HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 9 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 9, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Kathy Sutter, Council Member, in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB99 -074)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated that there are 12
items on the 1999 docket of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Sutter questioned the document regarding the scheduled rezone and text amendments for
the 1998 document. Aamot stated that there are two cycles annually. One is the Comprehensive
Plan document, with zoning and text amendments.
Aamot submitted the applications and supporting documentation. The first item is the
Manthay rezone, which the Planning Commission considered last year. It is for rezoning
property from agriculture to rural 10 acre, near the corner of Smith and Aldrich Roads. The
proposal last year would have left an island of agriculture land in the middle of rural land. The
Planning Commission last year recommended that it is denied and then docketed for this year,
which would include the entire area. The subject parcel and the area to the north are designated
agriculture.
Hoag stated that she received a letter from the Whatcom Conservation District that
objected to the rezone. (Letter on file)
Sutter questioned whether this request came forward in the Comprehensive Plan process.
Aamot stated that was correct.
Sutter questioned whether this is an item that is necessary to bring the County into
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Aamot stated that it is not.
Sutter stated that she wanted to put the rezone requests on the Council's priority scale.
Because of the change that was made, it might go through the regular rezone process. Aamot
stated that it would be docketed in 1999 to go through the process again.
Sutter questioned whether this resolution has to be approved at the evening meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 1
I Aamot stated that it is not for approval until the last meeting in February.
2
3 Sutter directed the committee to go through all of the items, and Planning &
4 Development Services should bring the items forward again at the next meeting in a prioritized
5 list. Also, the committee docketing the items for Planning Commission review does not
6 necessarily mean that the Council approves of the rezone.
7
8 Hoag questioned whether the Council's action to docket the items would mean that the
9 Council is initiating the items. Aamot stated that, according to the law, the Council has to
10 initiate any and all Comprehensive Plan amendments.
11
12 Hoag questioned the difference between these and a regular rezone. Aamot stated that
13 the Council has to initiate the rezone if it requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
14
15 Hoag clarified that the Council's action to send items to the Planning Commission for
16 review does not include the Council's endorsement of the request.
17
18 Sutter stated that the second item on the docket was the Point Roberts Character Plan.
19 Aamot stated that citizens in Point Roberts have been concerned that the Character Plan
20 Committee may be overstepping their authority, specifically tree - retention and plats, what
21 structures they can review, and the sign provisions. Also, Roland Middleton, Land Use
22 Manager, was concerned with whether the County has legal authority to go onto someone's
23 property and remove an illegal sign.
24
25 Aamot stated that the next item regarded adult entertainment.
26
27 Sutter stated that they wanted something done about that.
28
29 Aamot stated that the next item was capital facilities. Several departments expressed a
30 concern that they review the levels of service and space needs. There was an issue of whether
31 Superior Court rooms and parking should be listed as items for which a level of service is listed.
32 Also, the level of service for roads located in urban growth areas is not very specific.
33
34 Sutter questioned whether that is something that would be taken up through the interlocal
35 agreement process. Aamot stated that it would. Also, the Growth Management Act (GMA)
36 requires the County to have a six -year capital improvement plan. The Comprehensive Plan
37 currently states that the County is supposed to update that annually, but they want to amend it to
38 be updated every other year. Typically, it goes along with the budget, and the charter was
39 changed to allow a budget process every two years. The last item was to allow adoption of the
40 six -year capital improvement program.
41
42 Aamot stated that the next item is south of Sumas and goes from Rural 10 Acre to a
43 Mineral Resource Land (MRL) designation. It is adjacent to an already established MRL area.
44 They want to add 77 acres to an existing 25 -acre MRL.
45
46 Hoag questioned whether this was the same pit that is near Cedar Springs, and for which
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, 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
there were questions about Northwest Pipeline. Aamot stated that it is near Cedar Springs.
Hoag requested information on the location of the pipeline in relation to the 77 acres.
Aamot stated that he will bring that information to the committee in two weeks.
Brown requested more specific history of this request, in terms of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Sutter stated that the next item is the Blaine Urban Growth Area (UGA). Aamot stated
that the request was to delete areas to the east of Blaine. It is their water resource area because
of the Hearings' Board issues. They also want the area along Drayton Harbor, to the south, to be
deleted.
Sutter stated that was the area that the Council just added.
Brenner questioned whether this was the area that the residents want included so that they
can get services. Aamot stated that was correct.
