HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 6 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 6, 2008
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL FOR GOVERNOR ROAD — PHASE II, SUBMITTED BY DARCY
JONES, PLS, AICP, JONES ENGINEERING (AB2008 -184)
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the staff
recommendation for the request is in the Council packet. Since the approval of the long
plat and planned unit development (PUD), the Council granted two extension requests. This
is the third and final request. The language allows for subsequently- adopted regulations,
ordinance, and development standards to be taken into consideration for granting approval
of an extension. They may add the changes as a condition of approval of the extension.
Several ordinances and development standards have been adopted regarding protecting the
public health and safety since 1999.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she was very impressed with the staff report. It was very
thorough.
Schroeder read from the memorandum in the Council packet about the new
regulations. This plat would require substantial revisions to meet current regulations. They
may require a plat re- design. He read the two options recommended. If the extension
didn't go through, the applicant would have to reapply and meet current regulations.
Fleetwood asked if the remand to the Hearing Examiner would be with directions
from the Council. Schroeder stated it would be, to implement provisions to address the
current Code and development standards.
Fleetwood stated there is not much substantive change between the two
recommendations. Schroeder stated that is correct.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that Dick McKinley from the City of Bellingham recommends
that the plat not be remanded unless all vesting is extinguished and the approval process
includes public input.
Schroeder stated the easiest thing is to not approve the extension request so the
process has a clear and defined end, and a new process begins with the current regulations.
Crawford stated the applicant testified last year that he was working diligently on
this project full -time. He asked why the County Planning Department and the City now
recommend to the Council that it make this guy start over. The regulations have changed.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 1
1 Many regulations change often. He asked why the Planning Department is making a
2 recommendation instead of listing the Council's options. The Council should instead be
3 looking into the reason why a 70 -home project is taking eight years of full -time diligent
4 effort on the part of the developer to get through today's regulatory situation. The County
5 may want to consider changing its vesting rules to last longer, not to tell developers that
6 they have to begin all over again. Schroeder stated the scope of changes required to meet
7 the current Code regulations is large enough to require an entire redesign of the project.
8 Because of that scope of revisions, it would be easier from a staff perspective to begin again
9 rather than make a large change in the scope of the project within one year. This is the
10 final allowed extension.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated some of the problems are related to infrastructure that
13 aren't due to County regulations.
14
15 Crawford stated that if the County approves the extension, the developer gets to
16 develop under 1999 rules, if no conditions are put on it. In 2016, the County could say this
17 all over again. Nothing tells him that it will take anything less than eight years of full -time
18 effort on the part of several engineering firms to get the developer back to exactly the 2008
19 level of requirements.
20
21 Brenner stated this is simply a question of fairness. It doesn't matter if it's easier for
22 staff. They're all public servants. It gets to her when someone says something is easier for
23 staff. If this developer hadn't been working diligently, she would feel differently. However,
24 the developer is in this predicament because the City isn't finished with it's water. That's
25 what this developer is waiting for. That's not the developer's fault. The County changes its
26 rules all the time. That's the reason for this extension process. The Council should look at
27 whether the developer has been legitimately working or not. That isn't the case here. The
28 reason the Council has the option of not approving an extension is due to cases where a
29 developer is not proceeding for some personal reason.
30
31 Fleetwood asked how long a remand would take. Schroeder stated it would probably
32 take a year to a year and a half. It is a big change.
33
34 Weimer asked if the City has to approve this since it's in the City's urban growth
35 area.
36
37 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the City is the
38 water service provider. The City has to agree to provide water service.
39
40 Weimer stated the City said it has no intention of annexing this area any time soon.
41
42 Martin Kjelstad, City of Bellingham Public Works Department, stated the City Council
43 rejected the ten percent petition a couple of months ago. The issue is that the City is not
44 able to provide water to the development. They are working on a water tank design that
45 would partly serve the property. They worked for two years on easements and right -of-
46 way. They can't provide water by next September. The subdivision would have to have a
47 water booster station and several thousand feet of water line. With the Lake Padden
48 overlay, the developer won't be under construction until 2010.
49
50 Crawford stated that if the Council passes this extension, and the applicant gets this
51 water in within a year, the Lake Padden overlay doesn't apply. The applicant would be
52 vested to the 1999 standards.
