HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Council December 1 1992WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
December 1, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1000 N. Forest
St., 2nd floor, by Dan Warner, Chairman.
Also present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Larry Harris
Ken Henderson
Bob Imhof
Marge Laidlaw
Dennis Vander Yacht
READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes were approved with the following changes to the November 19, 1992 minutes:
Page 1, line 30 should read "the meeting would begin Saliar-d with..."
HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING MAP DESIGNATING RURAL FORESTRY AND
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM,
CHUCKANUT -LAKE SAMISH, LYNDEN - NOOKSACK VALLEY,
FOOTHILLS, AND LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREAS (AB92 -289)
Henderson gave an overview of the proposed ordinance. Planning Director Dan
Taylor also spoke, explaining the batching process.
It was decided that all three items under the hearing section (AB92 -289, AB92 -290,
AB92 -291) would be heard together.
Warner opened the public hearing.
John Sitkin, Langabeer, Tull, and Cuillier, 199A Grand Avenue: Represented Bob
Tull on behalf of one of his clients, Albert Miller, who did not receive notice of the
possibility of zoning changes. He asked why there is a difference in the notification process
of property owners in an applicant initiated rezone matter compared to a non - applicant
initiated rezone matter. He suggested that all property owners within a proposed rezone
area should be notified before any zoning changes are occur.
Harris asked if a record exists of who was sent notification. Taylor answered "yes ".
Rick Todahl, 789 Samish Road: Spoke in support of the rural forestry zoning for the
1 Lake Whatcom Glen area, specifically the eleven parcels surrounding his property. He
2 stated that the fire districts are awaiting the Council's decision on this issue before
3 considering further annexations.
4
5 Rita Foley, Blue Canyon Rd.: Stated that the annexation of the eleven parcels
6 mentioned by Rick Todahl have been turned down by the fire districts. She also stated that
7 by rezoning the eleven parcels to rural forestry, Trillium will be rezoned also. She feels
8 Trillium land should be zoned commercial.
9
10 Bob Stoothoff, 8514 Mt. Baker Hwy.: He stated that he was not notified of the
11 possible rezone and that he only found out about this through the paper. He wants the land
12 in the area around his property to be considered in the rural forestry category.
13
14 Lyle Harris, 1113 13th Street: He was out of the country throughout most of the
15 rezone planning process and would like to be included in the Whatcom Glen package and
16 remain rural. He. stated that all the people who live around him bought their property with
17 the intention of building a home, nothing else. He also affirmed an earlier statement that
18 the fire districts are .waiting for the decision of the Council.
19 '
20 Theresa Sygitowicz, 2650 Alderwood: Her parents own land in Clipper on Strand Rd.
21 They did not get notice of this issue. She support tabling this ordinance and notifying all
22 people who will be affected. She stated that there are several people who live on the
23 Homesteader Road who will not be able to sell their property because they do not own any
24 more than 20 acres. She feels that the Council should be more sensitive and should
25 remember that they are here to serve the public.
26
27 Dan Taylor clarified which areas in the County would be effected by the rezones.
28
29 There was discussion of the rezone in the South Fork Valley and why all the property
30 owners in that area were not notified at the time the rezone was proposed.
31
32 There was discussion of the re- thinking of the notification process for all rezoning.
33
34 Roger Almskaar, Representative for the Trillium Corporation: Supports the re-
35 thinking of the notification process. He reviewed a letter and exhibits handed out to the
36 Council (on file, AB92 -402). He discussed various issues that he feels have not been
37 addressed. He reviewed the proposals for the South Bay Area, the Welcome area, and the
38 Glacier Springs area. He spoke against spot zoning and stated that corporate land owners
39 should not be treated differently than individual land owners. He discussed the access to
40 the Trillium property with the Council.
41
42 Kenneth Bridges: He stated that he did not receive notice of the possibility of a
43 rezone. He does not want to see the zoning changed. If the zoning is changed, it will
44 eliminate the possibility for many people to build homes. He asked that the Council not
Council Minutes, 1211192, Page 2
1 allow down- zoning.
2
3 Steve Reimer, 161 Cain Lake Road: He referenced the South Bay area and land
4 owned by Trillium. He stated that Trillium's request to have property brought out of
5 commercial forestry into rural forestry should not be granted. This land has been in
6 commercial forestry for many years, and Trillium knew this when they purchased the land.
7 He feels that changing the zoning of this land is not a good idea because the land is in the
8 Lake Whatcom Watershed and at the head waters of Brandon Creek. He added that with
9 the City and County Councils working to establish guidelines and priorities for property in
10 the watershed, rezoning this land would set a bad precedent. The Council needs to draw
11 the line.
12
13 Bruce Harris, 135 Summerland Road: He discussed some of the information
14 addressed in a handout given to all Council Members (on file, AB92 -402). He does not
15 support the rezone to commercial forestry, especially the property owned by Trillium.
16
17 Art Hyatt, 2318 N. Shore Road: He stated that he was a member of the committee
18 that reviewed the proposed zoning changes. He used to believe that the private land owner
19 could better manage the land. He now feels that any rural designation is a seed for
20 development that in time would conflict with commercial forestry. While development is
21 often inappropriate in any subarea, it is extremely inappropriate in the Lake Whatcom
22 Watershed. His comments applied specifically to the Lake Whatcom subarea and were in
23 recognition of the sensitive nature of the lake and the need to safeguard the resource base.
.4 He stated that a possible solution could be to include residential construction as a
25 conditional use, with the permit process implementing specific standards while allowing the
26 property owner use of his /her property.
27
28 Gary Harden, 191 Cain Lake Road: He asked that the Council draw the line at
29 corporate ownership. He stated that there is a need for minimizing development in the
30 watershed area and is concerned about opening up such a large area for development.
