HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 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
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
November 23, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS
CHARACTER PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT RELATING TO
POINT ROBERTS (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -411)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the amendments came forward from the citizens of the area. There were
two Planning Commission public hearings. The amendments clarify the intent of
the Point Roberts design standards. They were intended in the first place to apply
to commercial and institutional structures, but not to residential structures. There
is some ambiguity throughout the code about how that worked. There are also
redundant standards that described process governed in other sections of the code.
Those were all stricken, so that Point Roberts is now administrative procedurally
treated the same as every other place in the county. The guidelines are more
clearly defined. They are not scheduled for a public hearing, so any substantive
change would trigger the need for a public hearing.
Sutter stated that would cause a problem in terms of the deadline.
Hoag questioned whether there could be an exception since there hasn't
been time to deal with them. Goodwin stated they were introduced on October 26,
so there has been time for changes, but other things were on the agenda.
Sutter moved to amend packet page 142, "...all applicable requirements of
the Uniform Building Code as adopted by Whatcom County and all applicable
requirements of the Whatcom County Health and Human Services. " Goodwin
stated mobile homes are not governed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and it
would be more applicable to say, "all applicable requirements of Whatcom County
Code (WCC) Section 15.24," which is where the WCC addresses mobile homes and
cross - references Health Department requirements for septic and sewer.
Sutter amended her motion, "...all applicable requirements of the Unif )rm
Building Code as adepted by Whateem County of the Whatcom County Code
15.24."
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Councilmember Brown questioned whether someone with a Park Model home
could use it as a retirement or vacation home.
Sutter stated that isn't what this regulation says. It says it has to comply
with the regulations.
Brown stated the regulations say it has to be 20 feet wide. Goodwin stated a
Park Model is not a manufactured home and is now only allowed in a recreational
vehicle (RV) park. Park Models are not intended to be on single family lots outside
of RV parks and are not treated the same as a manufactured home.
Brown stated this eliminates single wide homes altogether.
Sutter stated this regulation is just for Point Roberts. This is what the folks
in Point Roberts want it to be. Goodwin stated that was correct. In addition, the
code already has this regulation.
Hoag stated this change just stipulates that manufactured homes shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide, which it already said. It just strikes the reference to the
character plan.
Sutter stated manufactured homes are not subject to the UBC.
Hoag stated they are recommending a change to strike the UBC language
because manufactured homes aren't under the UBC. Instead, they are referring
them to the WCC. This is existing language. The other language regarding RVs
doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a different ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked if that is a substantive change.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is not.
Hoag stated the language change in the first sentence made her
uncomfortable because the character plan should also be used on residential
development. When she read the comments from the Planning Commission, no
one from Point Roberts spoke against the changes. They were in favor of them.
Therefore, she would support the changes as they are.
Brenner stated they don't need to say "democratic." It infers other plans are
not democratic.
Sutter stated this is the Point Roberts plan, and the citizens put it together
and approved it.
Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
47
48
49
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -410)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated this was requested by the City of Blaine to remove the urban growth area
(UGA) east of the city dealing with the aquifer recharge area. The Hearings Board
said it should be removed. County staff agreed it should be removed. The
revisions to the policies are to reflect that the area is now removed. Planning
Commission recommended approval.
Brown asked about the existing zoning of the area. Goodwin stated it is
currently R10A, one unit per ten acres. About half of that area is the City's aquifer
wellhead protection area. The rest is all rural, low density. There are a couple of
old plats in that area, which have been consolidated.
Hoag questioned whether the original language in certain places would be
more appropriate. She was not opposed to the ordinance, and didn't want to delay
it for a public hearing. At the bottom of packet page 134, she preferred the original
language. Goodwin stated the area is no longer a UGA at all. The existing
language wouldn't be appropriate. They wouldn't be re- evaluating short -term
planning areas because it is not a UGA.
Hoag asked if this only applies to the east area, not including the area
around Drayton Harbor. Goodwin stated it could mean the entire UGA. Previously,
the area was a long -term planning area. They were going to re- evaluate the area
to see if should be a short -term planning area. All of it is now short -term. The only
time they need to re- evaluate the water supply is if they are expanding the UGA.
Hoag questioned whether deleting language in the middle of the page on
packet page 135 would compromise the protection of the wellhead protection area.
She questioned whether that protection would be covered in the aquifer recharge
protection overlay that they would be creating. Goodwin stated it would, once they
get it done. The main reason for having this discussion is because it was an urban
growth area, primarily intended for wellhead protection. If it is removed from the
UGA, then they wouldn't want the language in there because it would no longer be
appropriate. It is already covered by the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) in the
section regarding aquifer recharge areas. If they added policies about forming an
aquifer recharge program, it would be adequately addressed.
Hoag referred to the language change in Goal 2T on packet page 136.
Providing an adequate housing supply is an admirable goal. Ensuring an adequate
housing supply is next to impossible. She questioned the reason for the language
change. Goodwin stated the City requested the change because they, as a public
entity, are not going to go out and build houses. By having a large enough UGA,
that would ensure an opportunity for a private individual to build a house. The City
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
47
48
49
didn't want a goal saying they would be providing a housing supply. That would
insinuate it is a municipal responsibility to build the houses.
Hoag questioned why they are deleting the language in policy 2T -1 on packet
page 136. Goodwin stated the area that has the mineral resources is no longer in
the UGA at all. The mineral resource land (MRL) used to be within the long -term
planning area. Before they made it short -term, they would have had to study it to
make sure they weren't interfering with the mineral use. Now that it is removed
from the UGA, it is assured it will never become a short -term planning area, so they
don't need to study it.
Hoag asked about the protection for the underlying aquifer, and whether it is
covered in the overlay zone. Goodwin stated it is covered in the MRL regulations
and the CAO. In the mineral regulations, it says that there are certain rules.
Hoag stated that really doesn't protect an aquifer recharge zone. It protects
the wellhead itself from contamination. Protecting an aquifer recharge zone is a
different issue.
