Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 10 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning & Development Committee February 10, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Planning and Development Services Library and Meeting Room, 5280 Northwest Drive. Also Present: Marlene Dawson Kathy Sutter Absent: None 1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (LAND USE AND CAPITAL FACILITIES, AB96 -051F) Staff Also Present: Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office Tom Brown, Council member Starkenburg stated the purpose of the meeting was an informal work session to address specific issues dealing with requests made to the record regarding mineral resource lands (MRL). He added committee may ask for verification of information from the public, but this is not a public hearing. At the last meeting, Starkenburg asked staff for an update on these land requests, which staff provided for this meeting. A handout was distributed (on file). Jeff Griffin, Planning Services, said he reviewed the twelve or so requests that have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. He will clarify this status as each application is addressed. The handout lists staff =s recommendation with the rationale for that decision. Applicant #1, Lummi Island Rock Quarry, Jim Bride: Griffin distributed a map and letter (on file) to committee. Staff recommendation was to decline the Lummi Island rock quarry application because it conflicts with other residential designations in the area. Griffin proposed some language change in the Comp Plan and leave the site as is in its current non - conforming status. Brown asked how much more can be continued. Griffin said they are in the process of working this out and are able to continue under their non- conforming status. The mine is on a 64 acre parcel, and if a non - conforming use has been ongoing since the time of parcelization, they may do so; to expand use of that land, Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 1 they must undergo another review for permit. The mine has been operating from 1987 to 1992. Starkenburg noted Planning staff brought this forward for an MRL on 20 acres. Sutter asked if this requires mineral resource protection. Griffin responded it is currently zoned rural forestry (RF). Sutter asked if houses will be continued to be built over an area used for mineral resources. Griffin said the zoning did not include rural residential even though it should have. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, responded that it is up to Council to reconsider zoning changes, and Dawson noted that hopefully the area will not be rezoned due to what has been said today. Gibson said designation and protection are different things - -RF should protect the area from incompatible uses in the future. If the mineral resource should be protected, then a map of the hard rock minerals should be presented in the argument to keep residential development from impairing the use of the resource. Griffin said that designation criteria #6 keeps the land from use as a mineral resource. Sutter wanted to know if it is not included in a resource survey how the zoning could preclude its use if it has not been properly identified, to which Gibson stated as long as it has met all the previously - designated criteria. Griffin noted the Planning Commission recommended a 20 acre site in total - -the current mining is 16 -17 acres, and the existing Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permit was for 10 acres, and they went beyond that permit to 17 acres and now are asking the County to endorse the 17 acre site. Starkenburg noted the need to view this application in light of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the need for resource protection. Sutter clarified that she is confused about the GMA mandate to protect resources and staff action. Griffin clarified that the resources need protection where appropriate. Sutter then asked how far from residential activity does the resource need to be located in order to be protected. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there was no clear answer on the impact to the local water supply. Starkenburg pointed out that if committee is not ready to make a decision, then more information should be obtained. Knapp stated the mining company is working on an agreement for expansion- - it can go through the conditional use permit (CUP) for expansion currently, but to designate it to 20 acres is not clear whether it will seriously impact the residential water supply. Sutter suggested making this an MRL study area. She was more concerned about the mandate to protect the resources when it is needed. Application #2, Columbia Aggregate: Griffin stated the Planning Commission has offered a proposal, another proposal has been received from an Ad Hoc Working Group (from Planning), and yet another from Dan Gibson. Staff recommendation is to base the decision on the prime farmland soils and the intent of the three proposals to demonstrate the need and appropriateness of the farmland. Sutter asked that since the question of what to do in ag zones has not been settled, what other criteria did this not meet. Griffin replied the criteria in terms of water protection (Sumas= wellfield), and the ag lands is criteria #14 in the proposed Comp Plan. The decision is a blend of the Ad Hoc and Gibson--s proposal. Gibson noted if the quality of ag resource is being addressed, then quality factors influence the weighting process. The wellhead protection zone cuts the northeast portion of the site and is within the five -year zone of influence. Starkenburg instructed staff review that to ensure the impact to the wellhead is as stated. Committee Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 