53
54 Weimer stated the Council can add new rules.
55
56 Caskey- Schreiber stated the development would have to meet all City requirements
57 in effect the time the extension is granted. The Council has the right to require the new
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, 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
53
54
55
56
57
regulations by conditioning this extension. If the development won't have water until
September 2009, a one -year extension will solve nothing. She would rather not approve
the extension. The developer can go through the process again when water becomes
available.
Brenner stated it should have been included in the County policy for everyone if
that's this Council's attitude. It's not a good attitude. The City should be able to require
the developer to meet the standards in place the time the extension is granted. The County
Council wants people to build in Bellingham, but it's difficult. The County should keep this
fair.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why the County should provide density in an area where the
City won't provide services. The County will have to serve the development. That's not the
goal of the Growth Management Act or the County's plans for that area.
Brenner stated that the City of Bellingham is cherry- picking the areas it wants to
include in the city. That's not right, but the County is allowing it.
Crawford stated this area is included in the City's long -term urban growth area
calculations. The City is counting on this density.
Brenner stated that given current regulations, no development of any substantial
size can be completely done in five years.
Darcy Jones, Jones Engineers, stated the project was initially approved with a
County- required five -year monitoring project before the project could move forward. The
project monitored a downstream storm system. He initially had adequate water service for
the project, but during the monitoring period the code changed. Instead of needing 500
gallons per minute, they needed 750 gallons per minute. Right now, one part of the project
needs an additional booster pump, but not the entire plat.
This plat was before the Council a year ago and they talked about this situation then.
City Planning Department staff Tim Stewart argued before the County Council to not remove
this area from the City urban growth area. There is significant public infrastructure going
into this project. The City is financially committed to seeing this area be developed. It's
part if the City's plan, and will reduce growth in other areas.
The Council supported his request to keep this in the urban growth area for the City.
It is a matter of fairness and consistency. He's not arguing about the rules. He will build to
the highest standards he can within the footprint. For example, the National Pollution
Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater requirements are not negotiable.
They must comply with State stormwater standards.
An incredible amount of time, energy, and money has been spent on this project.
He's complied with everything from the County and City. Not granting an extension isn't
fair. It took a long time to do monitoring and stormwater detention, but he has complied.
They have had a hardship due to the City. The City is close to getting the water tank done.
He can get the first phase of this plat recorded. He will have enough water to record this
plat. He agrees that a portion of the plat will need a booster pump. He can record the plat
in phases.
Regarding the Lake Padden Overlay, he worked with County staff to make sure his
development would not have negative impacts downstream. That was the point of the five -
year monitoring program. He understands that the Lake Padden overlay is an issue, but
understand they've already made sure that there won't be a negative impact to Lake
Padden when they designed this project. This density is appropriate for this area of the
UGA. It's a good project, and they are close to getting there.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 3
1
2 Weimer asked Mr. Schroeder if the project's five -year monitoring program
3 accomplishes the same thing as the Lake Padden overlay. Schroeder stated different
4 regulations for Lake Padden come into play. It has to do with tree retention and impervious
5 surface requirements. There are also clustering requirements, which may reduce the
6 amount of impervious surface allowed in the plan. He doesn't have information on the
7 stormwater plan approved through the 1990 plat, and whether or not the offsite impacts of
8 that stormwater would be different from today's regulations. The impervious surface, tree
9 retention, and clustering regulations are different and reduce a lot of the offsite water.
10
11 Caskey- Schreiber stated the question for her is why they would allow an extension
12 when the City clearly stated that it can't provide water service to this plat.
13
14 Crawford stated the developer will phase in the portions of the plat that don't need
15 the booster.
16
17 Brenner stated the County must work with the City to annex these types of areas.
18
19 Fleetwood asked if the development will incorporate any of the newer standards even
20 though it isn't subject to them now. Jones stated they have to incorporate the State
21 Department of Ecology (DOE) stormwater standards. He doesn't know if the project
22 complies with the critical areas ordinance. He wants to meet as many design criteria as
23 they can. He can't promise to have the first phase of the plat built and recorded by the end
24 of August. If they can bond for the improvements, get the improvement plans done, get
25 the grading plans approved and bonded, they can record the map.
26
27 Fleetwood asked which one of the two staff options Mr. Jones would prefer. Jones
28 stated either .one is the kiss of death for the project. The recommendation isn't realistic.
