HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole May 29 19971
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
Committee of the Whole
WORK SESSION
May 20, 1997
The meeting was called to order at noon by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Alvin Starkenburg
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
Robert Imhof
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. REVIEW PROPOSED EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO
IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (AB97 -169) (DISCUSSION CONTINUED FROM 5/13)
2. REVIEW PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -051L)
(DISCUSSION CONTINUED FROM 5113)
3. REVIEW STAFF WORK ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (AB97 -051 THROUGH 051L) (DISCUSSION CONTINUED FROM 5113)
There was discussion regarding the process of bringing forward amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Services, directed the
work session chapter by chapter.
1. Page 2 -17, Policy 2M -3 (Sutter): "Consider cities and short-term planning areas
as receiving areas for development rights transferred from sending areas."
Brown moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin noted the next suggested change was on page 2 -20, the third and fourth bullets,
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
to strike both bullets.
Sutter moved approval of the document "Final Comprehensive Plan Amendments ".
There was discussion regarding public access to the final proposed amendments. Sandy
Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, stated that the public comment period eded after
hearings and work sessions and the Council may now make any changes it deems necessary.
There are no proposed changes that are outside previous discussions. Knapp stated the County
SEPA official has been reviewing all documents. There was further discussion regarding
proceedings.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on Sutter's motion)
Goodwin suggested minor changes to "Final Comprehensive Plan Amendments ", Comp
Plan, page 1 -12, Policy 2L -2:
"Retain the adopted Subarea Plans as interim development regulations (Lummi
Island, Cherry Point - Ferndale, Lake Whatcom, Urban Fringe, Lynden - Nooksack
Valley, Chuckanut -Lake Samish, Birch Bay - Blaine, Foothills, Point Roberts,
South Fork Valley, and Eliza Island) as inter-ifn development regulations. To the
extent..."
Nelson inquired of Mackie if reference can be made to subarea plans that are not in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mackie replied that the status is now being changed. They can be used as
development regulations.
Continuing, Goodwin referenced page 8 -30, #12, suggesting the wording "ag mineral
resource study area" and the following language should be left in:
"Additional lands which do not meet the above criteria ( #1 -3 1) but which contain
quality mineral resources may be identified as an AG/MRL five year-study area
for no more than five years from the date of adoption of this plan -... ".
Also, in the last line, include "or" instead of "of'; the parameters are listed "below ", not
"above ".
Nelson moved approval of these three changes.
Mackie suggested changing language on Policy 2CC -6, page 2 -63:
"...development in the Rural 5 acre and 10 acre zones located on 20 or up to 30
percent of the available land on tracts arp cels 20 acres and larger,... ".
He stated if "tracts" is the preferred language, then the definition needs to be changed to discuss
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
tracts. As an aside, he spoke to page A -3, the definition for impervious surface. After
discussion with Chair, it was discovered there was a communication error in that Mackie
misunderstood what was being discussed.
Discussion returned to the motion regarding #12, page 8 -30, with Starkenburg
commenting he will abstain from voting on this motion as an appearance of fairness.
Sutter moved to amend to change the language from the date of adoption of the Plan to
the identified date, which allows future identification of other areas than those which are
currently identified as an ag MRL.
"...no more than five years from the date of adoption of this pla they are so
identified..."
There was discussion regarding the five -year review and designation of ag and MRL
lands.
Gibson commented that designations are part of the amendment process which could be
done on an annual basis. The intent of this as staff understands it is reflected in Mr. Nelson's
comments.
Sutter withdrew her motion.
Brown stated that he thought the study in agriculture /MRL was to be an all encompassing
study to find out where all of our resources are, with regard to agricultural soils and mineral
resources.
Gibson replied there is not a specific reference to agricultural soils. The purpose of the
study is, as staff understood it, a comprehensive construction quality, aggregate study. Meaning
you look throughout the County for aggregate to determine how much there is and what quality
it is and then, based on that information, one makes the determination about whether or not
certain designations are needed in more sensitive areas.
(Clerk's Note: beginning tape 1, side B)
Nelson read the section for clarification of his motion (as noted above).