2 is not prepared to take action on this at this time. Application #3, soils issue from above: Sutter inquired if this is designated would the portion affecting the wellhead protection zone be left out. Griffin stated the proposal for the Pole Road recommendation is to get it outside without taking out the whole parcel. Application #4, Enviro Chems: Griffin stated this is a 29 -acre parcel, the south bay of Lake Whatcom, currently operating under R2A zoning, non - conforming use. All criteria is met except an additional criteria written for urban and rural areas that attempts to address short plats and two to three acre parcels surrounding the zoning. Griffin said there are parcels here under five acres, and so there are about 40 -50% surrounded, so the criteria is not met. Staff recommended the request be declined. Sutter wondered again if resource protection is significant here. Griffin said Gibson has proposed a new policy to contain policies that give more emphasis to the mineral classification system and have the maps available for placement in the Comp Plan so that when subdivisions are proposed, the issue of mineral extraction will need to be addressed. This does not mean that development will be precluded in the mining areas; it will be a consideration. Knapp stated the action would put the residents on notice that the mineral resouces are there. Griffin stated that designation would restrict development to 20 acres minimum lot size with a mineral disclosure notice. Starkenburg stated that when a final decision is made on format, applications can be reviewed again. The idea is to develop a basis for declining or endorsing, which makes it more clear for everyone to understand. Starkenburg asked for any comments, whereupon Chet Lackey, representing the mine, spoke. The basis for the recommendation to decline this request is a single criteria. He urged caution to decline this. Starkenburg pointed out this was not a public hearing; he only asked for comment if the information committee had was incorrect. Griffin stated this is a non - conforming permit. Application #5, Brandorf£ Griffin stated this is a site in the Nooksack area with 62 total acres, including 22 and adjoining property, all owned by a single owner. Another site is proposed just north, the Coit property (60 acres). This appears to be a good location. The request was not received until the Planning Commission held its final hearing, or it would have been included. The city of Nooksack did want this to be included in a five -year review for residential, but staff still feel it should be endorsed because it meets all the criteria. Gibson said this has not been published as scheduled for inclusion, so if it will be included, it should be published for public notice of intention to mine. Gibson noted there was no prior public notice of County =s intent to include this. Neighbors have a right to know. There is no public process at this point of this application. Griffin stated no decision had to be reached today because that would pertain to all of these sites. This is an R5. Committee indicated this should be included. (Clerks Note: Tape 1, Side B) Application #6, Cowden Gravel, Cedarville: Griffin stated the site was proposed for Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 3 all Cowden =s property when it becomes available; originally, the request was for all ownership to be in the MRL. The neighbors were concerned, and Cowden worked with them and an agreement was reached. Staff endorsed the proposal, which meets criteria and also #16. One thing it does not meet is on -site, but it uses river gravel. They are requesting protection through the MRL. Lesa Starkenburg, representing Cowden, commented after Chair requested public comment regarding correct information. She stated an agreement had been reached with the neighboring property owner for the upper portion. On the southern portion, there is no intent for processing. Starkenburg requested staff ensure the correctness of the map. Griffin pointed out there was additional consideration of a site on the Cedarville Road, which was intended to be included. Sutter clarified that in the Comp Plan, only Council =s general thoughts for MRLs will be included and not be parcel specific. Griffin pointed out that Map 25 is what is being proposed for adoption. Knapp clarified that for the Comp Plan, the map is sufficient. The parcels need to be identified, but the data does not need to be included in the Comp Plan. Gibson stated that specific MRL designations are being made at the Comp Plan process, and these are parcel specific. Knapp reminded committee the boundaries must be known but those specific boundaries are not adopted. Gibson asked how neighbors know what boundaries will be adopted. Knapp replied the rezoning issues will be where public comment will be part of the process. Specific site information is needed for the background data and general policy comes to the Comp Plan through this, but these sites will specific to be determined through maps. Carl Batchelor, Planning Services, stated that a fairly general map will be adopted and the information used in making this decision is very site specific. When the zoning is adopted, it must be consistent with the details being discussed. Gibson restated first, obtain an MRL; second, do the rezone; third, obtain the permit, making this a three stage process. Committee agreed to the adoption of the map presented for the Comp Plan recommendations. Application #7, Cowden Gravel, Maple Falls: In addition to the map, the land proposed for inclusion runs to the west, and since it includes the area that is adjacent to the Glen at Maple Falls, it was declined. It is zoned RF, but the DNR would have to look at it as an