Sutter stated that if this isn't in Blaine's jurisdiction, the County should not
require them to study it and propose a long -term answer. Goodwin stated that
may be the something the County Council would want to add for aquifers, but it is
not appropriate for the City. They are pulling it out because it is not in the UGA.
Brenner questioned whether there are mined areas already in the proposed
UGA for Blaine. She believed this dealt with areas that have already been mined.
Goodwin stated there is one gravel pit that the City operates and may be within the
UGA. If there is an already -mined area that is not removed from the UGA, then the
language should stay in. Goodwin stated there are no MRLs in the City or in the
UGA.
Brenner stated a MRL is different than an area that has already been mined.
Sutter stated this requires Blaine to study and propose long -term measures
to assure compatibility of adjacent uses to mineral resources lands, and
demonstrate how future uses of mined areas will protect the underlying aquifers
prior to inclusion in the short -term planning area for Blaine. This was directed
specifically at the area they are taking out of the UGA. If it is not in the UGA and in
their jurisdiction, the County can't require them to study it.
Brenner stated she was talking about an area that was already mined in the
past.
Hoag stated the area Brenner is referring to is in the jurisdiction of the City
of Blaine.
Brenner stated that was correct. It is in a UGA that has not been removed.
If there is an area like that, they need to make sure that future uses of already
existing mined areas that are already in the UGA will protect underlying aquifers.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Sutter asked if the one area they are referring to is in the UGA that is being
removed. Goodwin stated it is not. The only one that exists, that she is aware of,
is on "H" Street, and may be within the City UGA. She suggested that staff look
into it and, if it exists, write a new policy and propose it for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment before the end of the year.
Brenner stated that is what she was asking for.
Hoag stated the twelfth bullet point on packet page 137 could be amended to
address this problem. She questioned whether there is a newer version of the
Blaine Groundwater Management Program. Goodwin stated she believed that is the
only one they have, but they are continually working on it. There may be a new
one in the future.
Hoag asked if there is a benefit to having the language "1995" in that
section. That document would become outdated anytime they update that. She
suggested, "as included in the Blaine Groundwater Management Program."
Goodwin stated that would not be considered a major change.
Hoag moved to amend the language in the twelfth bullet point of Policy 2T -6
on packet page 137, "...as included in the Blaine Groundwater Management
Program, X99§, including..." Goodwin suggested adding the word "current."
Hoag amended her motion, "...as included in the current Blaine Groundwater
Management Program, 199 , including..."
Brenner questioned how that language would solve the problem she brought
up.
Hoag stated the problem was with aquifer recharge protection. This
language says they are going to implement the aquifer recharge protection plan.
Goodwin stated they would read it to make sure that is what it does. If not,
the staff will bring forward another amendment.
Sutter stated this was about the County negotiating and adopting an
interlocal agreement, which provides for Blaine and the County to jointly adopt an
agreement to do that.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 5
1 UGA (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON
2 FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -409)
3
4 Brenner referenced Policy 2Z -5 on packet page 160. She didn't support
5 encouraging the incorporation of Birch Bay. She supported letting them decide to
6 stay neutral. She didn't want to lose that tax base unless they have to. She didn't
7 support encouraging incorporation of the Columbia /Maple Valley area. In addition,
8 she didn't like Policy 2Z -8, which addresses creating an economicly viable city. If
9 the County doesn't have the ability to create something between a city and an
10 unincorporated area, then they need to create that ability. They used to have
11 townships. They need to either reinvent them, or do something similar. She didn't
12 see that area as a city. The word "city" doesn't provide the same vision of what the
13 people in the area want. They want development and things that are consistent
14 with the lifestyle and the look of the area. She suggested they use the word
15 "town." Goodwin stated it is a town. If they are going to make either area a UGA,
16 by definition a UGA is something that will be a future city. That is its purpose.
17
18 Brenner stated there are towns elsewhere that are incorporated towns. If
19 the State doesn't allow that option, then they should change that at the state level.
20
21 Brown stated the idea behind this was the fact that there is a large potential
22 for future population. It had to be allowed to grow. As it grows, it will need more
23 County services. It makes sense to allow for incorporation sometime in the future
24 so they have more self - governance and will be responsible for their own police and
25 other services.
26
27 Brenner asked for a legal opinion on whether something could be
28 incorporated as a town.
29
30 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated she would look into it.
31
32 Sutter stated she also wanted to know the definitions of town and city.
33
34 Hoag asked about item 16 on packet page 156, which discussed population
35 growth. She questioned what the changed the condition was. Goodwin stated the
36 Comprehensive Plan projected low growth in that area. The actual growth had
37 been substantially higher than they projected.
38
39 Hoag asked why they want to make it an urban growth area and why it is so
40 large. Goodwin stated it is large because that is the boundary of the area that the
41 County established as a recreational subdivision. It is actually smaller than the
42 boundary the County established as a recreational subdivision. They wanted it to
43 be a UGA because the zoning is Urban Residential and is similar to the urban
44 growth area in Birch Bay. If there are Hearings Board challenges, it is more
45 appropriately called a UGA given the amount of the growth area.
46
47 Hoag stated she supported what they are trying to do in the area, but there
48 is a difference between a recreational subdivision and a city UGA. She was
49 concerned about the transportation element. If they can generate the economic
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
development then it would be fine. There is a big difference between this are a and
Birch Bay. Birch Bay is right next to the I -5 corridor, so transportation is not a
concern for that area.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that
would be the reason for the UGA, so that job growth can more easily occur and so it
would reduce the reason for a back - and -forth trip.
Hoag asked if they could do that under the recreational subdivision. Knapp
stated they could not, because the area is primarily residential. They do have a
good water supply. They are not trying to enlarge the existing pattern of
development.
Hoag asked about the map on the last page on packet page 166. There is a
long -term planning area in the middle of the short -term planning area. Goodwin
stated that is the Water District's property and is undeveloped right now. The
short -term planning area is about equal to what they have available in their sewer
plant.
Hoag asked the reason for deleting policy 2JJ -6 on packet page 165.
Goodwin stated language that says they are going to encourage an area to use
someone else's sewer has no teeth. There is a need for additional infrastructure
before there is additional development. They shouldn't have a policy they can't
encourage.
