HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 26 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
January 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Member Kathy Sutter in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Barbara Brenner
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB99 -021)
Hoag nominated Sutter.
Brenner moved to close nominations and appoint Sutter by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY FRANK MULJAT AND HILLSIDE
ASSOCIATES FOR "GOVERNOR ROAD" (AB99 -045)
Sutter stated that conditions have been placed upon the PUD and they are acceptable to
the petitioner.
Rob Ney, Jones Engineers, stated that he represented the applicant.
Hoag asked about the impact fees agreement regarding the schools and Fire Protection
District # 10. She questioned whether the applicant would meet fire requirements if they did not
pay the impact fees to the fire district. Ney explained that the school district has an ordinance in
place, which allows a collection of fees. The fire department does not have a legal mechanism
regarding the fees.
Hoag also questioned the road requirements. Ney explained that there is a standard width
for the east -west leg of the cul de sac, which is 28 feet wide. As it goes north, it is 24 feet wide.
They asked for a lessening of road standards for that section. There is a smaller than normal
road section for about a 1/3 of the entire road length. About 1/3 of the roads in the project are
narrower. The remaining roads are brand new. Governor Road will be enlarged.
Brenner explained that the issue of narrow roads has been brought up before.
Engineering's standards are not flexible.
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 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
Sutter questioned whether they are requiring curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Ney stated
that they are on both sides.
Hoag questioned the reduced buffer along the east side of the parcel. Ney explained that
typical wetland buffers are 100 feet on both sides. They have provided an average of 50 feet on
the eastern portion, and made up the difference of that square footage lost on the western portion.
There is an abundance of buffering on the western side. Averaged means that the buffers are the
same width all along the corridor.
Hoag questioned what the narrowest buffer would be. Ney responded that the variance is
no more than 6 — 8 feet in both directions. It is not less than 40 feet, and could be closer to 45
feet.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned the widths of the roads and sidewalks.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, explained that
they have road standards that are fairly wide roads. In the past, other engineers have come up
with innovative designs that Public Works Engineering has approved.
Hoag stated that they would like to see roads in the watershed drainage treated differently
than standard roads. Goodwin stated that they are working with Engineering regarding the
standards for those areas. Their concern is that, if there isn't parking off street, people will park
in the bio- swale.
Sutter stated that there are ways around that happening, such as covenants.
Brenner suggested putting that on the committee agenda.
Hoag stated that she wanted to see this development have narrower roads.
Ney stated that they would be willing to work with Engineering to modify the design. In
this situation, pocket - parking design won't work because the pockets exceed the width of the
lots. There would be no room to put driveways in. A narrower or reduced street width wouldn't
diminish public safety, allow two travel lanes, and allow a parking strip.
Goodwin stated that they can't add that as a condition, because the Hearing Examiner
approved it as is.
Brenner stated that they would have to send it back to the Hearing Examiner.
Goodwin stated that they could pass on the direction to Public Works Engineering that
they could approve a lower standard.
Brenner suggested giving Public Works Engineering direction to approve narrower roads.
Sutter stated that she does not want sidewalks and curbs required.
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 2
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 concurred.
Sutter stated that she would want to move this forward for approval, but encourage
Engineering to work with the design engineers to reduce impervious surfaces.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE COUNCIL INITIATION OF CENTRAL
ROAD REZONE (AB99 -061)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that this will entail
a great deal of staff time and will cost the County in the processing. If it is a docketed item, then
it requires a substantial amount of work and cost. He explained that, if the County initiates the
rezone, then the County incurs costs. If the applicant initiates the rezone, the applicant will incur
the costs.
Brenner questioned why the Council instead of the applicant would initiate it. She also
questioned the amount of cost to the taxpayers. Knapp stated that an environmental impact
statement (EIS) could be required. They may not want to get into the issue of whether there is
public interest in rezoning the issue. The concern right now is the method to process the rezone.
