at that. That is the distinction.
Hoag called for the question.
Goodwin stated that zoning doesn't apply if it is subject to forest practices. The logging
could take place. They don't have a rezone. The County can not condition the logging practice.
Hoag moved to remove the commercial forestry to rural forestry amendment (Docket
#1999 -L) from the Planning Commission docket.
Brenner stated that she withdrew her motion to forward it to the Planning Commission.
Motion to remove from the docket failed 1 — 1 with Sutter opposed and Brenner
abstaining.
Sutter stated that the next item was the Manthey et al. /West Smith Road (Docket #1999 -
A). This is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from agriculture to rural, and the zoning map
from agriculture to rural one dwelling per five acres or ten acres. This is the request that was
previously denied by the Planning Commission because it created an isolated pocket of
agricultural land. They have come forward to include that piece in the request.
Sutter stated that they would hold this and the remaining items in committee, due to the
late hour. She also questioned what the Warnick amendment was.
Brown stated that it was discussed two weeks previously.
Hoag moved to send the Warnick amendment (Docket #1999 -M) to the Planning
Commission.
Brenner seconded the motion.
Hoag stated that one property, zoned rural forestry, is against the highway. The property
behind it is zoned R5. They wanted to trade the zoning on the two, equally sized pieces so that
the rural property is more appropriately next to the highway. The owner is willing to absorb all
the rezone costs.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that just leaves two more items, which are the Manthay rezone and one that
she would submit.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 20
2
3
4 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
5
6
7 ATTEST:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/23/99, Page 21