HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 13 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
July 13, 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
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
3. AMENDMENT #1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE CONCERNING ANNEXATION (AB99
261)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Services Director, stated this is the 60%
petition method. It projects out into the County slightly. It is in the urban growth
area (UGA).
Hoag questioned whether there was no compensation because there were no
roads. Knapp stated he believed it is vacant. The County may keep that part of
the road.
Brown stated the road has to have been worked on within the last ten years.
Knapp stated that is the timeframe, and he doubted if there have been any
improvements in the area.
Hoag questioned whether there is any industry or anything of that sort.
Knapp stated there is not. There should be a larger annexation area to make it
worthwhile to collect anything.
Sutter stated they need to ensure the annexations don't happen piecemeal.
Hoag stated everything is worth collecting, provided it doesn't cost the
County more in the process.
Brenner stated there is nothing in the UGA on Smith Road about it being
improved. The City can do that.
Sutter questioned whether it had met all the requirements by the Boundary
Review Board (BRB). Knapp stated it had.
Brown stated there is a lack of a sales tax agreement. There is nothing there
to generate taxes.
Sutter stated there is no commercial property.
Knapp stated residential property is usually in the negative. There was a
problem with the legal description that was corrected. They do take the road.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page l
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
50
51
52
53
Hoag asked the location of Ferndale in relation to the area. Knapp stated
Ferndale is to the west.
Hoag asked why they are annexing the larger parcels. Knapp stated it may
be for extension of utilities. For property within the UGA, it is their decision
whether or not to annex.
Sutter stated Ferndale's policy is that they will not extend services into a
UGA until an annexation occurs.
Hoag asked if there are any policies on how the urban growth areas are
annexed. She was concerned. The UGA's are supposed to function for 20 years. If
they all become annexed immediately, and they become developed, then they will
not hold 20 years worth of growth. When discussing the Comprehensive Plan, it
was discussed whether the County should require a certain amount of in -fill prior to
the addition of the UGA's. Knapp stated the growth projected for the County
overall will not change a great deal. When an area annexes into the City, the same
level of growth is there, it just becomes a part of the City. The State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) has basic numbers on growth.
Hoag stated what they do impacts that growth rate. What ends up
happening is that the cities don't design for in -fill and quickly annex their areas.
Knapp stated the UGA is supposed to be where growth is designated to go.
The cities provision for sewer and water dictate how fast growth will occur.
Brenner stated development will go anywhere in the UGA if growth is
allowed. They will end up with pieces of development.
Sutter stated the prices of land would get out of control if they tried to
control in -fill by reducing the land supply of the UGA.
Brenner stated it isn't one or the other. Growth is supposed to be controlled.
It shouldn't be all -or- nothing.
Hoag stated there needs to be a system in place to control the growth in the
cities. When the land supply is controlled, then older homes get fixed up instead of
being left and abandoned. When cities sprawl too quickly, the inner city dies. With
control, it is more orderly and there is more care taken.
Sutter stated Growth Management is the balance between the two. Knapp
stated it isn't easy to ensure in -fill happens in an orderly fashion. It is more a
measure of the market.
Hoag suggested a percentage of the growth areas are allowed per five -year
period. That way, the market determines whether develop is build within the UGA's
or within the City. It will keep the cities from using up 20 years' worth of growth in
five years.
Brenner stated they discussed that idea as the short -term growth areas.
Knapp stated, as a planner, he would love to see that happen. From a market
perspective, he's seen so much of it that it is difficult to see it happen. There are
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
market forces, such as interest rates and the international economy, that influence
how that growth occurs.
Hoag stated, for this issue, they should explore the concept.
Sutter stated they don't know what the circumstances of this annexation are.
There may be just one house that needs water and sewer.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated her idea really needs to be reviewed.
Brenner stated these are the ideas that have already been explored as the
short -term growth boundaries during the Comprehensive Plan process.
Sutter stated they would need the cooperation with the cities.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE
TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB99 -210)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planing Manager, stated
there was a questioned about the difference between Designated and Classified
Forest and Forest Open Space. Designated and Classified Forests are both an
Assessor's category only, 40 acres or greater, and zoned Commercial Forest. They
are not Open Space /Timber. The assessed value of the property is only on the
value of the timber. The zoning is Rural or Commercial Forest. Land is only for
growing timber. The County recoups their tax money when the timber is cut, as a
stumpage fee. If it is in Open Space /Timber, a different category, then it is the
pieces that are smaller than 20 acres and don't qualify as the Classified or
Designated Forest. That value is assessed differently, and also given a tax break.
