HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 16 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning And Development Committee
June 16, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the Council
Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Ward Nelson None
Barbara Brenner
Other Council Members Present:
Tom Brown
Marlene Dawson
Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM RURAL TEN ACRES (R10A) TO RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A)
FOR APPROXIMATELY 229 ACRES IN THE BIRCH BAY - BLAINE
SUBAREA (AB98 -224)
Michael Knapp, Planning & Development Services Director mentioned, about an
unrelated item, that a stop work order will be issued at a race track near Kendall. The owner and
individuals have been fined.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning & Development Services Planning Manager, stated this began
as the Holtzheimer rezone. She referenced the map on page 137 of the council packet. The
actual rezone area is on this map. The history of the rezone began with request to rezone 14.4
acres to do country western barbecues, then the plan was to split off 5 acres to sell to a son. The
issue was put on hold to do the comprehensive plan. Planning realized that it doesn't make sense
to rezone only 14 acres because entire area is in 5 -acre plots. Staff suggested reviewing a larger
area, which got up to 581 acres that were considered for rezoning. Planning commission held a
public hearing on 581 acres. Staff recommended to not rezone all of that area. The subarea plan
stated that the average lot size has to be less than 10 acres, and the area should not be used or
suitable for agriculture. There are some low quality farm activities in the area. The
recommendation is to rezone 229 acres. There is no agriculture open space in the acreage being
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, Page 1
I considered. None of the 229 acres is in agriculture use. Most parcels are already in 5 -acre
2 parcels. The 229 acres fits into the R5 designation.
3
4 Sutter questioned the three areas that were considered for rezoning. One area is 229 acres
5 (the area currently being considered for rezone), another area is 238 acres, and the last area is
6 114 acres. These three areas originally made up the 581 acres that the Planning Commission
7 considered.
8
9 Nelson moved approval to accept Planning Commission recommendation
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Hoag questioned the location of the area in relation to the incorporated cities of the
14 County. Knapp responded that the area is south of Blaine, east of Birch Bay, north of Ferndale,
15 and west of the freeway, and northwest of the Custer provisional urban growth area..
16
17 Brenner commented that the comprehensive plan states that if the established density
18 pattern in is less than 10 acres and more than 5 acres, it is suitable for R5 zoning designation.
19
20 Hoag clarified that it is outside an urban growth area and planning area. Knapp stated
21 that the area already has an established pattern of R5 zoning. The density of the area already
22 exists to R5 designations. Goodwin stated that with this rezone, there is the potential for
23 additional three lots.
24
25
26 OTHER BUSINESS
27
28
29 Resolution initiating zoning text amendments (AB98 -241): Goodwin distributed a
30 draft resolution initiating zoning text amendments. Council adopted an ordinance that created an
31 annual process for zoning amendments. The next deadline is June 30, 1998. The process
32 established an annual process for State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review and County
33 staff review. The process takes 6 -9 months to complete. Several items have been remanded to
34 Planning Commission. Those items do not meet the criteria of the new ordinance, which leaves
35 the Council two choices. The first choice is to establish a resolution to initiate any or all of those
36 requests as emergency amendments. The second choice is to place them on the docket to be
37 considered after June 30 and proceed with the process. Goodwin created a resolution and exhibit
38 A which is the public facilities zoning, because it needs to be handled more expeditiously than
39 the others are. The Lake Whatcom Development Regulations issue requires more guidance as to
40 what Council wants the Planning Commission to review. It needs to be a docketed issue or
41 initiated by a 2/3 majority by the Council.
42
43 Sutter stated that the Council's intent for the Planning Commission was to review and
44 make recommendations for the Lake Whatcom Development Regulations. She questioned
45 whether the Council needs to go through the docket process for the commission to bring forward
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, Page 2
I the requested recommendations. Goodwin stated that in order to have a public hearing or to be
2 considered an official text amendment, it would need to be placed on the docket. There is no
3 regulation regarding the order the docket items are handled. Sutter replied that she would like
4 resolution on the issue as soon as possible. Goodwin reiterated that the Planning Commission
5 would like direction as to what the Council would like reviewed.