"Additional lands which do not meet the above criteria, #11, but which
contain quality mineral resources may be identified as an ag/MRL study
area for no more than 5 years from the date of adoption of this plan. Within
the 5 years, during the data collection and review period, the county shall
budget, initiate and complete a comprehensive construction aggregate
study documenting the short and long range availability of commercially
significant construction quality aggregate resources in Whatcom County.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
The CCAS study shall be publicly reviewed and approved by the County
Council. The county shall draft, adopt and implement all legislation
necessary to allow or disallow mineral resource extraction in all or some
prime farmlands under parameters listed below."
Dawson suggested capitalizing "study area" to denote ag /MRL Study Area and not a
designation. Nelson accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Sutter was concerned that timelines were unclear. Nelson clarified the intent of his
motion by stating the timeline begins with the adoption of the Comp Plan, so that over five
years Council will budget and complete the study and make appropriate decisions on
agriculture/MRLs.
Motion carried 4 -1 with Sutter opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
Mackie spoke to the definition of "impervious surface" and recommended deletion from
the definitions in the Comp Plan and placement in the Development Regulations.
Nelson moved to delete the definition of "Impervious Surface" from the Comp Plan
definitions and include it in the Development Regulations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mackie commented again on the language on page 2 -63, Policy 2CC -6, noting it should
be "t acts parcels "(see above) for consistency.
Sutter moved the language change.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Brown abstaining.
Sutter moved to amend the language on page 8 -9, Policy 8D -10, to be the same as above
in Policy 2CC -6.
Dawson moved approval of Sutter's motion.
There was discussion on the definitions of "tract" and "parcel ". It was suggested that
"tract" be eliminated in the Resource Protection Zone. "Parcel" will define very precisely what
this section of the Comp Plan applies to. "Parcel" will be defined by Planning.
Brown and Brenner had concerns about forced lot consolidation if you call it "parcel ".
Brown moved to change the term "Resource Protection Zone" to "Agricultural Protection
Zone" in these above policies. Goodwin stated that the change was made in a previous Council
work session. Mackie gave background on the Council's decision to use the term "resource"
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
instead of "agricultural ". Discussion followed. Sutter stated there are two options: call it a
resource protection zone, or call it an ag protection zone expandable to other types of resources.
There was further discussion.
Nelson moved approval of 8D -10 language as written in the Comp Plan and to amend
with "open space resource use" and "agricultural uses ":
"...with the remainder available for open space, resource use, and agricultural
uses."
There was discussion on the motion.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the above motion regarding "resource use ")
Brown's motion to change the term "Resource Protection Zone" to "Agricultural
Protection Zone" was approved 4 -2 with Starkenburg and Dawson opposed.
Sutter moved deletion of Policy 2R -1, page 2 -20, bullet #3.
Goodwin pointed out staff had discussed modification of this bullet to allow expansion if
the development has occurred at a rate faster than projected. This might be a way of
clarification. There was discussion regarding density; meeting growth management targets; and
expansion.
Motion to delete bullet #3 passed 3 -2. Council will come back to it.
Sutter moved to change language on page 2 -20, bullet #3, to read:
"The Short-Term Planning Area adjacent to the area proposed for inclusion is
meeting its UGA density objectives and has aeeomplished more than its „
gfewth • ,ithin the p' i „° �' there is a demonstrated need for additional
land in that local area; and "
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved on page 2 -23, bullet #3, for the language to read:
"Coordinate land supply for future k*d capital facility needs."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved on page 2 -55, Policy 2AA -5, to strike "development ":
"Specify 160 acres as a minimum lot size for development. planning,... ".
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mackie spoke to the motion, stating one of the criticisms by the Growth Management
Hearings Board (GMHB) was the County's failure to distinguish why Cherry Point was uniquely
different from Bellingham or Blaine. Discussion followed.
(Clerk's Note: Beginning tape 2, side A)
Motion failed 2- 3 with Dawson and Sutter in favor and Brenner out of the room.
Sutter moved language on Policy 21313- 1, page 2 -59, which was meant to read:
"Identify a general area 440 acres north of Custer as a major rail/highway
intermodal facility through an Industrial Plan Provisional UGA Designation."