Hoag asked how the properties in question could be converted if the change
was just in acreage. Goodwin stated one was a property that was short platted,
and no longer qualified for Designated Open Space due to a lack of acreage.
Sutter questioned whether the County recoups any stumpage fees from
those that are in Open Space when they are harvested. Goodwin stated she
believed the County still did, but would have to research to make sure.
Brenner asked if Open Space Timber was not to be cut. Goodwin stated they
all can be cut. They all are managed for timber. Generally, the area in Open
Space /Timber is not large enough to qualify as being Designated or Classified Open
Space. A lot of times, it isn't even zoned commercial. People voluntarily put their
property in because they want to only grow trees, and don't need to pay for
services they won't use.
Sutter not all of the designated Open Space /Agricultural land designated on
the map is actively being farmed.
Hoag stated there needs to be something done to address the abuse of the
tax break.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter suggested they submit a proof of farming activity with the tax bill.
Brown stated there must be $200 generated per acre. A leasee generating
the income qualifies the property.
Hoag asked if there is a reason why Commercial Forestry should be getting
an Open Space designation and whether they are just paying a stumpage fee.
Goodwin stated the ones that are too small to be qualify as Designated are
Classified. In that category, they are all either Open Space Timber or Designated
Classified Forest.
Hoag asked if there is a difference in the tax break between the two.
Goodwin stated she would have to ask the Assessor. There is a difference, but she
didn't know what it is. One applies to the small parcels that may have a house on
it, and the other applies to the bigger parcels. There is a formula to determine
what the tax break would be.
Sutter stated they need to know why those zoned Commercial Forestry
should be getting an Open Space tax break. It is because they are too small to get
the Commercial Forest tax break. Goodwin stated that was correct.
Hoag asked if all the ones before them are smaller than 40 acres. Goodwin
stated that was correct.
Sutter stated they are concerned with the one are zoned Commercial
Forestry. Goodwin stated there are three that are transferred from Designated
Forest to Open Space. The last on is DeYoung, and is a small parcel purchased
from an adjacent land owner, so that it could be a buffer. It will remain
undeveloped. McKay is the second one.
Hoag stated McKay is 160 acres, and questioned why it wouldn't be
Commercial.
Brown stated some Commercial wouldn't be if it was out of the normal area.
Usually Commercial has a rural buffer around it.
Sutter stated it was Rural Forestry, not Commercial Forestry.
Hoag asked about the Management Plan. Goodwin stated that was for the
total area.
Sutter stated they are not requesting the entire 160 acres be changed, only
39.5 acres. Goodwin stated she didn't know why it would remain Classified. It has
to be zoned Forestry. The reason may be there is a house on the acreage.
Hoag asked why the legal description on the McKay application has a parcel A
of 40 acres and a parcel B of 160 acres, and whether it means they are applying for
open space on both parcels.
Brenner stated they are only applying for the 40 acres.
Hoag asked why, then, the legal description includes the 160 acres.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, 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
50
51
52
53
Sutter stated the 160 acres may be a part of the timber management plan.
Brenner stated it could have been short - platted off, which means they are
dividing their property to get a better tax rate. Brenner stated she wasn't
comfortable with the change if all the applicant was doing was looking for a tax
break. Goodwin stated all applicants are looking for a tax break, and all are using
their land primarily for the growing of timber, which doesn't demand County
services.
Hoag stated she would support approving the others, if they are under 40
acres. She questioned whether they could hold the McKay application until they
find out whether the 160 acres is a part of the Open Space application. Goodwin
stated it is not. The recommendation is for acreage in Open Space to be 35 acres,
more or less.
Hoag stated the legal description includes the 160 acres.
Sutter stated they need to look at the application.
Brenner stated he is asking for under 40 acres.
Hoag stated their might be two applications.
Goodwin stated the applicant did a timber management plan for 160 acres.
Sutter stated they will look at the 160 acres if he brings it before the Council.
Right now, they are just dealing with the 35 acres.
Brenner questioned whether they would have to do a timber management
plan anyway, since he is in Rural Forestry. Goodwin stated he would not. One
would have to do a timber management plan if one wants to get a Timber /Open
Space designation.
Brenner questioned why he would do a timber management plan for the 160
acres. Goodwin stated he would create a plan to get a Timber /Open Space
designation. He may want to apply for other areas, or may be just doing it so that
he can properly manage his land and gain the maximum return.