Sutter questioned whether it would make a difference if they had unlimited staff time and
resources. Knapp stated that it would. There is an incredible amount of work before the
Planning staff. This is an exceptionally large area.
Sutter stated that the original petitioner does not own the area anymore. There is pending
litigation, and she was unsure of the legal ramifications of a rezone under that condition. She
was also concerned with the general process of how these things come forward. The original
petition was filed many years ago. In 1995, it was denied by the County Council, who
overturned the Planning Commission's recommendation. She questioned whether this would go
forward if there was not a history on it already. Knapp stated that the size of the area is of
concern. It is a very large area and there is a lot of opposition. There are a lot of property
owners that have concerns.
Sutter stated that there seems to be a lot of work that needs to be done. She questioned
whether it would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Knapp stated that, at this point,
he didn't think so, but it could be an issue that is raised.
Sutter stated that a Comprehensive Plan change wouldn't be necessary in order to comply
with the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a public health or safety issue. It would go to the bottom
of the priority list. That's what happens if it was initiated by the Council. She questioned
whether the prioritization would change if the applicants were to go through the regular rezone
process. Knapp stated that it would be processed sooner because the applicant was doing most
of the work.
Craig Olson, Planning and Development Services, explained that when an applicant
submits an application, it has supplementary materials that are included. If the County initiated
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 3
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 rezone, they would have to produce those materials themselves. If an applicant brings in a
completed application, then it would shorten up the timeline for getting this done.
Sutter stated that the property owners have a couple of options and must decide what is
more important.
Hoag stated that it was not appropriate for the County to initiate this and take on all of the
review and process. The people that want this change should demonstrate the need for the
change. It needs to go through the normal channels.
Brenner questioned the overriding public interest in having the taxpayers pay for this
rezone, if the County were to initiate it. Knapp stated that he didn't know if there is a reason.
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, 1400 Broadway, Bellingham, stated that the Babe
Hanson petition was started by Bob Tull on her behalf and on the behalf of some other
landowners along the Central Road. That included approximately 234 acres. He began working
on it in 1995. One of the key facts about the rezone is that in 1990 or 1991 the Planning
Commission voted in favor of it. It went to the County Council. At that time, the County
Council turned down the rezone in spite of the Planning Commission recommendation, and did
not have a public hearing. They broke the law, and that became the basis for the litigation,
which is still unsettled. If the County were to go along and grant the petition that he is working
on currently, then that litigation would go away. He distributed a letter that was written by Bob
Tull in 1995) (on file).
Brenner questioned whether the Planning Commission conducted a hearing and, if they
did, was the Council required to have a hearing in addition to the Planning Commission hearing.
Almskaar stated that, if the Council is going to go at odds with the Planning
Commission's recommendation, then they have to have a public hearing.
Hoag stated that she believed they could overturn a decision. They only needed a public
hearing if they decided to change a condition or alter their recommendation.
Knapp suggested that they confer with legal counsel.
Sutter questioned whether the original petition covered the Babe Hanson properties only.
Almskaar stated that it covered several other properties as well.
Sutter questioned whether the new people are joining in under that original petition.
Almskaar stated that they are not. It is a different petition.
Sutter stated that there are then two separate petitions. Almskaar stated that was correct.
Sutter stated that, if that is the case, then they are not dealing with the Babe Hanson
petition. They are not tied together. If the cases are separate, then the litigation can be set aside
and dealt with separate from the other petition.
Hoag questioned what the Hanson rezone has to do with the Central Road Rezone.
Almskaar explained that some of the same properties are involved.
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, 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
Sutter stated that the reason is that it is all in the R10 zone.
Brenner stated that Almskaar was trying to say that it was a close call back then. If it was
a close call back then, then it deserves to be revisited.