6
7 Nelson questioned whether an emergency exists to establish a building moratorium. He
8 questioned the docket timeframe. Goodwin stated that the 21 rezones associated with the
9 comprehensive plan are moving forward. The annual process is that the comprehensive plan
10 amendments are done on a six -month schedule, then other rezones are done the other six months
11 of the year. If an item is put on the docket and the process begins in June, the Planning
12 Commission would be done with the process early in 1999.
13
14 Nelson questioned whether, because of potential 303 listing and other information
15 available, the Planning Commission would be the appropriate body to hold the initial hearings on
16 the building moratorium and alternatives to development standards. Goodwin replied that the
17 commission would be appropriate if the standards were established as an official control. Nelson
18 stated his hope that the commission would consider issues such as the impacts of the 303 list
19 designation and studies that have been done, and in light of the development standards that are
20 being considered through the Lake Whatcom Management Committee. It would take time for
21 these issues that could not be handled in only one hearing. Nelson suggested putting the issue on
22 the docket for consideration over the next several months.
23
24 Goodwin stated the Planning Commission must decide what text will the public hearing
25 be focused on. There are currently four options to consider. One option would be to wait until
26 the decision is reached by Superior Court regarding the Growth Management Hearings Board
27 decisions at the end of August. Other options include proceeding with a one to five ratio interim
28 zoning, continuing work on the final development regulations, allowing one to five interim
29 zoning only in areas draining into Basins 1 and 2 of Lake Whatcom, and allowing additional
30 density up to existing zoning if there were additional stormwater, impervious surface, and natural
31 vegetation protection measures.
32
33 Sutter expressed a concern not to push this through too fast which would encourage a
34 flood of applications to convert properties to development. Knapp stated that the flood has
35 already begun.
36
37 Nelson moved to put the Lake Whatcom Development Regulations on the Planning
38 Commission docket for consideration in 1998. He questioned whether development standards in
39 rural zones adjacent to rural and commercial forestry zones should be included as an item to be
40 included on the docket. Nelson stated that Tom Murley, State Department of Natural Resources
41 (DNR), would have suggestions regarding other counties' actions in implementing development
42 standards that protect forest practices and citizens.
43
44 Sutter stated her concern regarding exemption from the fire flow requirements for cluster
45 developments. Goodwin stated that that is an amendment to the subdivision ordinance. The
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, Page 3
I Development Standards Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is already considering that issue.
2 There is no requirement to docket the Title 21 changes. The proposed wording would not apply
3 to the procedure because the entire thing was redone. This will be coming forward from the
4 TAC.
5
6 Goodwin questioned the gateway industrial zoning designation in the urban fringe plan,
7 particularly the Garrett property. Roger Ellingson brought forward a letter that suggested that all
8 commercial uses in the gateway industrial zone, particularly Bakerview area, be a conditional
9 use permit. Staff doesn't recommend that proposal. The urban fringe plan discusses commercial
10 uses. They must demonstrate they are more appropriate than light impact industrial. Gateway
11 industrial zoning must be compatible with the area. The text states that the minimum lot size is
12 30,000 square feet. The size of building structures is the issue.
13
14 Sutter stated the area would be annexed into the City of Bellingham. What the County
15 should allow is what the City would allow. It is important that the County's actions do not
16 preclude the type of development the City would allow when they annex.
17
18 Knapp stated that the Council was consistent with the City's wording when the urban
19 fringe plan was adopted. The County adopted the exact wording City forwarded to the County.
20 The County adopted the Urban Fringe Plan, which specifies 10,000 square feet in certain areas.
21 The County did not adopt any changes to the Gateway Industrial zoning text, which specify
22 30,000 square feet. Sutter responded that the text for the Gateway Industsrial zoning designation
23 needs to be amended from 30,000 to 10,000 square feet. Goodwin also stated that there is a 100
24 feet setback issue that needs to be addressed.
�►
W
26 Nelson commented that the text for the Gateway Industrial designation should apply to
27 anywhere it would be appropriate, not just Birchwood. There needs to be flexibility, such as a
28 designated range. Goodwin responded that City officials in the past adopted the plan, and now
29 there are new City officials that have a different opinion.