29 There is no new information today from last year or the year before. All the standards were
30 in consideration or adopted last year. Everything on Mr. Schroeder's list existed last year.
31 It's an issue of fairness.
32
33 Schroeder stated the Lake Padden overlay was done in 2007. The Council was
34 discussing it, but it couldn't be considered during the last extension request. Now, it can be
35 taken into consideration.
36
37 Weimer asked if the Council can approve the extension with conditions. Schroeder
38 stated it can.
39
40 Stalheim stated the County Planning Staff was not asked to provide any comments
41 regarding the extension request last year. Staff found out about it after the fact. He is very
42 uncomfortable with the concept of having a plat go through a redesign during an extension
43 process. Everyone was notified through a public notice process when the plat was
44 approved.
45
46 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
47
48 Stalheim continued to state that changing the plat through Council conditions makes
49 him uncomfortable. If ordinances have changed that significantly, they should do a
50 redesign of the plat. The same standard applies to the short- plats, which is his authority
51 under the short-plat ordinance. He does not grant extensions when ordinances have
52 changed, due to Council's legislative actions. For example, the Council has taken legislative
53 action in the Lake Whatcom watershed to not allow any more plats, so he would not grant
54 any more plat extension requests. If the Council approves this extension, he wants to apply
55 those reasons uniformly and fairly across the board.
56
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 4
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated the letter from Dick McKinley makes the situation clear to
2 her. He represents the town that will annex this area. If that City does not want this to go
3 forward as it is, she will respect that.
4
5 Brenner stated she agrees that the developer and City have to work together, but
6 the County is not the City. It's not a good enough excuse to not approve this. That's
7 between the City and County.
8
9 Weimer stated the letter from the City is not important. The City was before the
10 County a year ago asking the County to not remove this area from the UGA. Now the City
11 is saying something different. The reason the Council came to an easy conclusion about last
12 year's extension was because it didn't have this information from the Planning staff. This is
13 a tough decision. He moved to recommend that the Council not approve the extension.
14
15 Crawford stated a year ago, City Planning staff supported the project. However, the
16 recent letter from the City is from the Public Works director. No one from the City Planning
17 staff received a copy of the letter. He is concerned about what is going on. He asked why
18 the Planning Department is not involved.
19
20 Fleetwood stated he's struggling with the decision. He voted for the extension last
21 year. He understands Councilmember Brenner's arguments and the reasons for not
22 completing the project were beyond the developer's control. However, the reasons for the
23 new standards are compelling. At this time, he will vote against the motion.
24
25 Crawford stated they can't make a motion to not approve something.
26
27 Weimer withdrew the motion.
28
29 Fleetwood moved to recommend approval.
30
31 Motion failed 1 -2 with Fleetwood in favor.
32
33 2. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LETTER TO BE SENT TO GOVERNOR CHRISTINE
34 GREGOIRE REGARDING THE NEED FOR STATE ASSISTANCE TO MANAGE
35 SWIFT CREEK'S NATURALLY- OCCURRING ASBESTOS (AB2008 -027A)
36
37 Weimer stated they need to do whatever they can to get funding for Swift Creek
38 costs. Executive Kremen has sent a letter to the Governor. He asked Council Policy Analyst
39 Rebecca Craven to draft a similar letter, but the draft letter specifically says that the County
40 wants the Department of Ecology to take a leading role in this issue. The Council has never
41 discussed that. He is not sure he agrees with having someone else take the lead.
42
43 Brenner stated having someone else take the lead is a great idea. Other agencies
44 won't engage without pushing them to the forefront. She has no problem with the
45 Department of Ecology being in charge. The County will fail without cooperation from the
46 Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
47
48 John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated he would explain the reasons for
49 and intent of the letter. The administration has no intent of foregoing its responsibility as
50 the local sponsor of the Army Corps of Engineer effort to do the larger civil works project.
51 There are federal funding requests along those lines. The County is working with the
52 Department of Ecology (DOE) and other sponsors to get funding from the Governor's
53 budget. The level of activity associated with Swift Creek is becoming more complex in the
54 areas of funding, the technical work, and public outreach. All of those things require a level
55 of coordination beyond what the County is able to do. The request is not to turn the
56 County's back on the project, but to realize this is no longer a simple public works project.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 5
1 They're talking about a gargantuan civil works project. The question is how they will work
2 together and who will ultimately be the coordinator.