Hoag moved to hold the McKay file until they get clarification, and approve
the rest of the applications.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to recommend acceptance of the Planning Commission's
recommendations regarding Timber /Open Space applications.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE
20 ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter stated there will be public hearings on the Freeman /Kickerville, lot
consolidation, and Lake Whatcom development regulations files.
Hoag questioned whether they had to approve the entire docket at once.
Sutter stated they don't. They are not Comprehensive Plan changes, only
text amendments to Title 20.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, concurred.
Sutter requested to schedule public hearings.
FILE #45 -98:ZT - Resort Commercial Open Space Reservation
Sutter stated they made minor changes to that file. They include changes to
page 3, section 20.64.503(3) and 20.64.503(6) of the Draft Planning Commission
Findings and Recommendations dated April 22, 1999. These changes do not need a
public hearing. They are for clarification only.
FILE #46 -98:ZM - Freeman /Kickerville area, Birch Bay
Sutter stated this item was being held for a public hearing.
FILE #47 -98:ZT - Pt. Roberts Special District
Sutter stated this item was ready to go forward, although there were
questions.
Hoag stated she noted they held that item. There were changes regarding
cluster subdivisions on page 48 and 49 of the Draft Planning Commission Findings
and Recommendations dated April 22, 1999, under sections 20.72.262 and
20.72.263. Goodwin stated she rewrote that section and labeled it Exhibit D in her
memo to the committee dated June 14, 1999.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag stated there was also a change to 20.72.652 on page 49 of the Draft
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations dated April 22, 1999. The
changes brought forward by Goodwin in Exhibit D of her June 14, 1999 memo
reflect the changed the committee made.
Sutter stated she had a question on the subdivision requirement, page 48,
section 20.72.271. That section didn't make sense.
Hoag clarified if one does a Planned Unit Development, then they get that
provision. Otherwise, it is zoned RSA.
Sutter stated there was a change regarding trash disposal in section
20.72.654.
Hoag stated Goodwin reworded the language in that section, as submitted in
Exhibit D of Goodwin's memo dated June 14, 1999, to her satisfaction.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter stated there was a wording change in section 20.72.656. The change
was reflected in Goodwin's June 14 memo.
Hoag stated the word "lessor" in that section should be "lesser."
Hoag stated they discussed changing language in that section so it is
concurrent with road standards. She questioned the basis for approving a lesser
standard. Goodwin stated it should reflect they want as little impervious surface as
the Engineer found necessary. Knowing the current engineer and most engineers,
they like more sidewalks and roads. They are not likely to have a requirement for a
sidewalk, if there is a need for safety, unless special conditions exist.
Hoag stated she was more concerned about what the engineer would rely on
to make his judgement and what the County would sustain the decision on if it were
appealed. Goodwin stated they will be working on creating a Lake Whatcom road
standard, which will be the standard and make it more arbitrary.
Sutter stated they need to look at all the road standards.
Goodwin suggested they modify the road standards countywide so they don't
require sidewalks.
Hoag stated that is what they had discussed. The wording they decided on
would make it concurrent with the road standards. The language in the June 14
memo makes the engineer responsible for making the decision. Goodwin
suggested they leave out the new language.
Hoag stated they need to make in concurrent with the road standards, so all
they have to do is change the road standards and don't have to amend this
regulation at the same time. She suggested a language change in section
20.72.656, "...frontage of the parcel, +neluding which may include curbs,
gutters... policies, apd land use regulations, and current road standards." and
removing the underlined language in Exhibit D of Goodwin's June 14 memo.
The committee concurred.
Brenner referred to the next sentence and stated she had a problem with
leaving something up to the discretion of the engineer. Goodwin cautioned against
making policy changes unless they want a public hearing.
Goodwin stated the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is working on road
standards.
Plan.
FILE #53 -98:ZT - Amendment to Chapter 16.04 WCC re: Comprehensive
Sutter stated this was not controversial.
Goodwin stated she provided a list in her June 14 memo, Exhibit E, of all
goals and references that were deleted.
Sutter stated the committee requested a reference to the Comprehensive
Plan. Goodwin stated the committee asked for additional detail to ensure all the
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
policies were covered elsewhere. They are. The committee needs to be
comfortable that the policies have been transferred over or replaced.
Hoag had questions regarding the subarea goal statements.
Sutter questioned whether Hoag was concerned those items didn't get
transferred.
Hoag stated that was correct.
Sutter suggested Hoag look it up on her own and bring forward anything that
was missing.