Mackie commented to this language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated Policy 2BB -4, page 2 -60, was left out:
"Preclude other urban or light industrial uses from the Custer provisional UGA
until the master plan is approved to avoid urban sprawl outside UGAs."
Motion passed unanimously to reinstate Policy 2BB -4, page 2 -60.
Sutter moved on Policy 7C -7, page 7 -6, to change the language:
"...T-e participate in the creation, implementation ... water resources management
body..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to adopt "Final Comprehensive Plan Amendments" as amended today.
After discussion, Council was in agreement that if the Comp Plan were adopted that night
without any amendments to the double underlined wording, those will be adopted.
(Clerk's Note: A short break was taken)
Council then reviewed the Comp Plan issues needing to be addressed.
Sutter noted the city of Lynden objected to the policy on page 2 -20, fourth bullet,
because all its short-term planning areas are residential. Until all the residential is filled, the
industrial and commercial areas cannot be extended into.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
"The City has annexed to the STPA, and extension of the boundary is necessary
to accommodate provision of urban services;...".
Mackie spoke to this issue briefly, noting short and - long -term boundary concerns.
Sutter noted that on the UGA map for Lynden, map 28E, the area west of the Tromp
Road is not in the short- planning area for Lynden, although it is in the UGA. Starkenburg noted
that if Council adopts tonight what is in the packet, the map will have been corrected. Sutter
withdrew her motion.
Goodwin said the Council's map is not correct. She has a map showing the area west of
the Tromp Road is in the short -term planning area.
Sutter objected to that requirement regarding a specific deficiency in a short-term
planning area concern. She suggested adding "and" between bullets #5 and #6. Gibson
responded.
Sutter moved to delete bullet point #4 (see above).
Motion failed 2 -2 with Nelson and Starkenburg opposed and Dawson out of the room.
Sutter moved for the next bullet to read: "or and the cities has corrected..." Goodwin
suggested combining bullet points #5 and #6. Sutter suggested moving the third to last bullet
point to above. Mackie suggested double bullet points. Sutter stated she will write these two up
for tonight's meeting; she withdrew her current motion.
Sutter moved adding language to the following policies regarding the cities negotiating
the interlocal agreements: 25 -5, 2T -7, 2U -4, 2V -6, 2W -3, 2X -5, and 2Y -5: add at the beginning
of the fifth bullet point on each policy: "land use and zoning designations ". Gibson responded
regarding negotiation designation. Mackie responded regarding the framework of planning.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved Policy 2U -3, page 2 -32, to read:
"Avoid new land uses that. -ased are an identified threat to
groundwater..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to delete "vacant lands" on Policy 2X -3, page 2 -43:
"Encourage Nooksack to pursue multi- family development and to adopt measures
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
to develop a°a
� � within the existing city limits at increased densities."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to substitute language on Policy 2Y -4, page 2 -47:
"Avoid new land uses that are an indentified threat to
groundwater... ".
(Clerk's Note: No vote was taken on the motion)
Sutter moved on page 2 -53 to amend the title "Major Industrial Urban Growth Area /Port
Industrial ".
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved on page 2 -53, paragraph 3, to amend by adding to the end of that
paragraph:
"...and in the 1997 property council's report on supply and demand for industrial
land in Whatcom County and at Cherry Point."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved on Policy 2AA -1, page 2 -55, to amend to read:
"Designate Cherry Point as a he major industrial Urban Growth Area..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend Policy 2AA -4, page 2 -55:
"...major user (generally 40 acres or more) ... before the development of aeeesse y
supporting uses to assure that aeeesae supporting uses are compatible... ".
There was discussion on the motion. Mackie suggested the use of accessory and
supporting uses.
Sutter amended her motion to read "accessory /supporting ".
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Beginning tape 2, side B)
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
Brown moved to reinstate the stricken language and strike what has been put in on Policy
2CC -5, page 2 -65:
"Use a "Resource Protection Zone" designation in certain Rural zoned areas as a
way to help achieve the goal of conserving and enhancing Whatcom County's
agricultural land base."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown moved to reinstate language on Policy 2CC -10, page 2 -65.
There was discussion on the motion.
Motion failed 1- 4 with Brown in favor.