Sutter stated that if they are going to take that area out, then they need to figure out how
to get those people the services that they need.
Hoag questioned whether they could separate the two issues. The committee concurred
with the request.
Aamot stated that when a city initiates something, it goes automatically on the docket.
The City of Blaine submitted one application for both locations.
Sutter stated that is another question to be brought back in two weeks. They don't want
to make a decision on one that would affect another.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that they
have been working on the Drayton Harbor issue. One of the options that the Planning
Commission is looking at is removing it from the UGA, rezoning it as an R2, that would allow
clustered development, and allow the provision of the sewer. They are still working with the
water and sewer district. The Commission is aware that the City wants to remove it all together.
Also, if it goes forward as one item, the Planning Commission can split the two items.
Sutter stated that the next item is the Columbia Valley/Kendall UGA. Aamot stated that
they have been working with the Steering Committee in the area.
Sutter stated that the next item is the APO/LESA soils. Aamot stated that there are maps
in the Comprehensive Plan that deal with the LESA soils. There is proposed text for the
Comprehensive Plan that explains the significance of the soils and how they relate to the
agricultural protection overlay (APO) zone.
Craig MacConnell, Washington State University Cooperative Extension, stated that they
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 3
I met to review the LESA soils list and the criteria. They developed a proposal for Council
2 review. They want to schedule a meeting to present the information at the meeting on February
3 23. This item is to clarify confusion on the maps in the Comprehensive Plan.
4
5 Hoag questioned whether the text changes being proposed have come from the Natural
6 Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and Cooperative Extension. MacConnell stated that, in
7 the initial effort to evaluate the agricultural overlay zone, he determined that the language was
8 very confusing. This is different. On the 23rd, they will talk about what they did on the APO
9 zone and their efforts to produce an update to the agricultural zoning text. He will provide more
10 specific information on the clarifying language for the Comprehensive Plan.
11
12 Sutter stated that the next item was for the Bellingham UGA -Smith Road. Aamot stated
13 that the proposal is by Caitac to enlarge the Bellingham UGA by 574 acres. It is rural 10 acres
14 now.
15
16 Brenner stated they have been through this before and did not see a reason to do this.
17 Aamot stated that the applicants are arguing that there is not an adequate land supply to last over
18 the 20 -year planning period. Bob Tull, attorney for Caitac, stated that they are asking that this
19 plan change be initiated. They believe that they can demonstrate that Bellingham's UGA is
20 undersized by a certain number of acres. There will be additional pressure on rural lands. They
21 are only asking that their request be initiated.
22
23 Brenner stated that this needs to be run through the City of Bellingham before coming to
24 the Council. Tull stated that the City will not extend services until they want to extend services.
25 This is the first time this process has begun in this fashion. They are now asking only to start the
26 process. Also, one thing to look at is whether this area would be a suitable receiving area for
27 density transfer from the watershed. There is a problem in finding areas to receive density
28 transfer. They have to initiate this process, then they have to present their case. If this were
29 initiated, they would then have to pay the fees, do the environmental analysis, and go through the
30 process.
31
32 Sutter questioned whether there is a rezone process that does not include having the
33 Council initiating the request. Aamot clarified that it does not require Council initiation if there
34 is no Comprehensive Plan amendment that is required.
35
36 Brenner questioned whether the Guide Meridian is going to be widened all the way into
37 town. Tull explained that the east -west connection to the Slater Road is most important to the
38 long -term development of the property. They are asking to enter into a long term planning
39 process. The only way that he can do that is to file this application.
40
41 Hoag stated that the reason the Blaine application is before the Council is because the
42 County put property into their UGA. The City of Blaine stated that they settled their case with
43 the Hearings Board. If the Council's action in adding to their UGA causes them to be out of
44 compliance with the Hearings Board, then the County would have to pay for the litigation. She
45 did not want to be in the same position with the City of Bellingham. Tull stated that this is a
46 chicken - and -egg situation. Neither the City nor the County want to talk about it unless the other
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, 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
approves. This provides a context for those discussions.
Aamot stated that the next item is a request by Conveyor Dynamics to rezone 13 acres
from UR -3 to Light Impact Industrial (LII). This area is already in the UGA, along Marine
Drive. It is next to a Heavy Impact Industrial (HII) area.
Hoag questioned whether there are homes in the area. Aamot stated that there are.