Sutter stated that she agreed, but there are two separate petitions. If they take the Babe
Hanson portion out and only dealt with the current petitioners, then they are still dealing with the
whole R10 zone. Because Babe Hanson has a pending litigation regarding that same issue in the
same area, it muddies things more. She would not feel comfortable making any decision until
she talked to legal counsel.
Almskaar stated that the petition that he put together was introduced to the County
government through the legislative process in 1995, while the County Council and Planning
Commission were having hearings on the entire Comprehensive Plan. If the Council is willing to
initiate it, then they are willing to do the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) checklist to
a reasonable level of adequacy and post notices in the neighborhood. They are willing to pick up
the costs of things that they can do.
Sutter questioned whether he realized that it would take them a lot longer to do it this
way, if the Council initiates it. Almskaar stated that he wasn't aware of that. The property
owners will have to make that decision. He made a written proposal to them that estimates the
cost for him to work on this matter to a resolution. Using the County fee schedule for rezone
fees, it would cost approximately $1900. His hope, along with the landowners that are still
interested, was that the Council would initiate the rezone, taking into account their offer to help
pay for certain costs.
Hoag questioned whether they were willing to pay for the EIS. Almskaar explained that
he believed there would not be a need for an EIS.
Hoag questioned how many of the original Hanson rezone petitioners are included in the
new petition. Almskaar stated that all of the Hanson area is in the Ten Mile petition.
Brenner questioned how the area was "illegally down- zoned" as stated in the letter from
Bob Tull. Almskaar stated that he couldn't answer the question.
Sutter questioned whether the basis of their lawsuit was lack of notification. Almskaar
stated that he believed that there may be more substantive issues.
Sutter stated that she had some concerns about the "agricultural -ness" of some of the
areas. A lot of it is in agriculture or forest open space classification, which is an
acknowledgement by the property owner that it is agricultural land. It is also an
acknowledgement by the County, in accepting their application for open space, that it is
agricultural land. 58% of the property is 20 -acre or larger in size. There is a concern that they
are looking at agricultural land. She is not prepared to make any decision and has questions for
legal.
Sutter requested the committee hold this item for two weeks.
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 5
I Hoag questioned what Almskaar meant when he said that he submitted it through the
2 legislative process in 1995. Almskaar stated that he submitted it while the County had started
3 the Comprehensive Planning process. In 1996, the Planning Commission discussed this petition.
4 The County Council and the Planning Commission were having joint meetings. He submitted
5 the petition on March 17, 1996.
6
7 Sutter clarified that, during the Comprehensive Plan process, people could submit
8 requests to have changes made in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan development instead of
9 going through the normal process.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
12
13 Knapp stated that, typically if there is a Comprehensive Plan change that is in process,
14 and zoning implements the Comprehensive Plan change, then it is a legitimate process for
15 considering a countywide rezone. If it is just an application that doesn't require any
16 Comprehensive Plan policy change, then that is another issue. Planning's only purpose for
17 bringing this issue forward was because of the cost associated with it. They are not here to
18 recommend yes or no, or to recommend or not an EIS. In the review process, they would
19 determine whether they need an EIS. If there is an EIS, they don't want the County taxpayers to
20 have to come up with the dollars. That was the only reason it was brought forward.
21
22 Hoag stated that the subarea plan had been adopted 12 years ago. This was not a change
23 in the subarea plan. Knapp stated that there is some legitimacy to Almskaar's comments. The
24 question was whether there was any Comprehensive Plan effort going on at the time. If there
25 was, and it went through the legitimate process in implementing the Comprehensive Plan
26 change, then the County does need to consider it.
27
28 Sutter stated that it did go through the process along with all the others. The County
29 weeded them out and determined which ones would require a Comprehensive Plan change. This
30 was one of the ones that didn't require a change. It didn't fall within the Comprehensive Plan
31 process to make the change at that time. They are now coming back and trying to find out where
32 it legitimately belongs. If the Council decides to not put it on the Planning Commission's
33 docket, then it is up to the applicant to initiate the rezone process.