30
31 Sutter suggested having a zoning sub -class of Gateway Industrial that could be labeled
32 Bellingham Urban Fringe — Gateway Industrial. Goodwin stated that the Hearings Board has
33 invalidated the Gateway Industrial zoning designation located outside of the urban fringe. The
34 Gateway Industrial zoning at Peace Portal is invalidated. If the invalidation holds up in court,
35 County staff would have to create a new zoning designation. They are considering a crossroads
36 commercial or a tourist commercial.
37
38 Nelson commented that there have to be a series of questions put forward to the Planning
39 Commission so they have clear direction on which issues to focus on.
40
41 Brenner would like to be consistent with the City of Bellingham. Goodwin stated the
42 Council could send the text to the City for review if the County Council wishes. Knapp stated
43 that the City has adopted this plan and they cannot rescind without rescinding the plan. Goodwin
44 stated that the County adopted the urban fringe plan that contains clear language of what zoning
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, Page 4
I should do. It would be possible to write zoning text that would comply with the plan and doesn't
2 go beyond the plan. The plan is vague and could be open to different interpretations.
3
4 Sutter stated that the direction to the Planning Commission would be to bring County
5 zoning regulations for the urban fringe gateway industrial into line with the Bellingham's Urban
6 Fringe Plan and to place it on the docket. Nelson and Sutter stated that they would like Goodwin
7 to draft text and bring it forward to Council with possible issues to discuss. Sutter clarified that
8 all the Planning Commission would deal with would be determining whether the Bellingham
9 Urban Fringe Gateway Industrial zoning is consistent with the County Urban Fringe Plan. The
10 Gateway Industrial zoning designation in general should wait to be reviewed after the Superior
11 Court has determined whether or not to uphold the invalidation.
12
13 Goodwin stated that Ellingson's concerns were connected to the appeal of the Urban
14 Fringe Plan. The Birchwood neighborhood agreed to drop the appeal if the Council adopted the
15 plan, which the County did. There is still an issue of the zoning regulations not implementing
16 the plan, especially regarding the size and setbacks, that needs to be addressed by the Planning
17 Commission. Goodwin stated that she would add those items to the docket. Staff or Council
18 Members can at any time suggest docket items and bring forward to the Council. Council, by a
19 majority vote, can bring a document forward. Planning Commission, by a 2/3 vote, can also
20 bring a document forward to be docketed.
21
22 Brown asked about the resolution that was discussed, specifically the third
23 "WHEREAS," second line, and stated that he would like to add language, "protect public health
24 and safety." It would be a public safety issue because of a fire hall located in the area. This
25 language would then state, "review is necessary to suppeft the envifenmei4a! well
26 being of the County; provide for public health and safety."
27
28 Brown asked for clarification on the direction for Lake Whatcom. Sutter responded that
29 this item would be placed on the Planning Commission docket for discussion during the six -
30 month cycle. The court decision will be rendered in late August.
31
32 Brown asked about the location of the regulations requiring the ability to serve letters.
33 Goodwin responded that each zoning chapter contains a concurrency provision. There are
34 suggested modifications to those sections for the final zoning regulations. The final development
35 regulations expire September 10 and must be approved during the August meeting.
36
37 Nelson stated that process should be continued to go through the Planning Commission
38 hearings, then the recommendations would be forwarded to the Council at the end of September.
39 The emergency ordinance would be extended, either with or without the current Planning
40 Commission recommendations.
41
42 Goodwin stated the emergency development regulations could be amended because the
43 Planning Commission has held a public hearing.
44
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, 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
Sutter brought forward a concern by citizen DeJong that Goodwin confirmed had been
resolved.
Sutter also brought forward a concern from citizen Maloney regarding the Conditional
Use Permit for the broadcast tower in Point Roberts. The taxpayers' association's concerns have
nothing to do with the pending Hearing Examiner Appeal. They are complaining about
violations. Knapp responded that Roland Middleton, Planning & Development Services Land
Use Manager, is working on the violations.
Nelson asked about the bulkhead in the water. Knapp said a staff person is reviewing the
site today to make a determination of the location.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning & Development Committee, 6/16/98, Page 6