HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 7 20101
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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 7, 2010
CALL TO ORDER (3:03 :07 PM)
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN (AB2010 -381)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA PLAN AND RELATED
AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAPS (AB2010 -343)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report on
the process so far. The Planning and Development Committee put this on hold in October
until the rural element and limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) was
completed. However, the County Code indicates that Comprehensive Plan amendments
have to be forwarded for concurrent review before December 31. He recommends that the
Council forward this to concurrent review, subject to review for consistency with the LAMIRD
designations.
He submitted and described minor changes. In Findings 62 and 63, recognize that
the Evergreen Water and Sewer District changed its name to the Columbia Valley Water
District. Finding 76 should recognize that the interlocal agreement between Whatcom
County and the Columbia Valley Water District, which the County Council will act on at
tonight's regular meeting.
Mann moved to recommend to the full Council that it forward for concurrent review,
subject to review for consistency with LAMIRD designations made through the rural element
process.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Aamot acknowledged the citizen committee that worked on this item.
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
FERNDALE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING TRAFFIC CONCERNS
REGARDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRANDVIEW ANNEXATION
(AB2010 -445)
Kate Blystone, Planning and Development Services Department, stated she thanks
the City of Ferndale for working with the County on its concerns. She gave a staff report
and stated the issues of concern included that there is no interlocal agreement with the City
of Ferndale right now. In this case, there were concerns that might have been addressed
by an interlocal agreement. Since they don't have one, they will work through a new
interlocal for all annexations in the next ten years in 2011.
A Public Works Department concern is that traffic impacts of future development in
the Grandview area would not be adequately studied. Also, the regional retail zoning has a
base indoor square footage of 100,000 square feet. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is required at 125,000 square feet. There is a 25,000 square foot gap. The interlocal
agreement in the Council packet requires that all development in the area will require an
EIS or the City of Ferndale can do a planned action environmental impact statement to
cover the entire Grandview annexation area. It will consider the impact of development to
adjacent roads.
This is the interlocal agreement that both the County and City Planning Departments
and Public Works Departments developed and are comfortable with. The Ferndale City
Council authorized the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement. Staff recommends that the
Council authorize the Executive to sign the agreement.
Brenner asked about the regional retail designation.
Jori Burnett, City of Ferndale, stated the City Council adopted the regional retail zone
in 2010 to prevent a hodge podge of development. It's much more appropriate to require
some kind of master planning to consolidate driveways and target impacts.
Brenner asked the difference between the 125,000 square foot and 100,000 square
foot thresholds. Burnett stated the regional retail zone has a 100,000 square foot limit.
The retail ordinance requires a 125,000 square foot and is applied throughout the city. In
some parts of the city, it may be appropriate to allow a development between 120,000 and
125,000 square feet without an EIS. For the sake of resolving this issue, it is more
expedient to have an interlocal agreement rather than Planning Commission and Council to
amend the zone.
Mann asked if this has already been annexed. Burnett stated it has not been
annexed yet.
Knutzen asked if all projects in the Grandview area will require an EIS, including any
residential projects. Burnett stated there are a few residential properties there. Single
family residences will become nonconforming in the regional retail zone, but any new
development would have to have at least 100,000 square feet, which triggers an EIS. The
EIS can covers the 100,000 square foot store and all outer parcel businesses. They are
hoping to do a planned action master plan for the whole area. Businesses would need to
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
adhere to the EIS mitigations, the eagle criteria, and the retail design standards. Providing
this things in the front will provide consistent expectations to the incoming businesses.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: None (0)
Abstains: Mann (1)
3. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND HARBOR SHORES, LLC (AB2010 -446)
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and referenced the supplemental section that includes the entire record. The development
agreement centers on alternative mitigation approaches for the critical areas ordinance. He
described the proposal.
Knutzen stated there has been some concern about a local improvement district
(LID). Schroeder stated the City of Blaine spoke to this last time. It updated its City Code,
which allows for a longer grace period associated with those local improvement districts if
the property is ever annexed and the City provides sewer. Section five of the staff report
talks about the written comments received into the record. Regarding the concerns about a
LID requiring residents to pay significant hookup fees, citizens requested protection from
forced sewer hookup. The Hearing Examiner says that the possible impacts of a LID to
property owners are not proper issues to be dealt with in a development agreement. The
City of Blaine's updated code pushes back the decision on when hookup and monthly fees
would be required.
Brenner stated it hasn't been dealt with. This Council should have dealt with it. The
proponent keeps saying he has no intention of charging the people who live there. Her
concern is that he may change his mind or not always own the property. Don't allow that
threat to hang over the heads of the people who are already there and already checked
their septic systems, as required by law. It's something the Council can do in addition to
what the Hearing Examiner said.
Weimer stated he appreciates the Hearing Examiner's decision that the development
agreement isn't the proper place to deal with the concern. He asked where the proper place
is. Schroeder stated the proper place is with the County Council, possibly through the
annexation of the property. He's asked many people, and hasn't found a good answer at
this time.
Brenner stated the Council can do it as a condition of moving this forward.