Sutter stated that it is currently zoned Residential 3 Units per Acre, which abuts a heavy
impact industrial zone. This would create a transitional buffer between the HII and the
residential.
Brenner asked why they don't wait and let Bellingham decide what they want the zoning
to be. She wanted to know what Bellingham and the property owners in the area think about the
request. Sutter stated that, once the process begins, they will find out what the City and the
owners think.
Hoag would like to know what the residents think about the rezone request. Sutter
explained that finding out what area residents want is a part of the process. Staff doesn't have
time to go out and interview the residents.
Sutter stated that the next item is the Mt. Baker Highway. Aamot explained that this site
is adjacent to the UGA. The applicants want to be included in the UGA and rezoned to Urban
Residential Mixed (UR -MX).
Sutter stated that the next item is a forestry amendment. Aamot stated that the applicant
wants to go from Commercial Forestry to Rural Forestry. It is 80 acres in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Commercial Forestry has a 40 -acre minimum lot size and houses are not a permitted
use. Rural forestry has a 20 -acre minimum lot size and allows one single - family residence.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Sutter stated that she may not approve of this item. They are trying to limit growth in the
watershed.
Sutter stated that in two weeks, they will begin discussion about which items should and
shouldn't be included on the docket.
Brown stated that he brought forward information regarding Rural Forestry property
between Kendall and Maple Falls. Zoning was established to be Rural Forestry. R5 zoning was
put in adjacent, but further back from the roads. The party that owns all of the property involved
would like to have the rural forestry moved back to abut the Commercial Forestry and move the
R5 forward toward the road. There would be no net loss to Rural Forestry or R5. It would
simply make it easier to service the R5 area.
Sutter asked if they need to fill out an application or whether the Council can just add
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 5
I something to the docket. Aamot stated that, unless the Council initiates it, they must put in an
2 application by December 31St
3
4 Brown stated that this deserves attention because it would bring the rural density closer to
5 transportation and have forestry farther away.
6
7 Sutter questioned how large the two pieces are. Brown stated that would have to be
8 surveyed, but it is approximately 5 acres.
9
10 Hoag stated that this is the best interest of the public. She would approve of the Council
11 sponsoring this. The proponent volunteered to pay for all of the costs.
12
13 Sutter stated that the full Council would have to put it on the docket. She asked Aamot to
14 put Brown's request in proper format for the Council.
15
16 Aamot stated that last year, the Council set precedence by adding an item after the
17 application deadline.
18
19 Sutter stated that there is a petition request for a rezone change from R10 to R5 at Ten
20 Mile Road. They are asking the Council to initiate the rezone. Aamot stated that request does
21 not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, so would not be included in this resolution.
22
23 Goodwin stated that it is a rezone alone, not a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That
24 application has to be made by June 30. The only reason for it to be initiated by the Council is
25 that the applicant doesn't have to pay the fee and it can be done sooner. They don't feel that it is
26 in the public interest for the County to pay for the rezone. She clarified that the Manthay rezone
27 was not a paid application, like the Caitac application. It is a request for a Council- initiated
28 rezone.
29
30 Brown questioned when the paid applications would be heard. Goodwin responded that
31 they should get through the Planning Commission and be before the Council by April 1999. The
32 whole process takes about a year.
33
34 Sutter asked about the resource protection overlay for the watershed. Goodwin
35 responded that the Planning Commission is having a hearing on March 11 on additional
36 development regulations for the watershed. They are working on that issue.
37
38 Sutter asked about Commercial Forestry next to Rural zoning. Goodwin stated that is on
39 the docket of rezones for this year. They are not coming up with anything very profound. It is a
40 text amendment. Looking at the Rural and Forestry Lands, they have only come up with
41 increasing the setback on the Lummi Island Rural Residential Island District. There are already
42 items in the zoning code that deal with that. One option is a mandatory cluster on adjacent land.
43
44 Sutter stated that another issue was making small town and resort recreational areas urban
45 growth areas (UGA). Goodwin stated that they brought forward one area in the Columbia
46 Valley, but not Point Roberts. The Planning Commission stated that they did not want to docket
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 6
I it.
2
3 Sutter asked about re- opening the right -to -farm ordinance. Goodwin stated that right -to-
4 farm is neither Comprehensive Plan nor Title 20. It could be done at any time independently.
