HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 22 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 22, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 3:06 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Kathy Sutter
Staff Presents
Ward Nelson, Council member
Bill Florea, Planning and Development Services
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM RURAL TEN ACRES (R10A) TO RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A)
FOR 26 ACRES (TWO PARCELS) ON THE BRUCE ROAD SOUTH OF
CUSTER (AB97 -121)
Starkenburg noted this item was decided upon first by Planning and Development
Services staff and then by the Planning Commission. Committee will bring a recommendation
forward to full Council for tonight =s meeting.
He stated the issue was a better understanding of the concomitant agreement. He
requested a staff report on whether the rezone should be granted and whether an agreement is
needed giving different setbacks than those stated in the regulations.
Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, distributed a handout (on file)
regarding modifications to the proposed ordinance. He was concerned about the need for a
contract rezone, as there is a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) that adequately addresses
constraints on the subject property and provides for mitigation, etc. Griffin stated that in order
for the owners to build on the property, they would have to cross wetlands on the property,
which could be mitigated through an enhancement project. In order to approve a rezone, the key
factor
Planning Minutes, 4/22/97, Page 1
is compliance with the Birch Bay Subarea Comprehensive Plan requirements. The Planning
Commission stated the subject property meets the density criteria for R10 and R5. Technically,
if that is the case, the rezone should not be approved. Griffin stated the subject property meets
the criteria for R10 and R5.
The issue of whether the criteria has been met was discussed next. Starkenburg
requested staff =s opinion on this. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, commented on
the concomitant agreement. He stated the current CAO (1992) contains regulations regarding
access across wetlands. The previously- adopted ordinance provided for an exception of
construction and maintenance of rights -of -way within critical areas (1995 and 1996). He pointed
out Council had adopted the 1992 on an emergency (interim) basis which does not except out
those critical areas. Griffin noted the current Planning Commission version of the CAO does not
except out new construction rights -of -way, only maintenance.
Sutter stated approximately 7.5 acres of subject property are in the wetlands and inquired
what happens to the wetlands if the owners are not allowed to cluster and are able to obtain R5
zoning. Griffin replied that construction can be done if the owners mitigate. Starkenburg
referred to a February 26, 1997 letter from Steve Fox regarding mitigation projects.
Michael Wright, applicant, stated the information presented was correct, and he was in
agreement.
Starkenburg moved to recommend approval with the recommendation to accept the
Planning Commission =s decision of a rezone of R10 to R5 on the subject property. The
concomitant agreement is not necessary.
Ward Nelson, Council member, inquired of septic systems. Griffin noted that in terms of
setbacks, problem septic systems should not be a problem if they have been maintained. Griffin
stated the property would be clustered, would be worked out on the short plat application and
subject to the CAO.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADDENDUM
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
MICHAEL KNAPP REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, FIVE (5) ACRE AG EXEMPTIONS
(AB97 -150)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services director, referred to Goal 8, page 14
Planning Minutes, 4/22/97, Page 2
of the April 21, 1997 memo (on file). He noted that what is being considered is the question of
what is happening to ag land. There is a considerable amount of division of property using the
five acre exemption that would preclude long -term ag lands remaining in viable economic lots.
If these were to be divided into five acre pieces of suburban residential property, it will be
difficult for ag to continue to exist on a long -term basis.
Starkenburg pointed out to committee there was an exemption on the 600 feet of road
frontage, which has not been pursued by too many. This needs to be seriously examined. Based
on the Comp Plan direction, adjustments might be necessary. Dan Gibson, Prosecutor =s Office,
stated the language which is being used for the exception was interpreted differently prior to
1992. This has not been used extensively until recently as knowledge of the current
interpretation grows.
Bill Florea, Planning and Development Services, gave a short presentation on the history
of this issue. He commented on the advantages of the exemption process over a short plat are
time and money and explained that process. Gibson inquired if a short plat process would be
available for ag land. Discussion followed. Knapp pointed out Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County
legal counsel, will be addressing this.
Knapp stated the strategy is information for committee only; interim development
regulations will follow at a later date. These regulations will address ways to proceed with this
issue of the five acre exemption.
Ward Nelson, Council member, quoted for the record the stats listed in Florea =s April 21,
1997 memo on ag exemptions using the 600 foot road frontage criteria. He inquired of Chair if
this were an issue to be delayed. The issue of safety and public health was briefly discussed.
Knapp stated an emergency ordinance would alleviate the situation and that compliance is the
issue.
Starkenburg noted he was basing his concerns on Goal 8 criteria. Sutter stated
compliance between the Whatcom County Code (WCC) and the Comp Plan was the main
concern for her. Outside growth management, there is no issue of safety and public health.
Dawson stated she could not believe this was done. Knapp pointed out those who subdivide
have a safety and welfare concern regarding arterial access, which could be a long -term safety
concern.
Nelson suggested direction for staff regarding a timeline. Gibson pointed out that
applicant attitude varies.
Starkenburg addressed staff by stating this issue needs to move forward to be taken care
of Committee will support staff. A proper interpretation must be given.
2. UPDATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK (AB97 -051)
Planning Minutes, 4/22/97, Page 3
Knapp stated much work has been completed. He plans to deliver a package tomorrow
for Council review. He was hoping some Development Regulations would be completed.
Knapp wanted to bring forward a question relating to the urban growth area (UGA) land uses in
city UGAs. The present reference in the land use section of the Comp Plan refers to retaining
the subarea plans as interim development regulations, which allows staff to use the existing
subarea plans for land use designation until the opportunity for adoption arises. Until this
occurs, Knapp requested clarification that Council would use those subarea plans in the land use
section. Gibson stated that was consistent with his understanding. Discussion followed. Gibson
clarified the discussed proposal would be to use the subarea plan criteria to address the issue of
land use within those areas on an interim basis. Compliance was the issue. Starkenburg
recommended that Mackie, Gibson, Knapp and Miller discuss this issue.
Starkenburg addressed the issue of when the Comp Plan will be available for the public
and suggested Council members review it first. Council action is expected May 6.
(Clerks Note: Tape 1, side B)
Starkenburg suggested Nelson give Council members until next Wednesday, April 30, to
respond to the Comp Plan. Nelson stated perhaps committee members should provide direction
to staff regarding the timeframe. Discussion followed on timeframes and the public process.
Starkenburg stated Council will have until Monday, April 28, at 5 p.m. to respond.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m.
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 4/22/97, Page 4