3
4 Weimer stated the Council must discuss whether or not it agrees. He's not
5 interested in the County using its own resources. Get some outside funding to provide local
6 control in the County. The County will come up with a better solution than the State. The
7 County has powers that the Department of Ecology doesn't, such as the Health Department
8 and land use control. The County should be paid to be the coordinator.
9
10 Brenner stated the County will do what it can, but this isn't a local issue. The State
11 owns or manages a chunk of the property. Let the State be in charge of this.
12
13 Crawford stated Executive Kremen's letter is vague, and seems to ask for help or
14 just money. Hutchings stated it does both. At this point, no one knows where this
15 discussion is going. An expectation build over time that the County will somehow manage
16 this enormous problem, but it may not be able to.
17
18 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's just an innocuous letter. This approach isn't very
19 compelling. To get the State's attention, the County must show the resources it has, get
20 people in the representatives' faces, and pressure the representatives. This letter won't do
21 it.
22
23 Crawford stated what usually happens is that the County wants control over what
24 happens, but wants to defer the responsibility for outcomes to someone else. Having
25 control can mean a lot of different things. With control comes responsibility. That's why
26 they have a hard time coming up with language.
27
28 Weimer stated that when he asked Ms. Craven to write the letter, he intended that it
29 promote money flow toward Whatcom County. He wasn't thinking about the control issue.
30 When Ms. Craven read the Executive's letter, she worked that in.
31
32 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated her understanding of the Executive's
33 letter was just that. It was asking the State Department of Ecology to assume a leadership
34 role. That isn't well defined. She took the lead from the Executive's letter and tried to
35 cheer on that obscure reference.
36
37 Weimer stated Dick Grout has been clear to him that the Department of Ecology has
38 no interest in taking the lead.
39
40 Dick Grout, Department of Ecology Bellingham Office Manager, stated Ecology is the
41 least equipped to lead this issue. It has no asbestos experience in the agency. He
42 questions whether Ecology has statutory authority to do this kind of thing. Other big issues
43 in the state are managed either by local government or the EPA if it's a superfund site. The
44 local government has different statutory authority. When the Ecology asks for money from
45 the legislature, the legislature always asks how much is passed through to local
46 governments. That's what his agency does. It is fundamentally a regulatory agency, but
47 also plays a large role in providing technical assistance and securing financial assistance to
48 local governments. In this process, Ecology has tried to do those two things for the County.
49
50 Ecology staff hired a consultant to develop a preliminary work plan in consultation
51 with County staff. The work plan will include a short-term solution for management while
52 they figure out a long -term solution.
53
54 Ecology and the Governor's staff interpreted Executive Kremen's letter as the
55 County's request for Ecology to take over the project. That is not Ecology's role. Ecology
56 will continue to work with the County to find the money for the issue. Whoever takes the
57 lead will have to hire a full -time staff person who has expertise in this kind of work.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 6
1
2 Brenner stated the EPA doesn't want to deal with this. She asked if the State
3 Department of Health can be a lead. It's a health issue. Grout stated he can't speak for the
4 State Department of Health. Health is only one part of the issue. The State Department of
5 Health doesn't have the capacity or authority to deal with any of the other issues. Other
6 issues include managing the site and project.
7
8 Brenner stated that's completely and only a health issue. Grout stated it's also a
9 sediment management and flooding issue.
10
11 Brenner stated they could prevent the flooding issue if they could do something with
12 the sediment.
13
14 Weimer stated the letter is addressed to the Governor's Office. They can rewrite the
15 letter. He will not bring this letter forward to the full Council.
16
17 Grout stated a realistic possibility that the Department of Ecology will be the lead for
18 all the State agencies. Right now, Ecology and the State Department of Health are the only
19 State agencies involved.
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber stated let the letter go and not get involved in the Executive's
22 letter, but continue to promote local action and seek outside funding.
23
24
25 OTHER BUSINESS
W
27 There was no other business.
28
29
30 ADJOURN
31
32 e meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
3
34
35
36 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
37
38
39 ATTEST: 0%%%.
40 �. •..,.., �,
41 .��1�.•�HAT ••. i
42
43
44 —
45 Danra Brogyn -�9'4 CIqk
614 , 111V to
z1f.-'rfrrrnarn+��
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
th Fleet od, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 7