5 They would need to decide when they want to discuss it.
6
7 Hoag stated that they pulled that section off for review and were told that it would have
8 to go through the Planning Commission process if it needed to be changed. Goodwin stated that
9 if Title 14, Right -to -Farm, is an official control, then it would have to go to Planning
10 Commission. If it becomes changes to Title 20, then it would be due by June. Otherwise, they
11 could do it any time.
12
13 Sutter asked about the agricultural protection overlay in the Dewey Valley area. She
14 questioned the appropriateness of that designation in that area. Goodwin explained that the
15 criteria are based on soils, and would be best addressed on the June 30th docket. Additional
16 exemptions could be added. It would be a zoning amendment, not a Comprehensive Plan
17 amendment.
18
19 Sutter asked about the cottage industry. Goodwin explained that would be a zoning text
20 amendment and to be addressed on the June 30th docket.
21
22 Sutter asked about Gateway Industrial Uses within' /4 mile of the freeway interchange.
23 Goodwin stated that already went to Planning Commission and will be coming to the Council in
24 March or April.
25
26 Sutter asked about resort commercial densities. Goodwin stated that Resort Commercial
27 zoning is in an uncertain status. One issue is that the County allowed high density Residential
28 and Resort Commercial areas outside of urban growth areas. They have solved that issue in the
29 County. They are rezoning to a new small town commercial zoning that will have limited multi -
30 family developments. It would not address Point Roberts.
31
32 Brown asked if there was a conflict in the Glacier area. Goodwin stated that is on this
33 year's Planning Commission docket. A lot of that area would become Small Town Commercial
34 that still allows condominiums.
35
36 Sutter directed the discussion to Central Road.
37
38 Craig Olafson, Planning and Development Services, stated that two items pertain to
39 Central Road and the third item was a list of the Planning Commission schedule. At the last
40 meeting, the committee asked for background on the notification that was done on the Subarea
41 plan for the Lynden/Nooksack area. He provided an accounting on what happened. They
42 submitted a report to the committee asking for clarification on whether it was appropriate for
43 staff to spend time on this issue as a County- initiated rezone. That is the reason this is being
44 discussed. One issue that came up was that there was not a lot of notice when the subarea plan
45 was done. Considerable notification was given. The committee also had questions regarding the
46 final outcome of the Babe Hanson rezone. He provided minutes that show the court's
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 7
I discussion.
2
3 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she reviewed the minutes from
4 the court file and is available to answer questions.
5
6 Sutter questioned what the claims are based on. Frakes stated that there are few filings in
7 the court file. One concern mentioned was a lack of a public hearing by the County Council.
9 Sutter stated that the Council is only required to have a public hearing if they change the
10 Planning Commission's recommendations. Frakes concurred.
11
12 Olafson stated that the memo from December 8 described the issues relating to the
13 application.
14
15 Roger Almskaar, 1400 Broadway, stated that he provided a memo to the Council. In
16 summary, they would like to see the Council initiate this as a rezone. The Planning Commission
17 this year could handle it. This was started during the legislative, Comprehensive Plan process.
18 No one said then that it was out of order. The Planning Commission discussed and tabled it in
19 1996.
20
21 Sutter questioned whether the application made during the Comprehensive Plan process
22 was this petition or the Babe Hanson petition. Almskaar stated that it included the Ten -Mile
23 petition and the Babe Hanson area.
24
25 Almskaar continued to state that several landowners were not aware of the issue when it
26 came up. He believed that if the Council wanted to overturn the Planning Commission
27 recommendation, then a hearing was required. Regarding the costs, they have proposed to deal
28 with three or four of the cost items. Regarding the density issue, some of the staff's projections
29 were unrealistic when they take into consideration limitations on development. The APO is an
30 important limitation. Others include accessory dwellings and the Critical Areas Ordinance. 230
31 acres of the area are permanently dedicated to other uses. Finally, the costs of development are
32 so high that some developers will only do a short-plat. In the end, the whole thing is a fairness
33 issue. It doesn't do any good to make the petitioners start over again when they have responded
34 in good faith to everything that has been brought up.
35
36 In response, Sutter stated that it would not get done any more quickly if it is Council -
37 initiated. Regarding notification, the County does what is within the legal limits of the law. The
38 Council was not required to hold a public hearing. Several of the people signing the petition
39 purchased the property after the zoning was changed. This will come up in two weeks.