Hoag stated it serves as direction. She asked if they were incorporated from
the subarea plans. Goodwin stated she didn't think this particular one was. She
believed it was something that came up as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag moved to leave that policy in. She questioned whether they would
need a public hearing.
Brenner stated it is not in the same area and it is private. The County
doesn't have any business telling someone they are going to use someone else's
private system.
Sutter agreed with Brenner.
Hoag withdrew her motion and asked Goodwin to look into it. Goodwin read
policy 2Z -11 on packet page 161, which encourages the use of the highest possible
stormwater development standards and connection to public sewer to protect
surface water in the aquifer. If one was to come up with his or her own separate
public sewer, it is his or her business.
Hoag disagreed with the sentence in the second paragraph on packet page
159 under the Columbia Valley /Kendall heading. That commute would cause sever
problems.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
Sutter stated one of the reasons they want to do this is to avoid that
problem. Knapp stated the reality is that it is there currently. The reason for the
urban growth area is to encourage the job growth of the area.
Hoag suggested alternate language, "The lots are affordable and still within
will provide an
available workforce for future economic development."
Goodwin questioned whether this would require a public hearing.
Frakes stated they could change it without having a public hearing. It is a
statement of fact. Either it is a fact or it isn't.
Sutter suggested they would come up with appropriate language.
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Sutter stated they have looked up the definitions of cities and towns. A first
class city has a population of 10,000 or more at the time of its organization. A
second class city has 1,500 or more people at the time of its organization. A town
has a population of less than 1,500 at the time of its organization. She believed
the population already exceeds 1,500.
Goodwin questioned whether they are going to leave the language as it is in
those sections, because "town" wouldn't be appropriate.
The committee concurred.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Sutter moved to amend finding nine on packet page 155, "...light impact
industrial land is impeFtant essential to economic development..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend language in Policy 2Z -11 on packet page 161,
"... encourage require the highest possible use of stormwater development
standards..."
Hoag asked what standards they would use.
Sutter suggested, "...the highest possible use of the current Whatcom County
stormwater development standards..." Goodwin stated there are no stormwater
standards that apply to existing lots. That only happens in subdivisions. That is
why the discussion is to have higher standards.
Knapp stated they need to retrofit existing development. Retrofit typically
happens by the formation of a local improvement district.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
Sutter stated that new building permits would be required to do stormwater
development.
Brown stated that a lot in the middle of twenty homes would have to put in a
stormwater system that no one else has. They've just shut down the only
affordable housing available. Knapp stated they could focus on new areas.
Sutter stated there are methods of collecting stormwater runoff that aren't
very costly. She questioned whether single - family homes would be required to have
a stormwater system, according to the new stormwater regulations that are being
written. Goodwin stated it appears that it will only happen in Lake Whatcom, but it
is too early to say. They definitely require new subdivisions to have regional
stormwater retention, detention, and treatment. A lot of the old subdivisions don't
have stormwater management because they were in before there were standards.
Hoag stated in particular areas that have a sensitive watershed, such as Lake
Whatcom and Drayton Harbor, a lot itself may be flat, but the general area may be
hilly. If they end up with stormwater racing through that area, they will scour
streams.
Brown stated this is all on flat land. Nothing races in that area.
Hoag stated it races when it gets off the flat land. If it goes into a
stormwater system, they are just increasing the level of stormwater that ends up in
the river. The people that have lived along the lower reaches of the Nooksack
historically have commented that the high water level during a storm is at least a
foot higher than it used to be. The low water level is approximately the same.
That indicates it is not just the riverbed rising, but water is coming into the river at
a much higher rate than it used to during a storm. The more they contribute to
that, the more of a problem they will have.
Brown disagreed that the area was hilly.
Sutter withdrew her motion and suggested this particular policy be on the
docket for review.
Goodwin suggested, 'appropriate stormwater best management practices"
and then send it to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). They are already
working on individual on -site stormwater standards for Lake Whatcom. They can
look at this area, which has impervious gravel and the stormwater infiltrates, but is
a different issue because it is a recharge area. They want to double -check that the
stormwater that is infiltrating isn't polluted. The TAC has better expertise and could
make suggestions for the entire code.
Sutter moved to amend, "...encourage the use of the highest pessible
appropriate stormwater best management
practices and..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, 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
Brenner moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -406)
Goodwin stated this started as a change to make the maps consistent with
the plan, and to clarify some of the language in the plan. The Planning Commission
made a change that is substantive. That is on packet page 173 at the top of the
page. The Comprehensive Plan used to reference an agricultural protection overlay
(APO) zone. The zoning code set the standard of the APO in Title 20.38. Staff
recommended added language that lists the three criteria. That is consistent with
Title 20, The Planning Commission didn't like it and suggested they require at least
two of the criteria. That is a policy change from what they have now. The rest of
the ordinance is just clarification.
Sutter moved to change language at the end of the second criterion, "years;
afi-d or."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin displayed a map that showed the combination of agricultural land
and APO land.
Brenner stated she could support an APO if it is just land that has been
getting the credit for being in agricultural open space. The other two have to be
done with incentives, not requirements. They are de facto downzoning people
otherwise.
Hoag pointed out the difference this makes between the two criteria. Under
one of the following an area that had not been used, but was surrounded by
agriculture and had prime soils, wouldn't be APO under the new language because
it wouldn't have been designated as agricultural open space or have been used for
commercial farming. Whereas, under the old language, those soils would be
protected even if they hadn't been used for farming. There is a lot of that in the
County.
Brenner stated that the overlay zone should be directed at parcels that meet
at least one of either item one or three. Item two should be an APO no matter
what.
Hoag agreed.
Sutter moved, "The overlay zone is directed at parcels that have been
designated and meet one of the following criteria: 1. Include more than 50 percent
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 10
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
of the APO soils; or 2. Have been used for commercial farming purposes for the
past five years."
Hoag stated that proposed language limits it only to ones that have been
designated as agricultural open space. If an area wasn't designated as agricultural
open space, it wouldn't qualify. Goodwin stated the only way they have to know if
someone has been commercially farming an area for five years is to determine if
they are designated as an agricultural open space. Otherwise, they have no way of
knowing. Items two and three are really one in the same. There is no way for the
staff to know if someone has been commercially farming.