Sutter inquired if another sentence was to be added on page 2 -78, second paragraph:
"Plans will continue to be implemented as funds are available." Mackie stated this language was
specifically stricken and considered redundant.
Sutter moved to strike "nation" on the title on page 2 -80:
"Lummi mien Reservation ".
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown moved to change language on Policies 2RR -2 and 2RR -3, page 2 -80:
insert "tribe" and delete "nation ".
After discussion on the motion, Brown withdrew his motion.
Brown requested to add a new Policy, 2RR -5:
"Ensure Whatcom County maintains its established rights to administer land use
policy on fee lands and prohibits discriminatory land use practices."
Dawson moved approval.
Starkenburg requested a friendly amendment:
"Ensure Whatcom County maintains its established fights to administers land use
policy on fee lands and prohibits discriminatory land use practices."
Motion carried unanimously.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
Dawson moved a policy direction, page 2 -80, to be inserted under "Subdivisions on the
Lummi Reservation" after the first sentence; the last sentence in that paragraph is to remain in
place.
"As federal policy has changed and tribal lands have been allowed to be removed
from trust to fee, state and county regulations have become applicable. The
County has made efforts to work closely with local tribes on land use directions.
The requirements of growth management cannot be applicable to reservation trust
lands even when a checkerboard pattern has developed. It is the full intent of this
County, when possible, to continue working cooperatively with area tribes on
land use, a coordinated water plan, and enactment of permanent zoning for fee
land."
Motion carried unanimously.
Mackie spoke to sewer and water district maps on page 5 -3 by suggesting deleting the
language as written and inserting: "Maps and approved comprehensive water and sewer plans of
regulated purveyors are adopted by reference and included in the appendix as they presently
exist and as modified from time to time, consistent with the provisions of this Comprehensive
Plan."
with:
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend Policy 5A -2, page 5 -5, by deleting the policy and replacing it
"Identify existing utility corridors that may have an impact to the public health,
safety, and welfare of the County."
Also, add a related action item:
"Map existing corridors and establish an appropriate notification zone for each
type of corridor. Require future residential development to be notified of
proximity to the utility corridors."
Mackie spoke to utility requirements and hold harmless.
Sutter amended her motion to add "and proposed" after "Identify existing "; action item
"and proposed" after "Map existing ".
Motion carried unanimously.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
Brown moved to reinstate Policy 8N -10, page 8 -26:
"Support and mMaximize the use of migratory gravel deposits in streams and
alluvial fans to reduce risks to public health and safety and other flood related
issues and to ,.educe the eansumption of mineral es f.,.,,., „ v e .able
M L area„
Mackie advised that this is currently undergoing a much more detailed environmental
review in the Flood Hazard Management Plant and to pull it from here as it is going to be in the
other document. The council has the ability, a year from now, when the study is complete and
the environmental documentation is complete to bring this item back up. Discussion followed.
Brown then withdrew his motion.
Brown then brought forward #12 on page 8 -36. He stated there is a steady ringing of
phones coming in and people are worried because they think the county is ignoring the problem.
Discussion followed; Mackie also responded.
Dawson moved inserting "appropriate utilization" after "encourage" and "where
appropriate" after "resource ":
"Support and encourage legislation, streamlining regulatory processes and other
actions to encourage appropriate utilization of gravel from the Nooksack drainage
as a resource, where appropriate, and a method to stabilize and/or reduce flooding
events and /or reduce the loss of agricultural lands to erosion."
Motion carried unanimously.
Mackie followed up with discussion relating to page 8 -26, #9, suggesting "appropriate"
prior to "river gravel extraction ".
Sutter so moved.
"...streamline the permitting process and provide greater opportunities for
appropriate river gravel extraction to enhance other important resources,
specifically agricultural."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to reinsert sentence on page 8 -33, #2:
"Designation as "Incentive Agfietiftufal Resetiree Tan Agricultural Protection
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
Zone" may be one tool to implement this recommendation."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to add a new action item on page 11 -31:
"Prioritize project review in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Initiate an
administrative review process for new development projects within the Lake
Whatcom Watershed to clearly resolve potential stormwater problems prior to
construction."
Discussion followed; Mackie also responded. Goodwin requested clarification.