40
41 Goodwin explained this is a zoning issue and the staff needs an answer as soon as
42 possible for scheduling purposes. If the Council initiates it, then it will be added to the docketed
43 zoning items for this year. This is on a tight schedule. If the Council does not initiate it, then it
44 will go on next year.
45
46 Hoag stated that she does not want to initiate the rezone.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 8
2 Brenner stated that her concern was that it would set precedence for the Council to be
3 forced into initiating rezones.
4
5 Sutter stated that the Council should initiate Comprehensive Plan issues, text changes,
6 and things that they are required to do that don't have another process.
7
8 Brown stated that this was an issue that was to be carried forward for review because, as
9 a subarea plan, it wasn't given its proper review at the end of the timeframe. Then the County
10 was into the Comprehensive Plan process. This was put on the list to be looked out.
11
12 Sutter stated that the one that came to the Council was the Babe Hanson rezone. This is
13 different.
14
15 Goodwin stated that there were two separate items that came forward during the
16 Comprehensive Plan process, with two separate numbers. The Babe Hanson request was one for
17 200+ acres, then this request for 3,000 acres. Neither was a Comprehensive Plan issue.
18
19 There was no motion to recommend this item to the full Council.
20
21 Debra Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas, stated that the MRL was not recommended
22 by staff in 1994 because of the low quality of the gravel.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
25
26 Benner continued to state that the existing MRL is 36 acres. There has been no activity
27 in the pit for the past 10 years. On the eastern side of the pit are the three high - pressure gas
28 pipelines. When the expansion was proposed, the County Council voted it down due to the
29 safety of digging near the pipelines. They increased the buffers for the pipelines to the west. If
30 this expansion goes through, it's southern property line will abut the northern property line of
31 Cedar Springs. This is closer than the proposal from last year. If the owner of Cedar Springs
32 knew about this proposal, he would be at the meeting in protest. If the rezone was approved, the
33 gas lines would run right through the middle.
34
35 Brenner questioned whether this is the time to remove something from the docket.
36 Goodwin stated that the next meeting is when they would decide to pull an item.
37
38 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
39
40 1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1998 OPEN SPACE
41 APPLICATIONS (AB99 -075)
42
43 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that there
44 is no staff report, but staff is available to answer questions.
45
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 9
I Hoag stated that some of the criteria seemed arbitrary. There seem to be contradictions.
2 She questioned whether the Council could take action different from the Planning Commission's
3 recommendation.
4
5 Elizabeth Olsen, Planning and Development Services Planner, stated that has been the
6 case.
7
8 Brenner stated that she believed if they meet the criteria, then State law mandates that the
9 County has to approve the applications.
10
11 Hoag stated that the criteria were applied differently to the different applications. The
12 Burke application was docked 30% on a 15 -acre site. The Hoffman application was docked 1%
13 on a 6 -acre site.
14
15 Sutter stated that one application was in an agricultural zone and one was in a rural 10-
16 acre zone. If a site is in agriculture already, then putting it into Open Space Farm and
17 Agriculture Conservation (OSFAC) isn't as valuable as putting property in R10 zoning in
18 OSFAC.
19
20 Brenner stated that the Council is not allowed to make the judgements this way. If the
21 applicant meets the criteria, then they have to approve them.
22
23 Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission looks at each of these individually and
24 their decisions are sometimes somewhat arbitrary, based on their opinion on the public benefit.
25 They changed the staff recommendation to reduce the score on one of the items.
26
27 Olsen stated that she made a recommendation to approve the Burke application because it
28 scored a passing approval grade. The Planning Commission feels that they should not take a
29 large homesite as being something that can be a tax benefit to the people.
30
31 Hoag stated that one application received 14 points for having prime agricultural soil.
32 The other application received 15 points for having prime agricultural soil. Olsen stated that it
33 depends on how prime the soil is and whether it is being used as a prime agricultural soil. The
34 Hoffmans have planted an orchard and are carrying through with the agricultural commitment.
35 The Burke land had not been used for agricultural purposes and the soil was not getting nurtured
36 from the agricultural activity. There are one or two large firs on the Burke property. This
37 property is excellent pasture ground, but is not being used for pasture.
38
39 Hoag stated that the Burke property has the best soil in the County and questioned why
40 they received a lower score on their soils. Olsen stated that it probably doesn't receive the
41 benefit of added nutrients from the existence of growing crop.