entirely separate site and, if they do this and review the proposed area to the west, then that may possibly be designated an MRL site. The area represents approximately 70 acres. Starkenburg asked for public comment regarding the accuracy of the information. Lesa Starkenburg stated the public had suggested this parcel is split, so designate a portion of the parcel. The resource is large, and the area to the west can be used. Griffin commented that if there was a 40 acre or a 20 acre piece that was well defined, staff could agree, but on the map designations proposed, there was no split. Committee agreed a more well - defined map is needed. Brown inquired if there was enough land that could still meet a forestry designation. Sutter asked if the quality of resources was enough to be worthwhile. Starkenburg requested staff address these concerns. Griffin responded that in terms of quality, there are no further details - -the owner may have better specifics on this. Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 4 Application #8, Concrete Norwest: This site does not have a County CUP. This site may need dredging, as there is low groundwater level at this site. From the work proposal, it meets the criteria and is in the ag zone. Committee was in agreement to move this forward. Application #9, Concrete Gravel: This property is in the R10A zone surrounded by the ag zone. Staff recommended moving forward with this as it technically meets all criteria; however, when it reaches the application phase, it needs a wellhead protection evaluation/hydrogeologic report for groundwater flows and impacts. Starkenburg commented that DNR would require such a report. Committee approved the application. Applications #10 and #11, Ferndale Ready Mix and Van Boven: This area proposed is currently in the Comp Plan, and they would like to add two one -acre sites. Griffin was unsure of the ownership of these properties. Starkenburg asked if the public could give clarity to the map; Lesa Starkenburg confirmed John Van Boven owned both properties. Griffin stated Brad De Haan requested these 20 acres (pointing to map) be included. The current site has a state DNR permit. Brown asked how this stands with criteria #6 regarding smaller parcels across the road. Griffin stated it has two 2.5 acre parcels; there is a 6.64 acre parcel. The boundaries are not greater than 25% surround of small lots. Committee approved. Application #11, Van Boven and De Haan: Griffin stated this has been deleted; there are no resources here. This is part of the Planning Commission =s proposal. The existing parcel is designated MRL, but there is only soft bedrock. Committee agreed with staff recommendation. Application #12, Mike Crawford, Nooksack area: The boundaries do not reflect ownership in that area. The proposed MRL site includes property outside the ownership (to the east). Committee agreed to move this forward. Application #13, DNR property. Griffin could not find any information in the file. Testimony from Dick Olsen, DNR, had been received verbally. Starkenburg requested staff follow up on requested additional information. Starkenburg commented regarding committee format by asking if the members wanted to give staff an idea of how this is falling in with the Comp Plan or perhaps consider the information for review and finalization later next week. Dawson stated she wanted to address the Mineral Resource Chapter. She specifically spoke to balancing the competing resources. Gibson stated that the balancing of other resources in other areas is addressed through the additional growth criteria. There is general agreement in the seven criteria quality of ag and resource, etc., material. The issue of viability of other competing resource lands has been addressed through the Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 5 additional criteria. Dawson suggested adding as a goal that damages to property owners through the securing of minerals would be addressed in the Development Regulations. Starkenburg requested staff take this under advisement. In terms of what Gibson has directed in his proposal since there is already a cooperative working arrangement, she suggested that the status quo be maintained. She then asked if it were appropriate for the County to pay for a study. Gibson replied the notion of public planning is basically what supports the expenditure of public resources. Dawson pointed out that since the County is not profiting by the extraction, the financing of the study should come from the industry. Knapp stated there is a County obligation to examine that from the GMA =s standpoint and look at the amount and kind of resource. Dawson then asked if this has ever been done. Knapp stated the GMA requires this. Gibson then pointed out that other jurisdictions have done such studies. The idea that someone will profit immensely can be addressed by way of permit fees. Gibson stated that what is being responded to is a designation criteria which assumed that there would be no designation within a 15 -year travel time, which forms the question of what is an appropriate limit for designation. (Clerks Note: Tape 2, Side A) Avoiding inappropriate zone protection is important when designations are done, which are technical issues. Griffin stated the recommendation going forward is to have this as part of the designation criteria. Sutter pointed out there was more than one method for that and asked what level of accuracy will be required for that level of wellhead designation. There are potentially conflicting uses, and the need is there to do some studies. Sutter inquired as to how those resources can be protected in the meantime if there is no designation. Knapp stated that even with mineral resources, there is a need to protect the