Mackie suggested striking the first sentence, "
Sutter accepted Mackie's suggestion as an amendment to her motion.
Motion to include the action item as amended carried unanimously.
Sutter noted the definition of "parcel" needs to be the same in the development standards,
the Comp Plan, and the County -Wide Planning Policies to be consistent. She moved the
following definition:
"Parcel: contiguous land held by the same owner(s). To be contiguous, the land
must share a common boundary on at lease one side. Land is not a contiguous
parcel if bisected by a public right -of -way, a Category III stream, a Category I or
II wetland, is divided as part of a subdivision or exempt land division approved
pursuant to Chapter 58.17 RCW or Title 21 of the Whatcom County Code, or
existed as a separate parcel of record for tax or other purposes prior to February 3,
1972."
(Clerk's Note: Beginning tape 3, side A)
Topics discussed included division for future generations (family parcels). Carl
Batchelor, Planning Services, responded regarding lot sizes. Michael Knapp, Planning and
Development Services Director, also responded. Mackie continued, speaking to
Title 20 regarding dwelling units in the agricultural zone.
Mackie corrected Sutter's motion, stating it should read Category I instead of Category
III stream, as well as Category I and II wetlands. He also had concerns about the language of the
motion. Discussion continued regarding definitions, and Mackie suggested "for purposes of the
Agricultural Protection Zone, the purpose of this zone is to protect agricultural lands of long-
term commercial significance." He further suggested "without regard to segregations made for
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
tax purposes" and "parcels do not include lots that have been approved through the subdivision
or lot review processes in Chapter 58.17 RCW or Title 21 WCC".
In the development regulations, Mackie suggested adding the following language:
"Where any parcel is improved by a single family resident existing as of the date of the adoption
of this Comprehensive Plan, the Administrator may approve a segregation into a lot lawful under
the underlying zone and such lot would not be considered part of the parcel for purposes of the
administration of this ordinance."
Sutter reread her motion corrected by Mackie's suggested language:
"With regard to the Agricultural Protection Zone, a parcel is defined as
contiguous land held in the same ownership but without regard for segregations
made for tax purposes. To be contiguous, the land must share a common
boundary on at least one side. Land is not a contiguous parcel if bisected by a
public right -of -way, a category I stream, a category I or II wetland, or divided as
part of a subdivision or exempt land division approved pursuant to Chapter 58.17
RCW or Title 21 WCC or created as a legal lot of record created after 1959 prier
to Febf ar-y 3, i 972 "
There was further discussion; Gibson also commented.
Sutter reread her motion, requesting it be included in the definitions in the Comp Plan
and the development standards. After further discussion regarding dates, Sutter changed the date
from February 3, 1972 to "after 1959" to conform with lot consolidation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter questioned language from the April 8 meeting regarding density bonuses in the
Lake Whatcom Watershed; she could not find this in the Comp Plan. Goodwin pointed out the
location, which she stated was in the "wrong place ".
Nelson moved to place this language on page 2 -23, Policy 25 -7, in the chapter on
environment or Lake Whatcom or both. Mackie suggested the use of footnotes. Discussion
followed.
(Clerk's Note: No vote was taken on the motion, as decisions were still being made)
Nelson moved to place this language under Goal 2PP -6, page 2 -79:
"Eliminate any density bonuses otherwise allowed under Whatcom County
regulations for development within the Lake Whatcom Watershed."
Motion carried unanimously.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, Page 13
2 Brown questioned the definition of an Agricultural Protection Zone or a Resource
3 Protection Zone in the glossary. Mackie stated it was not needed, as there is a statement of
4 purpose in the document, which is a definition.
5
6 Sutter spoke to Map #8, Comp Plan designations, regarding the Feathers' property not
7 changed on the map (to be an R10A but shown as Rural Forestry). Discussion followed.
8 Goodwin distributed a corrected map, which will replace the current map. There was further
9 discussion on the size and scope of the crossroad, which language was unclear. The area being
10 discussed was supposedly centered on the intersection of SR 542 and SR 547. Starkenburg
11 stated his remembrance was that it was 660 ft back off each side of the intersection. Further, this
12 was an earlier general statement and that nothing specific came forward from Council.
