Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 23 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee March 23, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Absent: None (Clerk's Note: Due to audiotape malfunction, there is no audio recording of this meeting) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB99 -074) Brenner stated that she wanted to vote on the Bellingham UGA -Mt. Baker Highway. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that the Urban Fringe Plan has a provision that says that if there is an amendment to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) within the urban fringe, then the application should be processed concurrently between the City of Bellingham and the County. Hoag questioned whether that applied to items 1999 -J and 1999 -K. Goodwin stated that it does. The Marine Drive item is not an expansion. The City recommended in favor of Marine Drive, but not the other two, items 1999 -I and 1999 -K. Sutter asked if the County can only docket the items if the City agrees. Goodwin stated that would be up to debate. The County can docket the items and send them to the City for comment, but they wouldn't deal with them for two years. Sutter stated that Caitac would take a long time anyway. There are concerns regarding Bellingham land supply. She would hate to have them find themselves in a crisis. They need to get a jump on that mark. She didn't know how else to start the process other than a Comprehensive Plan change. Brenner asked what information Sutter is missing from the City's information and would like to find out. Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/99, Page 1 I Sutter stated that there is no information about the concern that Bellingham didn't take 2 into account land designated for parks and greenways. That land will have to come from 3 somewhere. Over 1,000 acres are set aside for parks and greenways. 4 5 Sutter questioned whether there is a problem with starting the process now because it will 6 be a lengthy process. 7 8 Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planning & Development Services, asked the 9 Council to consider that there is a supply for 19 -24 years. Those figures are based on the work 10 done between 1995 and 1997 with the County, during which time the County increased the 11 population projection, and in which the City increased the percentage of population growth from 12 41 % to 44 %. The problem now is that there are urban growth areas for all cities and the County 13 based on a countywide process. If the UGAs are changed to this extent, then there are two 14 questions. One is effect on other cities' UGAs. The other question is on what basis would the 15 County determine whether additional land is needed. In her opinion, the only additional 16 information is updated population data. Bellingham increases population at a rate of 2.4% per 17 year. They won't know what amount of population is in the UGA until the 2000 census is 18 available in 2001. In the City Comprehensive Plan, they designated certain areas as five -year 19 review areas. That process was adopted by the City in February of 1997 and by the County in 20 September 1997, which was only 18 months ago. There is no contention that Caitec is more 21 needing of a review sooner than the others. Bellingham is proposing to look at those areas in 22 2001 -2002. If the County initiates the UGA review now, they will have to wait until then 23 anyway. The City identified questions raised about changes to the City's conditions, including 24 greenways. One is that the City has added 500 -700 additional units. They have also increased 25 potential dwelling units in Cordata PUD by 1700 units. The greenways projection is long term, 26 more than 3 -5 years. It is also included in the residential demand that 26% of the potential is not 27 available because of infrastructure. They don't know what will happen as a result of the 28 Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. It will affect the amount of impervious surface in the 29 watershed. Bellingham has an average of 620 units of homes built per year. No one wants the 30 residential land supply to be overly constrained, but the factors that have been built into the land 31 supply analysis have been generous. 32 33 Sutter stated that her concern was also for commercial and industrial. She asked on what 34 the numbers are based. 35 36 Decker stated that they added 700 acres for industrial and commercial, including the area 37 of Sunset and 1 -5 and additional capacity for commercial development at Barkley Village. They 38 haven't stopped providing land. They have continued to extend services and rezoned property. 39 40 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that it is not clear to 41 what extent the proposal argues that the supply isn't adequate. The Council needs to look at 42 what has been brought forward and then make a determination about whether there has been a 43 deficit. The County is attempting to remove substantial numbers through Transfer of 44 Development Rights (TDR) out of the watershed. There has been discussion about whether the 45 land supply is adequate. Also, ESA will reduce land area. They do want to process this 46 concurrently, but should not stop looking at what has been brought forward. They need a more Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/99, 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 clear determination of land supply. The County has not been able to determine whether the information brought forward by the proponent is adequate. Sutter questioned whether there is a way to get this issue before the Planning Commission without going through the process. Knapp stated they could do a cursory review about the alleged deficits. Brenner asked if it would be more appropriate for staff to talk to staff before scheduling another item before the Planning Commission. This is not just another proposal. This is a big proposal. Knapp stated that they have not seen the proposal clearly. Brenner stated that all of this should first be reviewed by City and County staff. Hoag stated that it would be more appropriate for staff to look at it before the Planning Commission, however she didn't know whether staff should look at it either. The purpose of the plan was for predictable growth. The City clearly laid out their plans for growth until the year 2015. Only an emergency such as running out of land would justify having staff and the Planning Commission look at this prior to the five year review. Brenner stated that staff should be clear about a recommendation. Hoag stated that the Committee already voted on this and asked that it be brought up after scheduled items have been addressed. Sutter concurred. The next item was the Nielsen Bros. She questioned the zoning surrounding the area and whether it is Commercial Forestry. Goodwin stated that it is surrounded by commercial forestry. Sutter stated that they are asking to be rezoned to Rural Forestry in that one spot. This is in the Lake Whatcom watershed and drains into the watershed. It has two streams that drain into the watershed. It is not appropriate. Hoag concurred. Hoag moved to remove item 1999 -L from the Planning Commission docket. Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed. Brenner stated that this was the one about covenants. If the County leaves land in Commercial Forestry, they can log it all. If it is in Rural Forestry, they are allowing one home with covenants, then the County can add a covenant to not log it all. She would rather hold this and find out if covenants can be required to protect the trees. Brown stated they could allow a selective cut in the instance of disease or other circumstances. Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/99, 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 Sutter stated that she was concerned about doing a spot zone in the middle of Commercial Forestry. Brenner stated that it used to be Rural Forestry. The Council said that the owners could bring it forward if they want to opt out of commercial forestry. If the County can get a commitment that little logging would be done, then they would be better at protecting the watershed. Hoag stated that she would like to see something in writing before they consider it again. Sutter stated that the last item was Manthay at West Smith Road. Brenner stated that she looked at the property. There are spots that are poor quality and can't be farmed because they are wet. The Manthays would be comfortable with the R10 zoning designation. She recommended sending it forward with an R10 zoning designation, not an R5 zoning designation. Brenner moved to recommend that they go forward with R10 zoning designation instead of the R5 zoning designation. Hoag stated that this is 259 acres out of agriculture. An increase to R10 zoning would increase the amount of services required. Also, the agriculture community uses all types of ground, good or bad. Brenner stated that this is on the edge of small -acre zoning. The services are there. This is not in the middle of agricultural land, but is on the edge. It is an appropriate place. Brown asked whether it would still be in the Agricultural Protection Overlay (APO) if this were to go forward. Goodwin stated that all parcels that are over 20 acres and have agricultural soils would be in APO. Most of the parcels are. Sutter asked about the development pattern. Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed. Brenner moved to include the Warnick Amendment, 1999 -M, on the docket. Jack Swanson, Attorney, 1200 Harris Avenue, Bellingham, asked if the Council gets an opportunity to add 1999 -L back on the docket. Goodwin stated that the recommendation is from the committee to approve as revised. Any Council member can request it be considered. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter stated that another item to add is regarding the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan amendments and regulations. Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/99, 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 Goodwin stated that there are two sections of the plan that have been confusing. This way, they can go through the Planning Commission and Council, tighten up language, and implement ordinances. Hoag moved to recommend adding this item to the Planning Commission docket. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter to recommend the Resolution as amended to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Goodwin prepared a chart that is a comparison of other County procedures. This seemed like a cumbersome process. She questioned whether the Committee would like to docket an amendment to tighten up the procedure. The committee concurred to have staff start working on a new procedure 2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND TITLE 20 ZONING FOR THOSE FEE LANDS WITHIN THE MT. BAKER SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST (AB99 -107) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing. It is the last of the interim zoning in the county. There was no public testimony at the hearing. The zoning is Rural Forestry or Commercial Forestry. Some have the Mineral Resource Land Overlay. Sutter asked if there was any controversy. Goodwin stated there was not. Brown asked if a cabin was permitted on a mining claim. Goodwin stated that she believed they are allowed. Permitted uses in underlying zones are all permitted. The only thing prohibited are buildings with permanent foundations. Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 3. BURKE OPEN SPACE FARM AND AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION APPLICATION (AB99 -075A) Goodwin stated that the Council intended to hold this item. The committee referred it back to the Planning Commission. At the evening meeting, it was not removed by the Council and inadvertently denied. If the intent is to approve, then they just do a resolution amending the earlier resolution. The Planning Commission took a brief look and stated that their original recommendation stands. Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/99, 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 Hoag stated that there is a lack of equity about how people are being treated. She wanted to know why the Planning Commission revised the points. The Planning Commission dismissed the Council's request to review their decision. It was moved to recommend staff's recommendation for approval. Motion carried unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1998 OPEN SPACE APPLICATIONS (AB99 -118) It was moved to recommend approval of the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS A1)JniT12 N The meeting 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, 3/23/99, Page 6