42
43 Sutter stated that the Burke application does not listed the amount of the land with prime
44 soils. Olsen stated that if just one soil type is listed, then it is 100 %.
45
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 10
I Hoag stated that there was a difference between the traditional farmland classification
2 when they both have orchards. Olsen stated that the Burke's didn't want the area of the orchard
3 to have public access.
4
5 Hoag stated that Hoby Acres received 15 points in the traditional farmland classification,
6 yet the land use is a clubhouse facility. Olsen stated that the clubhouse could be moved and the
7 area could have a crop.
8
9 Hoag stated that the golf course did not meet the criterion regarding the recreational
10 facilities being available to the public without charge. She questioned why they would receive
11 the maximum amount of points for the recreation criterion. Olsen stated that golf courses will
12 give an area high school free time to allow their golf classes.
13
14 Dawson questioned whether hunting is allowed on open space land. Olsen stated that the
15 owners can have a list of rules and regulations posted with their open space sign, and they can
16 not allow hunting, restrict hours, and make other public access restrictions. On the golf course,
17 people are allowed to stroll on the golf course track, walk upstream to Dakota Creek, cross -
18 country ski in the winter, and other activities.
19
20 Dawson questioned Skip Johnson about whether the Lummi Nation plans to hunt on their
21 open space land.
22
23 Skip Johnson, Attorney for the Lummi Nation, stated that there are two parcels that are
24 involved. This application is only on the one that the Lummi Nation owns. There is an adjacent
25 parcel owned by the Nature Conservancy. Ultimately, the Tribe will own both parcels. There is
26 a conservation easement that will apply to both. There are restrictions on hunting in the
27 conservation easement. General hunting will not be allowed. Tribal hunting is allowed on one
28 of the parcels, the current application.
29
30 Dawson questioned whether the Tribal members would be adhering to the State
31 regulations for hunting, because it is not trust land. Johnson stated that is not part of the
32 conservation easement.
33
34 Sutter stated that the golf course is involved in a number of charities.
35
36 Hoag stated that only a small part of what they do is available at no charge, and the
37 criterion states that the recreational opportunities must be available at no charge. She questioned
38 why they received the maximum amount of points to that category. Olsen stated that she
39 allowed a larger score because she was asked to compare it with other golf courses'
40 contributions.
41
42 Hoag questioned whether most of the area golf courses were in open space. Olsen stated
43 that about 50% of the golf courses are in open space.
44
45 Sutter stated that a private golf course may not be able to apply for open space because
46 they are private.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page I1
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
Olsen stated that the Planning Commission agreed that the scoring was reasonable.
Sutter questioned why Hoby Acres was applying for Open Space Farm and Agriculture
instead of Open Space /Open Space. Olsen stated that their zoning is agriculturally based. The
use is to be put aside for land that is agriculturally designated so that it will go back to Open
Space /Agriculture if the club disbands.
Sutter questioned whether they can send some of the applications back to the Planning
Commission if the Council does not want to approve of them. Goodwin stated that they would
not have to have their own public hearing if they wanted to change the scores. Legal counsel
advised that they could recommend changing the scores or remand it back to the Planning
Commission.
Hoag stated that she didn't have a problem with the majority of the applications, other
than the inconsistency of the ratings. She suggested approving the Burke application, which was
only '/Z point away from approval.
Goodwin stated that they could defer the decision until the next meeting, when there is a
full quorum (Brenner is absent) and Planning and Development Services could provide further
information on the rating for the Burke application.
Sutter moved to recommend upholding the Planning Commission recommendation on all
applications except the Burke application, which will be held in committee for two weeks.
Hoag stated that she would rather remand the Burke application to the Planning
Commission.
Sutter concurred.
Goodwin stated that they will schedule this for the next Planning Commission meeting on
February 11. It will return to the Council in four weeks.
Hoag questioned what the County needs to do about enforcement of open space areas.
Olsen stated that this would pin down people who take down their public access signs that are
required for their property.
Goodwin stated that they could look into it. It would not be an amendment to Title 20, so
they could do it anytime.
Sutter stated that they also need to enforce the requirements for the areas in Open
Space /Agriculture that agricultural products are being produced.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, 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
Goodwin questioned whether the committee wanted to see the staff report on the Lummi
zoning. Planning Commission will be discussing it on February 11. She will try to have it
before the Council at the February 23 meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/99, Page 13