resources while their use is being planned, which needs policy language. Sutter noted policy criteria is needed that is different from criteria for an MRL that addresses these study areas. Sutter asked if Council wanted to see huge areas of mineral extraction or a lot of small ones that allow for movable operations. Regulations need to be developed from that. She also asked how the landscape should look. Dawson stated a 50 -year supply needs to be designated and asked how it can be prevented from being extracted all at once. Knapp stated the 20 -year horizon is part of the planning process. Gibson pointed out that in a market system, unless there is a higher degree of regulation, it is very difficult to prevent this extraction. Hopefully, people have the good sense to recognize the benefits of being in business in 50 years. Dawson stated that perhaps this requires more verbiage than is given in 8B to protect key resources. Knapp noted the ag land can be a good protector of the mineral resource, but the subdivision will not be. Starkenburg then inquired if there was the notion to move forward AFinal Draft Proposal 2/3/97" with the inclusion verbiage on damages and additional criteria for areas to be surveyed under the Comp Plan requirements. Brown asked how much this would impact overall mineral resources if the proposals not to endorse go forward and if what is going forward would be enough for the current 20 -year planning horizon. Griffin responded it depends on how it is seen - -the current supply is a 50 -year supply. Current Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 6 sites are about 20 -25 years, which brings it up to about a 50 -year supply. There is some dispute on the sand and gravel numbers. He also pointed out the designated criteria have not been applied to every site. There are sites that meet the designation, but there are no requests that have come forward. The Plan does not preclude those sites from being designated as such. Brown asked about protection against overharvesting, exporting, etc. Griffin pointed out the alternative would be a CUP. In the Development Regulations, the County could require use and reclamation in small bits that keep an operator from overharvesting. Knapp stated to maintain ag and rural forestry lands so that development does not displace them, the mineral resource is still there. Council can make determinations in later years that change the nature of the use of that land. (Clerks Note: A five- minute break was taken) Starkenburg stated committee was ready to review land use communication requests remaining before the final decision is made. Dawson inquired about the final draft proposal regarding the mineral resource section. She stated Gibson had 8P as a new goal and requested clarification regarding her goal being addressed in other parts of the policy. She wondered how committee felt about the clarity of the situation. Starkenburg pointed out Dawson presented a sheet with three paragraphs for inclusion into the Comp Plan under Mineral Resources. Staff will reply, and Dawson may bring that forward at the full Council level. Batchelor distributed to committee the remaining requests of property owners. The Robin Hitz property, #42, is in the urban fringe subarea, lying on both sides of Hannegan Road north of Bakerview Road. The city of Bellingham wants this to be added as a General Manufacturing (GM) zone, light impact industrial. For the Comp Plan, staff proposed this area be included in the UGA. Sutter stated the owner requested GM designation. Starkenburg inquired if both pieces were in the urban fringe. Batchelor stated that some are in the adopted subarea, some are not. The city of Bellingham and the Planning Commission recommended taking the Hitz property as industrial. A small triangular area north and west of Baker Creek is proposed to go from residential to light industrial. Hitz proposed the change to GM, which would allow expansion of their business. Starkenburg suggested moving this forward if the city agrees to that and committee has no objections. Committee agreed. Knapp stated staff will identify what the Comp Plan designation is with this one. The Babe Hansen property on Central Road, #43, was requested to be designated R5 and is currently R10. The question is how much of the property in this area is appropriate to rezone to R5. Batchelor noted the Planning Commission did not review this. Starkenburg pointed out this is two separate issues, the Hansen request and that of the general neighborhood. Batchelor noted the information he has is incomplete. Starkenburg stated staff needed to clarify this more fully before recommendation to the Planning Commission. Batchelor pointed out the owners are requesting a change in the Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 7 zoning density. Starkenburg inquired of committee if #43 and #44 should be held and if staff should present committee with better information for analysis. Committee agreed. Discussion followed. Starkenburg stated more mapping was needed from staff and requested completion of this no later than the end of next week. Knapp was requested to assist with the public notification process, ensuring ample time for response. Knapp stated two ordinances would be needed, and the public needs to know that this is now also a rezoning issue. This makes it more problematic to go through the Comp Plan and make it consistent with rezoning. Starkenburg pointed out that in order for committee to function, more time is needed. All changes should be included now, and he suggested trying not to open it up again for the next session. The next property discussed was #45, Dean Foods, which is on Wynn Road. Batchelor commented the surrounding property owners wished it to remain rural. Starkenburg