34
35 Brenner questioned the difference between Open Space /Open Space and Open
36 Space /Agriculture. Sutter stated that Open Space /Open Space requires public access. Open
37 Space /Agriculture requires a certain amount of income to be produced on the property every
38 year.
39
40 Hoag stated that Open Space /Agriculture also requires that the produce be sold off of the
41 property.
42
43 Almskaar stated that it is not a good policy to use Open Space classifications for long
44 range planning. Most people are in that program to save money on their taxes. It doesn't mean a
45 long -term commitment to a certain use.
46
47 Brenner stated that the County did not create the Open Space classifications to allow a
48 landowner to save money on their taxes.
49
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 6
I Sutter stated that it is an incentive to farm.
2
3 Almskaar stated that the staff memo discusses several commercial dairies. There are only
4 two. One has 30 cows, the other has 60 cows. It is a stretch to say that there are several
5 commercial dairies. There is not much berry farming in that area any more. There used to be a
6 lot on the Central Road, but it has mostly been divided into five acre pieces. Whether it is ten-
7 acre or five -acre zoning, future development of 20 -acres and larger is going to be a cluster.
8 Those pieces that area created through clustering will not qualify for Open Space.
9
10 Hoag moved to hold in committee for two weeks. She stated that item #2 on the staff
11 report makes it unclear why they could file a petition. Knapp stated that it was partly the history.
12
13 Sutter stated that they didn't know at the time what would happen.
14
15 Almskaar stated that nobody rejected the petition when it was filed.
16
17 Brenner commented that she was leery about changing zoning to what it was when they
18 began, it would set bad precedent. They would end up having almost no zoning in the County.
19
20 Hoag stated that she did not find the basis for the rezone to be the County's obligation.
21
22 Almskaar stated that, in 1971, the people who lived in this area petitioned the County to
23 change the subarea plan from one -acre lots to five -acre lots. The majority of the people
24 petitioned for it. Many of those same people are still there. There are a lot of bad feelings about
25 the 1986 downzone.
26
27 Conrad Tevelde, 6558 Lunde Road, stated that they can't go back and right the wrongs
28 that have happened. It would not bother the area at all to reinstate the zoning to R5. No one was
29 notified and there may not have been a public hearing. The land won't produce the taxes for the
30 land.
31
32 Lawrence Mans, 5925 Hannegan Road, Lynden, stated that he's had property in the area
33 since the 1950s. Agriculture is diminishing in the area. It is questionable as to how the zoning
34 went from 5 acre to 10 acres. The issue should be settled once and for all.
35
36 Bob McBeath, 6375 Everson - Goshen Road, Everson, stated that he has 80 acres in the
37 area. The front 40 acres are zoned for five acres and the back 40 acres are zoned for ten acres. It
38 is in Open Space/Forestry. One part of his property has never been farmed and he would like to
39 have it zoned for five acres.
40
41 Brenner questioned when he bought it from his father -in -law. McBeath stated that be
42 began purchase 25 years ago. Four years ago, he purchased the last of it.
43
44
45 Hoag explained that they are not concerned about the taxes that would be lost through the
46 Open Space process. They are concerned about the agricultural land that would be lost. When
47 houses are built in the County, the County must provide services such as the Sheriff. The
48 expenses for criminal justice grow at a higher rate than the incoming revenues from additional
49 development.
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Motion to hold in committee carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Hoag questioned whether the Pelleboer property was being dealt with. Goodwin faxed
the options for text amendments to her.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that a
summary would be created on the history of that issue. They are still following up on it. They
have until the end of June to decide.
Sutter questioned whether there was something that came forward from the Hearing
Examiner regarding this property. Goodwin stated that she would look into it.
Goodwin stated that she made a list of the current rezone applications that are on the
docket and the schedule. They are trying to wrap these up by the end of April so they can begin
the Comprehensive Plan items.
I\ x1111 4
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Services, 1/26/99, Page 8