13
14 Brown moved to correct map #8 to reflect the current discussion to center the town on the
15 intersection of SR 542 and SR 547, the boundaries being 660 ft from center line on the north and
16 south side of the roads extending along from the point of intersection one - quarter mile or less
17 east and west.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 Nelson moved to change the Silver Lake portion of map #8 to conform with the zoning
22 change as above.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Nelson pointed out the Comp Plan was now ready to be moved forward at tonight's
27 Council meeting. However, the development standards needed to be discussed.
28
29 Topics briefly discussed included: if action had been taken regarding the location of
30 schools /fire halls in the overlay zone (it had); light fabrication in the UR zone; concurrency;
31 cemetery districts; confinement feeding operations and feedlots; lot size necessary for cottage
32 industry; density bonuses in UR zones; elimination of the word "retail" from the correct text of
33 Title 20; ag protection overlay should be reflected in other documents besides the Comp Plan;
34 neighborhood commercial zones; the land uses in the Grandview area as permitted uses; and the
35 chapter location of Cherry Point, Major Development Permits.
36
37 Nelson moved to change the definition of "parcel" on page 19 to that as previously
38 described.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 Mackie spoke to wells in section 20.38.060(3) on page 19, especially to the setback from
43 potable water. Gibson responded regarding the ag community's response relating to the size of
44 the buffer. He suggested continued work for modification purposes. Goodwin responded there
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, Page 14
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
was no final firm response.
Nelson moved to allow 100 ft buffers instead of 200 ft buffers. This issue should be
given to the Planning Commission for its review.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson voiced his concern about the location of drainfields. Batchelor and Mackie
responded.
Mackie noted that on section 20.38.080, Administrative Modification, he suggested the
following language for new subsection (4):
"The administrator shall remove from any parcel a tract or lot consistent with the
underlying zoning created for the purpose of serving a single family residence on
the tax rolls as of the effective date of this ordinance."
(Clerk's Note: Beginning tape 4, side A)
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to strike on 20.38.080(3), page 20, and amend to read:
"The parcel is not in an agricultural open space tax classification."
Mackie responded. Nelson suggested the following language: "Pursuant to the threshold
established in RCW 84.34" instead of Sutter's language. Mackie suggested: "Commercial
farming, for the purposes of this subsection, shall include any activity designed to raise or
produce agricultural products for sale in excess of the criteria set forth in Chapter 84.34 RCW
for a small parcel qualification for agricultural open space taxation."
Nelson moved Mackie's above language.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Sutter's motion was not voted on as the language continued to be worked
on, even though Sutter did not withdraw her motion. Council was more satisfied with Mackie's
language)
Brown moved to reinsert deleted language on section 20.40.251, page 21:
"...which creates any parcel of less area than 40 acres or less read (rent ge than
600 €yet shall be permitted,... ".
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, 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
There was discussion on the motion.
Motion failed 1- 4 with Brown in favor.
Sutter was concerned about permitted uses in the Grandview area, Section 20.74.030,
page 26. Knapp stated the packet information is the one going forward.
Brown inquired of Section 20.85.020 regarding residential, commercial, and industrial
projects in Cherry Point. Mackie responded by suggesting clarifying language: "The provision
of this chapter can be used for any residential, commercial, and /or industrial project on property
two acres or greater in size provided, however, residential uses are not permitted in the Cherry
Point UGA or the Custer provisional UGA except as necessary accessory uses."
Brown moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved deletion of all of #62, Section 20.88.300, page 28, as this is redundant
since it was incorporated into Section 20.74.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to strike the first "critical" in Section 20.89.023, page 29:
"Environmentally sensitive areas are efifie-al afeas lands designated in the Critical
Areas Ordinance,... ".
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to substitute the language on the handout (the white handout, Revised
Amendments to the Development Regulations, on file) for the "a" language on the blue sheet on
page 26, Section 20.74.030a, Cherry Point Industrial.
Sutter instead moved adoption of all the language on Cherry Point Industrial on the blue
handout (Revised Amendments to the Development Regulations, on file).
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson thanked everyone for their efforts.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Jill Nixon, Records Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on Ma 4 91999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
COTW Minutes, 5/20/97, Page 17