Brenner stated someone could testify to that. She didn't know why anyone
would be commercially farming for five years and not take the agricultural open
space designation. Goodwin stated that is exactly what they concluded. They don't
even look at criteria three right now. They only look at criteria two, and assume
they've been involved in commercial farming.
Brenner questioned whether Goodwin could guarantee that anyone with the
agricultural open space designation would be in an APO. Goodwin stated she could
currently, unless there was a mistake made administratively. Right now, if one is
designated as agricultural open space, they are automatically subject to the APO.
If this passes, they would not be unless they also had APO soils.
Brenner moved to amend language so that the overlay zone is directed at all
parcels that have an agricultural open space designation.
Hoag questioned whether she wanted to eliminate those that have more than
50 percent APO soils.
Brenner stated not necessarily. She is making one of two motions.
Goodwin suggested striking the entire paragraph, refer to the existing zoning
code, and bring this back next year, which is on the docket. Since this wouldn't
change the code and would only make the plan inconsistent with the code, they
should just strike it and do it next year.
Hoag questioned whether they would retain the previous language if this
language were stricken. Goodwin stated there was no previous language. Staff
added this to help clarify intent and make better consistency between the
Comprehensive plan and the code. However, the amended language made it
inconsistent.
Sutter suggested as a friendly amendment, "This overlay zone is directed at
parcels that have been designated as agricultural open space for County property
tax purposes within the past seven years, and those that include more than 50 APO
soils."
Hoag agreed with Sutter's proposed language.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 11
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
Brenner accepted Sutter's friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin questioned whether the change would trigger the need for a public
hearing.
Goodwin suggested, "This overlay zone is directed at parcels that have been
designated as agricultural open space for County property tax purposes within the
past seven years or have been used for commercial farming purposes for the past
five years, and those that include more than 50 APO soils."
Hoag stated the problem is the Planning Commission recommendation was to
require two of the three criteria. Now the committee is only recommending one.
Goodwin stated she would check with legal to see if it required a public hearing.
The Planning Commission recommendation is clear that the APO would be based on
two criteria. If the Council is taking the two out; it changes the intent of the
Planning Commission recommendation.
Sutter questioned what happens if it doesn't get adopted at the evening's
meeting. Goodwin stated they have to be considered concurrently with the others.
They should be adopted on, with, or before the budget. The only time that would
be a problem would be if someone were to challenge it.
Brenner suggested they go back to her original amendment.
Sutter stated she would be inclined to pass it at this time and send it through
the system. Goodwin stated it wouldn't change anything to adopt it as it was, and
not change the code. The code would be inconsistent with the plan. If they adopt
the Planning Commission recommendation without changing it, it will be
inconsistent with the code. If someone didn't like the code, they could challenge it
as being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Sutter questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan and the code are now
consistent. Goodwin stated they are.
Sutter questioned whether deleting the Planning Commission
recommendation would trigger a hearing. Goodwin stated it might.
Sutter stated the only way to get by with not having a hearing is to not
change the Planning Commission recommendation, which will set the County up
with an inconsistency between the code and the Comprehensive Plan. Goodwin
stated that, if they hold this amendment for a hearing and adopt the rest, they are
close enough to the budget time that it would be unlikely they would get a legal
challenge.
The committee agreed.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Sutter stated they needed to amend this and have a hearing. If they are
going to hold the entire document, they may as well change it. That way the public
will have the committee's changes when the hearing is held.
Brenner moved "This overlay zone shall include areas that have been
designated open space for County tax purposes for the past seven years." is
directed at parcels that meet at least two of the following criteria."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved "This overlay zone shall include areas that have been
designated open space for County tax purposes for the past seven years. This
overlay zone is directed at parcels that meet at least one of the following two of the
€ollowing criteria: 1. Include more than 50 percent APO soils, or 2. Have been
used for commercial farming purposes for the past five years."
Sutter proposed a friendly amendment, "This overlay zone shall include areas
that have been designated open space for County tax purposes for the past seven
years.. and /or those that This overlay zone is ddiFected at parcels that meet at 1
. linclude more than 50 percent
APO soils, er 2. Have been used for commercial far ses fer the past five
years
Brenner did not accept the friendly amendment.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Sutter moved to amend the language at the top of packet page 173, "This
overlay zone shall include areas that have been designated open space for County
tax purposes for the past seven years.. and /or those that This ever-lay zone -.
criteria: -I--. linclude more than 50 percent APO soils, oF'. Have been e
eenninger-eial faFn9ang purposes for the past five years."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Goodwin stated legal counsel advised the Council to have a public hearing.
Hoag asked Frakes if the County would be in trouble legally if this were
adopted after the budget was adopted. Goodwin suggested there be a finding
about considering the fiscal impacts. It is not a change from existing policy.
Hoag stated this would retain existing policy. If they changed it, they would
end up with a fiscal problem because they would be wiping out all the agricultural
land that is contributing money. Instead, they would have to supply services to
houses that would be there. That would be a drain on the money.
Goodwin stated the purpose of adopting it with the budget is to look at the
fiscal implications.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 13
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
Hoag questioned the reason for the language change on packet page 174,
Goal 8A. Goodwin stated it came from the agriculture community. Sometimes
there is fiber that is not forage, such as bedding straw. Forage is always fiber.
Hoag asked about finding number four on packet page 169, which refers to
attachment C, which is a memo to Councilmembers. She couldn't find it. Goodwin
stated she would find it.
Sutter stated this item was held for a public hearing.
(Brenner left the meeting at 3:45 p.m.)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN AND
THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM UR3 TO
LII FOR 10.74 ACRES (BELLINGHAM UGA /MARINE DRIVE REZONE)
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -405)
Sutter stated she recalled extensive discussion on this when they addressed
the docket.
Hoag stated she found scrivener's errors on item eight on packet page 184,
"...traffic will not enter e€ or exit..."