31
32 Barbara Vaughan, 316 West Lake Samish Road: She is in support of all three of the
33 resolutions. Her comments are summarized in a handout given to all Council Members (on
34 file, AB92 -289).
35
36 John Maher, Bloedel Timberland, Inc.: He summarized the comments in a letter
37 given to all Council Members (on file, AB92 -289). He stated that the company he
38 represents is in favor of spot development and supports the proposed designations.
39
40 Lloyd Austin, 1838 Lakeside: He stated that nothing should be allowed, development
41 wise, in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
42
43 Roland Harper, 7601 Kendall Road: He lives in an area that will be designated as
44 rural forestry. He is happy about the division of rural/commercial forestry. He does not
Council Minutes, 1211192, Page 3
1 feel that there is a need for a "watchman's loophole." Building permanent housing on land
2 zoned commercial forestry is not necessary; temporary housing would be sufficient. He
3 discussed the batching process with Gordon Scott.
4
5 Hearing no one else, Warner closed the oral public hearing.
6
7 Warner asked about the recommendation from the Planning Committee. Henderson
8 stated that if the written comment period is left open, some further study could take place.
9 He stated that he has been working on some amendments for areas in the Lake Whatcom
10 Watershed.
11
12 Taylor stated that he would prefer that this be acted on by the December 8 meeting.
13 The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Trillium are in the thick of a land swap,
14 and the three ordinances need to be passed in order to pass the ordinance amending the
15 official Whatcom County Code Chapter 20.42.300 lot clustering and reserve tract -rural
16 forestry and Chapter 20.97 definitions (AB92 -460). The passing of this ordinance would
17 assist with the land swap.
18
19 There was discussion on how to deal with the three ordinances.
20
21 BRENNER MOVED TO REFER THESE ITEMS BACK TO THE PLANNING
22 COMMITTEE AND THAT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS BE GIVEN TO THE FULL
23 COUNCIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
'4
25 There was discussion on the motion.
26
27 The motion carried unanimously.
28
29 LAIDLAW MOVED TO HOLD THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE HEARING
30 OPEN UNTIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, AT NOON.
31
32 The motion carried unanimously.
33
34 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
35 CODE, CHAPTERS 20.42, 20.43, 20.80.272, 20.80.273, AND CREATING A
36 NEW CHAPTER 14.04 (AB92 -290)
37
38 Minutes found above; this item was heard in a combined hearing with AB92 -289.
39
40 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
41 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM,
42 CHUCKANUT -LAKE SAMISH, LYNDEN- NOOKSACK VALLEY,
43 FOOT HLIS, AND LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREAS AS NECESSARY TO
44 MAKE CONSISTENT WITH LANGUAGE ADOPTED FOR THE SOUTH
Council Minutes, 1211192, Page 4
FORK VALLEY SUBAREA FORESTRY LAND USE DESIGNATION
AND FORESTRY LAND USE POLICIES (AB92 -291)
Minutes found above; this item was heard in a combined hearing with AB92 -289.
OTHER ITEMS
1. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CUSTER
REZONE (AB92 -053A)
Topics discussed: The concerns expressed at the time of the first vote on this issue
and the possibility that the Council did not have all the information needed to make a well
informed decision; the Ridell- Williams letter (on file, AB92- ); The appropriateness of the
site.
WARNER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE CUSTER REZONE.
The motion failed 3 -3, with Laidlaw abstaining.
Imhof asked that another vote be taken because a reconsideration would give
Laidlaw the time to review the issue.
Imhof's request was not acted on.
2. COWDEN GRAVEL, INVESTIGATION INTO ENFORCEMENT BY
BUILDINGS & CODE (AB92 -311B)
Topics discussed: The lack of response, to date, from the Administration and the
Prosecutor Dave McEachran; setting a time limit for response.
This item was held over for discussion on December 8.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE CHAPTER 20.42.300 LOT CLUSTERING AND RESERVE TRACT -
RURAL FORESTRY AND CHAPTER 20.97 DEFINITIONS (AB92 -402)
Dan Taylor stated that a motion should be made to show the intent of the Council
on this issue.
Henderson gave a summary of the issue and stated that there was no formal
recommendation coming forth from the Planning Committee.
BRENNER MOVED TO APPROVE IN CONCEPT.
Council Minutes, 1211192, Page 5
I There was discussion on the motion.
2
3 The motion carried 6 to 1, with Vander Yacht against.
4
5 INTRODUCTION
6
7 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WHATCOM COUNTY
8 INVESTMENT POOL FUND (AB92 -460)
9
10 2. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 1993 BUDGET OF THE TREASURER'S
11 OFFICE AND TO ESTABLISH THE 1993 BUDGET FOR THE
12 WHATCOM COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL FUND (AB92 -460A)
13
14 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
15
16 Critical Areas Ordinance (AB92- 058E): Brenner asked Dan Taylor about the rebuild
17 policy of the Critical Areas Ordinance regarding burned or destroyed homes. Taylor
18 responded that that provision had been stricken from the ordinance. Warner instructed
19 Brenner to write Building and Codes to ask about their response to someone requesting a
20 building permit under these circumstances.
21
22 Capital Projects: Marge Laidlaw reported for Capital Projects and the Committee's
23 concerns that the Safety Officer is not involved in the major communication/
24 recommendation /notification loop within County government.
25
26 LAIDLAW MOVED THAT THE CHAIRMAN WRITE A MEMO TO THE
27 ADMINISTRATION EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN THAT THE SAFETY
28 OFFICER IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATION LOOP UNTIL AFTER THE
29 FACT.
30
31 The motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Because there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20.
34
35 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
36 ATTEST:- WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
37
38
39
40
41 - avi sistant Clerk Daniel M. Warner, Chairman
Council Minutes, 1211192, Page 6