Hoag asked what the attachment meant. Goodwin stated it was only to
answer the committee's questions. They are proposing to take out the items listed
as Exhibit E in the June 14 memo. The subarea plans are retained as development
regulations. They are not deleting the subarea plan. The chart showed where the
items have been transferred. They are striking all the goals in Chapter 16 of the
Code, which are now either in the Comprehensive Plan or the subarea plan.
Hoag questioned #3 of the subarea goal statements. She questioned what
that recommendation meant. Goodwin stated there are Comprehensive Plan goals
related, but not exactly the same as, the old goals. Goal #3 is one of the goals
they are proposing to strike.
Hoag asked if it was covered elsewhere. Goodwin stated it is not covered
exactly, but it was written in the 1970's for the situation that existed in the 1970's.
Now, they don't want all of the goals to be carried forward into the 1990's.
Brenner questioned why goal #3 conflicts with Growth Management.
Goodwin stated it wasn't necessary to keep the 1970 goals when they have the new
1990 goals.
Sutter suggested looking at the Comprehensive Plan goals and seeing if they
are close to this item #3.
The committee concurred to hold this item for further review.
FILE #54 -98:ZT - Lot Consolidation
Sutter stated this was held for a public hearing.
FILE #55 -98:ZT - TAC amendments
Goodwin stated the amendment moved text out of Title 21 and into Title 20.
The committee wanted to know what the differences would be and to ensure the
text was moved completely. Those differences are outlined in the memo from
Goodwin dated June 14, 1999.
Sutter stated they made one change about vegetation being placed around
all common storage areas.
FILE #58 -98:ZT - New Public Facilities Zone Option
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Sutter stated the changes were to section 20.36.060 of the Draft Planning
and Development Findings and Recommendations dated April 22, 1999. Goodwin
interpreted the changes, which were reflected in Goodwin's memo dated June 14,
1999. However, the committee wasn't happy with her rewrites, and wanted to
incorporate additional language. Staff provided two wording options, outlined in
the memo. He notes showed she wanted the last sentence in the second option
combined with the wording in the first option. They also wanted to add language to
limit the uses to the expansion of current uses. If the committee chose to do this,
then they would need a public hearing.
Sutter stated the concern seems to be with either a County jail or a
hazardous waste facility being built in the area.
Brenner stated the people who signed the petition against this rezone don't
want significant facilities constructed without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process. The jail was used as an example of something that might go out there.
An expansion of a certain size would not be a big deal.
Hoag stated they would allow an expansion of current uses, provided they
are compatible with the character of existing facilities in the surrounding rural
residential neighborhood as outright permitted uses, and anything else would be
required to go through a CUP process.
Goodwin questioned what would be required if an associated accessory use
was planned.
Brenner questioned the problem with going through the CUP process.
Hoag stated if a project is not a problem, then it will sail through the CUP
process. If it is a problem, then people should be able to address it. Rather than
trying to foresee what may or may not be a problem, it is easier to say, "expansion
of current uses provided these are compatible with the character of existing
facilities and surrounding rural residential neighborhood."
Hoag so moved.
Goodwin stated they would need to have a public hearing.
Brenner asked about people who have been waiting for specific amendments.
Sutter stated they have been getting calls on the Resort Commercial,
Freeman /Kickerville, and lot consolidation items. The committee has taken care of
those.
Goodwin asked about the committee's intent regarding lot consolidation.
Sutter stated this is an issue that has been hanging around for a long time.
They've never had a public hearing on this issue.
Hoag asked about the items they need to have public hearings on.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Sutter stated they would schedule hearings for them. They won't be
scheduled all at once.
Brenner questioned whether any were critical to have done sooner. Goodwin
stated the Freeman rezone is a paid application and should be done first.
Sutter stated they will hold the hearings for Public Facilities and
Freeman /Kickerville on July 27. On August 10, they will hold the public hearing for
lot consolidation.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter announced they are holding the discussion regarding the letter to the
legislature regarding open space applications. There are more questions that need
to be answered.
Resolution adopting recommendations for Open Space Timber
applications (AB99 -210). Goodwin stated the McKay application was for 160
acres. However, they only owned the 35 acres. The other parcel is owned by a son
or relative and in a different name. The application for Open Space can only be
made by an owner. She recommended that piece be approved, and the other
should be requested by the owner.
Brenner asked if there is a reason to deny. Goodwin stated if they have a
valid timber management plan, that is the criteria.
Hoag asked about Freeman soils. Goodwin stated they received information
on the potential for farming on those non - agricultural soils. That information is in
the Council's packet.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/13/99, Page 10