Sutter pointed out a scrivener's error on item six on packet page 184,
"...Light Impact Industrial zoning are adequate to separate residential..."
Hoag stated the language in the section beginning "Screening" on packet
page 187 could be misinterpreted. It makes it sound as if the neighborhoods had
to do the screening. She suggested, "...if screened from view by of the adjoining..."
She so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend the language on packet page 187, "Applicable Law.
This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by the laws of the State of
Washington and Whatcom County Code." Goodwin stated the agreement is for the
concomitant agreement between the developer and the County. It doesn't refer to
the project or the development.
Jack Swanson, attorney, stated they could change it.
Goodwin stated Swanson wrote it. They could change it.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated there was a scrivener's error in section (7)(b) on packet page
195, "...cover that will be maintained in a healthy growing..."
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 14
1 Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4
5 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONE MAP
6 REGARDING RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 5.84
7 ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (WARNICK AMENDMENT)
8 (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
9 IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -408)
10
11 Hoag moved to recommend approval.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
16
17 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, LII
18 AND HII ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FRINGE PLAN
19 (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
20 IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -404)
21
22 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
23 stated this makes the zoning text more consistent with the Urban Fringe Plan. It
24 adds additional for development in Light Impact Industrial (LII) areas adjacent to
25 the City of Bellingham. In particular, it prohibits certain uses. It adds references to
26 building setbacks. It references some number changes that will occur if the Council
27 adopts certain other items that are on the agenda. The off -site buffers are
28 provided for in the Urban Fringe Plan. The appearance would be to make it more
29 consistent with residential development. The LII uses would be allowed on that
30 side of the Urban Fringe Plan. These zoning setbacks would be increased to 100
31 feet and the Heavy Impact Industrial (HII) uses would be inside an enclosed
32 building.
33
34 Hoag stated there was wording in two places, ordinance pages four and
35 eight, that reference the "primary manufacturing of products," "primary
36 manufacturing and processing of rubber," and "primary metal industry." She
37 questioned why they added the word "primary" in those areas.
38
39 Goodwin stated that language was heavily debated as part of the Urban
40 Fringe Plan. The people on both sides agreed that is what they were talking about.
41 For instance, many industries could process rubber, but what they really meant was
42 making rubber. That is the primary manufacturing as opposed to assembling parts
43 that are made out of rubber, which would be secondary processing of rubber.
44
45 Hoag stated the language talks about manufacturing. She hesitated on that
46 one. In another area, the language doesn't allow manufacturing of rubber and
47 other products. She questioned why they would allow the manufacture of
48 petroleum products. This is an area that is surrounded by residential uses. She
49 wanted to make sure the allowed uses are what they truly intend. Goodwin stated
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 15
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
it is the exact language out of the Urban Fringe Plan, so it has to be what they
intended.
Jack Swanson, attorney, stated the Birchwood Neighborhood Association held
meetings over a period of a year and a half. That is where the language came
from. It was a compromise between the HII existing users and the neighborhood.
Goodwin stated she would check the language before that night's meeting to
make sure.
Hoag stated if that is the language the parties agreed to, then it was fine
with her.
Hoag questioned the language in section 20.68.657 on packet page 214. The
president of the neighborhood association asked that the impacts be prevented.
The word "mitigate" used in that section doesn't specify to what degree the use is
mitigated. She moved to amend language, "...shall be sufficiently enclosed to
n9itigate prevent the impacts."
Swanson questioned whether her intent was that no light, no glare, or no
noise may come off the industrial site.
Hoag stated in only applies to processes that have the potential to produce
physical off -site impacts of a detrimental nature. If it is of a detrimental nature, it
would be a light or noise, for instance, that causes a physical detriment. It doesn't
mean they can't have any light or noise.
Knapp stated that would be considered under the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) review. Those are issues that would be part of a SEPA
review.
Hoag stated they wouldn't be sufficiently covered by SEPA. She questioned
whether the point of the language is to keep the impact on -site. Goodwin stated
that is the point of the language, but "prevent" is a pretty strong word, which
means there is no impact. "Mitigate" means that the impacts are kept down to a
reasonable level.
Hoag stated there are various levels of mitigation. Knapp stated mitigation
refers to removing the detrimental portion. If one has some light or noise that isn't
detrimental, which is defined through decibels and other measures.
Hoag stated mitigation doesn't say they would remove all the detrimental
impacts. It only means they will lessen the impact. That is what mitigation means.
If the concern is that the language is too unreasonable, they could say, "...prevent
the detrimental impacts." It is the detriment they are seeking to prevent. She
amended her motion, "...shall be sufficiently enclosed to mitigate prevent the
detrimental impacts."
Sutter stated she didn't have a problem with the word "mitigate."
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 16
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
Hoag stated she has seen the word misused. People spoke to it at the
Planning Commission level, and the Council needs to listen.
Swanson stated the people who spoke at the Planning Commission level
would like to undo the last 60 or 70 years of history of industrial uses. Their
comments to some degree are directed in that direction. If they are going to say
that light is detrimental, he questioned whether they could have lights in the
parking lot and around the industrial facility for safety reasons.
Sutter stated she is not going to vote in favor of this, and suggested that
Councilmember Hoag bring the amendment to the full Council.
Goodwin questioned whether the wording would cause the need for a public
hearing. She would check with legal before the evening's meeting.
Hoag stated she believed the wording clarified the amount of "mitigation."
That is very clear.
Sutter moved to recommend approval.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there isn't any specific
time requirement on public notices in this context. They would be held to a
reasonable standard.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Hoag opposed.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TEXT
REGARDING THE CHERRY POINT PIER DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -403)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this
ordinance will amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Management
Program. These amendments would impose a moratorium on issuance of additional
permits for a deepwater pier at Cherry Point. The moratorium would continue until
the existing applications for a deep -water pier were to expire or be abandoned.