Schroeder stated he agrees, if the Council believes there is enough connection with
alternative mitigation for critical areas impacts. If the only reason the Council would vote to
approve that critical area impact is to require some type of LID discussion, the Council can
propose it to be added into the development agreement. The Hearing Examiner was trying
to say that, through inclusion into the urban growth area or through the annexation process
and interlocal agreements, that would be the better location and venue to condition that
type of impact. The Hearing Examiner was trying to separate the development agreement
and critical area impacts.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen asked if the traditional time to put forward an interlocal agreement is when
60 percent of the property owners approve annexation.
Kate Blystone, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it seems like
this should be addressed during the City of Blaine's annexation process. She's not sure if
it's appropriate in the interlocal agreement. She would like to look into it.
Brenner stated the Council can add it during any step in the process. The earlier in
the process they add it, the more predictability everyone will have. She moved to require
that any development have an interlocal agreement between the City of Blaine and the
applicant that property owners in the vicinity of the pipes will not be charged until or unless
they have a need to hook up. This requirement should be in everything.
Mann asked how to implement this in the committee meeting. He asked if this
amends the development agreement or the resolution.
Brenner stated the requirement should go with both.
Skip Jansen, Project Proponent, stated he has heard loud and clear that the property
owners do not want annexation. Therefore, they are pursuing another avenue to provide
sewer for Harbor Shores. They've spent over two years on this development agreement, he
suggests they table this for now. The solution they are developing will not affect the LID or
annexation.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Schroeder recommended it be held in committee and have another closed- record
hearing and have those discussions. Some of the concerns of the property owners may go
away after more information is provided on the legality of adding conditions to this
development agreement and the concerns about future sewer.
Mann moved to hold in committee.
Dannon Traxler, 709 Dupont Street, stated she is not sure if another public hearing
may be held. Leave the record open and allow them to submit additional information. This
item should be held in committee to work out the sewage disposal issues and discuss
alternative plans. The development agreement can be an appropriate place for conditions.
It governs the entire development. The development agreement references sewage
disposal several times. The applicant seems willing to discuss alternatives and work with
the neighbors. The neighbors would like to work with him if possible. The Blaine
ordinances doesn't address the problem. Mr. Jansen admitted that the ordinance was
vague. He says they have no plans to refine it, which will be problematic in the future. This
is about sewage disposal. The agreement can be about the method of sewage disposal and
how it affects the surrounding property owners, not about neighbors' concerns. The last
map in the packet is incorrect. It is not part of the Blaine sewer service area.
Knutzen asked if there is special criteria for sewage disposal since this is in the
Drayton Harbor Watershed. Traxlor stated she's not sure how that would work in the
future. It may have to be a separate consideration. At this point, they have shoreline
permits for sewer from Birch Bay. Any sewage disposal system would be a different issue.
Right now, it's not a part of the Blaine sewer service area, so Blaine would have to expand
its sewer service area to serve the development. They may have to have a letter from Birch
Bay Water and Sewer District that it can't serve the development.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Dale Vander Giessen, 9075 Dearborn Avenue, Blaine, stated the last map indicates
that the homes to the north are included in the sewer area. If this is going to become law,
remove the map. His property is included in the area. He does not want to be in that
circle, and was drawn without his consent as the property owner. The neighbors to the
north have attended all the Blaine City Council meetings. When the City Council says it has
provided relief, it means that the neighbors still pay the $32,000, but they don't have to pay
$95 per month if their septic system works. The relief wasn't that much. Most people can't
afford that $32,000. The Blaine City Council can change things at the drop of an hat. He's
not comfortable going to the north for service.
Craig Parkinson, Harbor Shores LLC, stated he would explain why the service area is
in the development agreement. It was submitted in October 2009. The area was taken out
of the urban growth area (UGA) in November 2009. At that time, they had a developer
extension agreement with Birch Bay Water and Sewer to provide sewer to Harbor Shores.
That agreement still exists. If the area is taken out of the UGA, the area north of Harbor
Shores would not be eligible for the developer extension agreement with the Birch Bay
Water and Sewer District. If the people north or Harbor Shores ever want a sewer
developer extension agreement with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and hook into
the system planned for Harbor Shores, they would need some way to legally do that. The
proponents added it to their agreement to allow a developer extension agreement with Birch
Bay Water and Sewer District. The project developers are fine with this being removed
from the agreement. Last, the purpose of this development agreement is for alternative
wetland mitigation. The developer agreement is authorized under State law to allow for a
predictable permitting process, which this has not been. This is more reasonable than many
reasonable use exemption processes for wetlands.
Brenner stated it sounds like the developer may still be interested in this, but she
heard Mr. Jansen say it might be a moot point. Parkinson stated the sewer issue may be a
moot point. They are working on some other ideas and having conversations trying to sort
this out. It takes time. The critical areas is still an issue. It makes more sense to address
it comprehensively.
Mann asked if it would be more difficult for the neighbors to the north to get sewer in
the future if the Council removed their properties from the map indicating the sewer
eligibility area. Parkinson stated it possibly may be more difficult. If not in the UGA and if it
remains in the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District area, the District couldn't serve them.
Their Comprehensive Plan says it has to be in the UGA.
Brenner stated it can also be done to resolve an issue of public health. Parkinson
stated the public health issue has to be a septic system that is actually failing. He hopes
this other option would allow the future potential without having up front costs.
The motion to hold in committee carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Bill Knutzen, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 12/7/2010, Page 6