suggested committee look at this favorably and return it to the city of Bellingham for its concurrence. Knapp stated the notification process for the rezone process is an issue. Committee indicated favorably on this application. Starkenburg directed staff to obtain clarification on any needed legal issue and include the city of Bellingham in this decision - making process. Ed Drabb, #46, South Fork, east of Acme, was discussed. The present zoning is CF and the request was for R5A. Sutter noted this was a lot consolidation that is now a rezone. Dawson pointed out that one of the issues of CF is that it not be allowed residential. Starkenburg stated he has not reviewed this file. Batchelor noted there are issues of fire district boundaries, access, etc. Starkenburg requested this return to staff for continued work and a recommendation with consideration of Dawson--s comments. There was no decision by committee today. Holtzheimer, #47, was discussed regarding the acreage to be included. Batchelor requested separating ten acres from the front five to do activities on the ten that do not conflict with uses on the five acres. Knapp noted that in order for the two fives as requested, zoning must be R5A. Batchelor stated what must be considered is whether an individual =s request is taken over the current zoning. Knapp pointed out there is R5A zoning nearby that may be extended to his property, but there are other properties this would affect. The parcelization to the east is the logical connection. Starkenburg stated that by going farther west would be overcoming the parcelization because the southern end is zoned R5 and at the top there is a mix - -no one would fault committee for a favorable decision because the larger area seems to show consistency. Committee gave agreement to this view and then requested staff give its agreement to the north and south boundary, thus making logical boundaries. Staff was also directed to check to see if committee missed anything. (Clerks Note: Tape 2, side B) There was no need for further committee review. This action covered the ag Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 8 preservation measures. Starkenburg noted that for the record, the same action (in #47) for #45 was taken regarding staff direction on boundaries. Dennis Feathers, #48, was the final application discussed. Committee agreed there was no problem with the request for the east side of Silver Lake. However, there was discussion regarding the area north of the Mt. Baker highway between Kendall and Maple Falls. Batchelor stated that since Feathers gave his office petitions from local property owners without accompanying maps or parcel numbers, he has been unable to map these petitioned requests. Brown offered to do this work. He added there is no problem with access and no impact on the roads; fire suppression is available. Starkenburg proposed moving this forward by having staff confirm all mapping issues, including egress, etc., and include one or two more pieces, if appropriate. Sutter requested the area to the south of the Mt. Baker highway should definitely be included. Committee agreed except for Brown, who lives in that area and would only comment. (Clerks Note: No formal vote was taken, only committee consensus) Starkenburg asked for any comment from the public correcting information given thus far. John Sitkin, attorney, commented regarding the McMillan land request, which is in the Peaceful Valley area. He stated there is some roadway access area within the district boundaries that has not been included previously. There is light industrial activities in this area. Starkenburg inquired of committee if it were willing to consider other options that are possible in the area and other ways to use that property. Dawson thought it would be a conflict of interest for her. Brown stated he found the area has good road access and may be useful for a light industrial base. He asked if the old cement plant is being retained as a mineral resource. Starkenburg did not think it still functions as a limestone quarry as there is a 100 acre land trust just below that site. Sutter wanted to assure Roger Almskaar, land use planner, that the Guide Meridian Road/ /Badger Road area was dealt with regarding a commercial crossroads area. Starkenburg said Mackie was going to draw a circle around the intersection with the designation for commercial services. Sutter then spoke to a request for a rezone that is actually an MRL, which was missed: the Pinkey property on Rutsatz Road. Starkenburg directed staff to have Jeff Griffin include it on his list to give to committee. Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 9 Knapp stressed the need for verification of notification of rezoning, which could be done with broad newspaper notification. (Clerks Note: Starkenburg called a two- minute recess to discuss this with Knapp) Starkenburg called attention to the issue of Comp Plan modifications made over the past two weeks and requested clarification on how this differs from rezoning. Staff concluded these are two separate issues - -MRL 42 -48 are different from the Comp Plan rezone requests. Starkenburg then requested staff advice, to which Gibson replied. He stated that requests for specific property where owners want to do this rather than that is a rezone issue, which needs public notification. Knapp concurred. Starkenburg stated staff will review all requests considered at the last meeting as well as this meeting to see if they fit within that clarification. Knapp stated the Comp Plan designation is the guideline. Sutter inquired if Lummi Island mapping problems had been addressed; Batchelor confirmed that had been completed. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 2/10/97, Page 10