This would not apply to any existing permits, including the Pacific International
Terminal (PIT) and the Cherry Point Industrial Park (CPIP). There are key points to
the issue. Property rights is a key issue. The moratorium would not limit the right
to undertake industrial land development. It only affects one property. The owner
has not voiced an opposition. The property has high bluffs and is unsuitable for
industrial development. Most of the area is unsuitable. Property owners have
commented, and none have objected to the current proposal. Intalco, Arco, and
Tosco would not be prevented from maintaining or expanding their docks. They
aren't opposed to this. There was also a question about whether it would create a
monopoly. Any future industrial pier at Cherry Point would be a multi -user facility.
Both PIT and CPIP piers are designed for and would be operated as multi -use
facilities.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 17
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
Hoag stated the language in the findings from the Planning Commission
doesn't specify a multi -use pier. She was concerned that any proposals that have
already been permitted may fall through, and the additional one pier that is allowed
will not have to say it is an industrial multi -use pier. Knapp stated they could
consider that as an amendment.
Knapp continued to state that there is a significant economic incentive for the
two piers that are currently permitted. They would be allowed to be constructed if
they can get approval from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). If
there was a market to support more than one, then both can be built, pending DNR
approval. The Port of Bellingham can handle some belt cargos at the Bellingham
dock. The facility could and does provide competition and an alternative for local
producers. There are two pending permits at Cherry Point, and the facility owned
by the Port of Bellingham. Therefore, a possible monopoly isn't a factor. Also,
zoning and shoreline regulations can't easily be applied to assure competition.
Because of the three entities, the monopoly isn't a key issue. Another key point
regarding the environment is that there has been significant environmental support
for one pier. He recommended adoption, and Planning Commission recommended
adoption.
Hoag moved that language be amended in section 20.100.210.21(a) on
packet page 223, "Development of a limited number of industrial multi -use piers on
piling..."
Sutter questioned whether there would be a problem requiring that the piers
be multi -use. Knapp stated he didn't think there would be a problem.
Hoag stated the staff reported said that would address the monopoly issue.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend language in section 20.100.210.21(a) on packet page
223, "Further sever, Washington State natural resource agencies..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 23.100.210.31(a)(1) on packet page 224,
"...approval may be given for one additional pile supported or floating multi -use
pier."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend finding 16 on packet page 219, "...Additionally, it
protects the marine habitat because multiple no more piers, which may impact this
habitat, would f-et be allowed unless beth ef the pi except those currently
permitted by the County, provided they are able to obtain all State and Federal
approvals."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 18
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
Goodwin stated that language wouldn't work because they still want the
option to do one pier of both the currently permitted piers were withdrawn.
The committee agreed and concurred to add language to clarify the intent
after the meeting to be ready for the evening's Council meeting.
Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL (AB99 -436)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the first item was the Smith /Manthey Road rezone. The request was to
rezone from agriculture to Residential one unit per five acres (R5) or Residential
one unit per ten acres (R10). The Planning Commission recommended denial. It
has primarily agricultural soils. A lot of the land is in agricultural use. There are
some wetlands and streams through the area, which makes it difficult to farm, but
the Planning Commission concluded it would also be a difficult place to construct
houses, and it is better off left in a low density, agricultural use. At this point, she
was not aware of any applicants who are requesting a Council hearing.
Hoag moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated the next item is on the Mount Baker Highway. It was a
proposed rezone and Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. The proposal was to
add the area to the UGA and zone it Urban Residential Mix (UR -MX). The Planning
Commission had a tie vote on this, so they did not recommend approval or denial.
It takes a quorum of five planning commissioners to recommend approval. The
main issue was that the City of Bellingham spoke against it, saying it was
premature and the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed concurrently by the
City and the County. They didn't want to look at theirs for another two years.
Without the City's concurrence, the Planning Commission had some concern.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, 1401 Astor Street,
Bellingham, asked the Council to have a hearing on this item. Approximately four
of the Facts of Finding and Reasons for Actions are now outdated. This property is
next in line for commercial development. The UR -MX zone allows commercial
development within a half mile along the Mount Baker Highway, for instance. The
Trickle Creek property has already been zoned. The City did not object to it. That
area is in the UGA. What is unique about the UR -MX zone is that the commercial
sites can only be done in an orderly manner, within one half mile of each other.
They support the idea that the property is ready for consideration by Council. It is
the next intersection. The State highway will be built to that location at some point
in the future. There are design plans to the Britton Road. It is true the utilities are
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
not at 3 /8ths of a mile, but they are only 400 feet away from the facility because of
the fire station growth that has occurred. They are now looking at an elementary
school at that same location. It is also not true that the school district is over-
capacity in their high school. There is a new high school within a short distance of
this site. He asked that the Council consider that the Planning Commission had a
tie vote on this. There are some very good reasons to consider it now. The City of
Bellingham should be considering their Comprehensive Plan changes in the year
2000, not 2001 and 2002. The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Bellingham was
approved in 1995. Its five years is up soon. It is remiss on the City's part to
extend the five -year program for one or two years. He suggested there are good
reasons for expanding this property to residential and commercial zoning. The
property has undergone a fill and grade approval from the County. The County
sees it as a viable location and development.
Sutter stated the City wouldn't consider an application to extend sewer and
water without Whatcom County considering the Comprehensive Plan change. She
questioned whether the City wanted this done at all. Campbell stated the City
wouldn't approve anything until Whatcom County includes the area in the UGA. At
that point, he can go back to the City and ask them for utilities. He can't even ask
the City for utilities because it is not zoned and it is not in the UGA. They are
caught in between the utility issue. He wanted to petition for those utilities. He
was confident they would get utilities extended to that location. They are already
400 feet from the development.
Brown questioned whether the water line goes farther out from the City.
Campbell stated it does. Because of the problems with a water supply, the City
took over a small water association. They still have to petition the City for that
utility, but it is adequately sized. He is confident that the City would like to see
orderly growth in that location. That is what the UR -MX zone is all about. It will
reduce traffic times and impacts.
Hoag stated she supported UR -MX zoning in general, however this application
isn't just about the lack of having the proper utilities. Becoming a UGA is supposed
to be a joint city /county decision. The City has said they want to look at this
property in a five -year review process. She agreed with the Planning Commission
finding that the County considers input from the City. This sounds like a good
proposal but needs to go through the proper process. A Comprehensive Plan
amendment has not been justified. Also, she wanted to see data about whether
finding number eight was true or not.
Goodwin stated there is a letter from the school district saying it's true, but it
may be the standard letter they send out to make the point they want the County
to collect school impact fees.
Hoag stated there is an orderly process for that.
Campbell stated the County needs to recognize that not every property has a
timeline with regard to its planning and growth. They are caught between the
ordinance as it is, which allows for a half mile provision. They are at the point
where the property could be developed. The County has the authority to do a code
amendment. It is only seven acres.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 20
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
Hoag stated the Trickle Creek property is right on the border of the current
City boundary. It is not an appropriate comparison. Also, the finding about the
City's statement that the rezone is not consistent with adopted City and County
plans and policies should be taken into consideration.
He stated they are not talking about approving it, they are asking for a public
hearing. They have never been given the opportunity to present their case.
Hoag stated they did have a hearing at the Planning Commission level. The
purpose of the Council's hearing is to change a recommendation from the Planning
Hearing. It is not a part of their legislative process to have a hearing just so they
can talk. Campbell stated the legislative process has a flaw in it right now. He
questioned what this project does when there is a tie vote. There is neither
approval nor denial by the Planning Commission.
Hoag stated a tie vote is not a confirmation or an approval.
Campbell questioned whether there needs to be a provision for the project
proposal to be heard.
Sutter questioned what kind of use they anticipate this project being for.
Campbell stated they are asking that two acres of the seven be commercial and the
rest be residential.
Sutter asked about the projected traffic impact. Campbell stated the impact
might be similar to Trickle Creek. The traffic impact from that resulted in five or
ten percent of today's traffic going to that location.
Sutter stated there aren't any firm plans for improvements to traffic between
McLeod and Britton roads. They would be creating a four -way intersection instead
of a three -way intersection.
Brown stated that was one of the reasons he was in favor of this. There are
plans to bring the Mount Baker Highway up to five lines out to Britton Road. He's
heard those plans are still in effect, in spite of I -695. Typically, road improvements
are made. Here, the ultimate use will happen. The project allows for the
improvements to be made along with the signalization. If they could make
arrangements that the City accepts utilities, it is wise.
Sutter stated she was concerned that the State Department of Transportation
(DOT) does not have funding for any kind of construction in the future. It has been
done up to McLeod Road because it is in the City limits.
Campbell stated they would like the first attempt to improve that intersection
and follow the State guidelines. This is the next spot that needs to be considered,
and it is timely for Council to consider it.
Sutter stated that the highway is not going to happen soon, even though
there are plans. These folks are not going to want to put in the signal or do the
improvement. If there is already a ten percent of traffic impacts from Trickle
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 21
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
Creek, and this proposal adds another ten percent. The Mount Baker Highway is
already over used. The level of service is very high. Campbell stated that's why
they develop those types of intersections.
Sutter asked what will happen between now and some time in the future
when those controls will be put into place. They will still have to deal with the
traffic impacts. Campbell stated they would have to mitigate for those impacts.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brown stated they should have asked the DOT about their development
requirements. If they were to develop at that location, that might be a plus for the
people using the Britton Road. Signalization could be a part of that mitigation.
Campbell stated that Trickle Creek was asked to compensate the City in the amount
of $65,000 to $75,000. If they can start now with the planning, then they could
make that a much better and safer intersection than it is now.
Sutter stated if she had assurances the road improvements would be done
between McLeod and Britton and the signal would be installed at Britton, she would
not have a problem.
Hoag stated the timeliness of the project is wrong. They should not go over
the City of Bellingham's wishes. Nothing justifies doing this now. The five -year
review is coming up soon.
Sutter moved to refer to Council without a recommendation, to decide
whether there would be a public hearing.
Hoag stated she was opposed to that.
Sutter questioned whether the Council could decide to hold a hearing without
the committee's recommendation.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is an appropriate way
to handle it. There is nothing to say they can't have a hearing.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Goodwin stated the next proposal was a proposed rezone from commercial
forestry to rural forestry for approximately 80 acres on "Y" Road. The Planning
Commission recommended denial due to the steep slope of the area and the
Comprehensive Plan policies about protecting commercial forestry.
Jack Swanson, attorney, stated there are some new developments on this
issue. The new development is that the client has 37 acres of rural forestry in the
Blue Canyon Road area that includes ten acres zoned R2A. They would like to
propose a swap. They would agree that, in exchange for the 80 -acre rezone, they
will rezone the R2A property to rural forestry. That would leave a 37 -acre piece
that would allow one home to be built. Now, the property could conceivably have
five homes in that area. This is an unusual proposal, but it could be done as part of
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 22
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
a concomitant agreement or a conditional rezone of the 80 acres on the "Y" Road.
He disagreed with the Planning Commission's findings. He believed it was a close
call as to whether or not that particular 80 acres meets the criteria for rural forestry
versus commercial forestry. It is in a fire district, is relatively close to services, and
has short -plats and rural areas right next to it. In the past, they've used the rural
forestry as a buffer between the commercial forestry and rural areas. In addition,
when this came up before, Councilmember Brenner suggested there might be
limitations on logging on this 80 -acre tract that might make this rezone more
palatable to her. They've proposed that some of those conditions would involve no
clear cutting, no intensive commercial forestry activities, and a controlled harvest
under a harvesting plan that would occur over a long period of time. The proposal
would limit the impact on the lake and minimize the impact on the rural forestry
37 -acre parcel.
Hoag asked for language. Swanson stated he wrote a covenant for the
proposal. They are asking for a public hearing. They will discuss it with the
Forestry Forum and ask that they review the proposal. This is a way to reduce
density in the watershed.
Hoag stated she liked eliminating four to five homes at the lake's edge in
exchange for four homes that are a mile and a half away. She questioned the
concerns about the majority of the land being a slide hazard area. She didn't want
them to build homes in the eighty acres that aren't safe. Swanson stated that is
not exactly true. One of the Planning Commission members lives in the immediate
vicinity. He conceded there are numerous building sites on this site.
Hoag stated a building site is different than a slide hazard area. Swanson
stated the area is not geologically unstable.
Goodwin stated there wasn't anything in the staff report that said it is
geologically unstable, but it is steep.
Hoag read finding number seven. Swanson stated it was untrue.
Goodwin stated she would look into the finding.
Brown stated the topography map shows some steep areas and some gently
sloping areas. He didn't understand why the Planning Commission rejected this. It
provides a rural buffer between commercial forestry and residential land. They've
agreed to a selective harvest so there will be a forest backdrop, which increases the
productivity of the commercial forest. They will readily be able to utilize the forest
products up to the boundary of the rural forest. This proposal makes sense. He
liked it because of the buffer between commercial forestry and rural development.
There are some developed roads. It enhances the operation of the commercial
forestry. It will reduce sediment runoff. It should have a public hearing.
Hoag moved to table or refer to committee for December 7t" and schedule a
public hearing. They will take the input from the Forestry Forum. If they want to
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 23
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
make changes, they will have the opportunity. She wanted more information and
to know more about the streams. The original map showed streams running
through the property.
Sutter stated they could justify the public hearing because of the new offer
for public exchange. They can recommend it be approved based on that exchange.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan regarding capital facilities (AB99-
407).
Knapp stated they have worked to make sure there are no inconsistencies.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -410)
(CONTINUED FROM EARLIER DISCUSSION)
Hoag stated she received a letter from the Birch Bay Water and Sewer
District about the boundaries that they set. They wanted the Council to get rid of
the islands.
Goodwin stated the staff recommended the substitute map that gets rid of
the islands.
Hoag stated they also received a letter from a citizen living in Surrey, British
Columbia who received the survey about who wanted sewer. The survey letter that
went out to the residents was worded improperly. It didn't answer the questions
the committee had asked. The letter should have asked the residents if they
wanted sewer only at no cost. She was worried about including people in the LID
who didn't want to be included.
Knapp stated the dilemma they always face regarding an LID is determining
what the majority asks for, and ensuring the boundaries don't have holes within
them.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 24
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
Hoag stated they don't know what the majority of the people want based on
the survey.
Sutter stated they would determine that when they vote on whether or not
they want to be part of an LID. If there were people who were mislead by the
survey, they can say no when the LID comes around.
Knapp stated the majority of the people voting determine the boundaries.
Goodwin stated the elected board has a public input process.
Sutter stated the reason she wanted it done is for the protection of Drayton
Harbor. She was concerned about one area that is already platted in small lots.
Knapp stated that once the residents see what the costs are, there could be a
majority that doesn't want to do it. At that point, the LID would not go forward.
Hoag stated they don't have the cost estimates. They won't know what the
costs will be until later in the process after they've already committed to the
project. Knapp stated they would have a ballpark estimate.
Hoag disagreed. They need to redo the survey to find out who really wants
the sewer service at the cost it may be.
Sutter asked at what point the LID process surveys people to find out
whether or not they want an LID. Knapp stated they would do that once they get
the costs. People are not going into it blind.
Hoag stated she asked the representative from the Water and Sewer District
about that process. Goodwin stated that, according to the testimony of Roger
Brown, they first get the petition, then they decide if it is feasible and how they are
going to divide up the costs. If it turns out that it is outrageously expensive, they
will have public input opportunity. The residents don't have the option to opt out
once the final amount is known.
Knapp stated the citizens don't have decision - making control, but the district
would.
Sutter stated at some point, someone has to make the decision. The
benefits to be derived from installing the sewer outweigh the number of people who
don't want it.
Hoag stated she wasn't convinced of that. She hadn't seen hard data that
the septic systems are causing a problem in Drayton Harbor. When the sewer is
out there, they are allowing that much more development. She didn't know whether
the trade -off is beneficial.
Sutter stated she had looked at this carefully. It is not just about what goes
into the harbor. If there are failing septic systems everywhere, there is a human
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 25
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
health hazard. She was looking at this issue from the perspective of a human
health problem.
Hoag asked about the lots that have been referred to in past discussions.
Goodwin stated there is an old plat with many lots that is just east of the
Harborview Road. If the area stays in the urban growth area zoned as Urban
Residential four lots per acre (UR4), those lots could develop. Now, a lot of them
are consolidated. Many of the lots are individually owned. Each lot is, at the most,
a quarter of an acre. Since they are individually owned, each owner could develop
a house. If the area is eliminated from the urban growth area, the ones that are
individually owned can still be developed, but the rest would be consolidated.
Hoag asked how long ago the lots were platted. Goodwin stated it has been
many years. It had to be before 1977.
Hoag stated they are going to upset a lot of people.
Sutter stated they are doing the same thing in Lake Whatcom.
Hoag stated the difference is that Lake Whatcom is a drinking water
watershed.
Sutter stated Drayton Harbor is a food source watershed. People eat the
crabs, clams, and oysters that are harvested.
Hoag stated currently they can apply for consolidation relief, but they are
under UR -4 zoning. Goodwin stated that, because they don't have sewer, they
have five -acre zoning. They've already consolidated any that could be.
Sutter stated there are a lot that aren't consolidated and aren't under five -
acre zoning because they are lots of record.
Goodwin stated that those lots would benefit from having sewer.
Hoag stated they received a letter from a property owner on Drayton Harbor
Road who wanted to retain his UR -4 zoning, become part of a short -term planning
area, and petition the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District for installation. She
wondered whether he was included in the boundary. She also questioned why they
are not including Sunday Harbor. Goodwin stated Sunday Harbor already has
sewer and is already a short -term planning area.
Hoag stated they need to retain the outer edge areas that don't want to be
included. Goodwin stated this item has already been recommended to the Council.
Sutter stated they recommended the boundaries developed by the committee
at the last meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/23/99, Page 26
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
Hoag stated she wanted to remove one area. She moved to include the area
next to California Creek that is between Friday Harbor and the proposed provisional
short -term planning area.
of it.
Sutter stated she would make a motion at the evening meeting to do the rest
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.89,
DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURES (PLANNING NO. 70- 98:ZT) (AB99-
386)
This item was held in committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 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, 11/23/99, Page 27