HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 21 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 November 21, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Barbara Brenner None
11 Dan McShane
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Carl Weimer
16 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
19
20 1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON
21 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, `SUNRISE MEADOWS ", FILED BY
22 HARBORSIDE LLC (AB2006 -427)
23
24 Martin Blackman, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
25 report and stated staff doesn't have any issues. An easement on the site is reserved for
26 future use.
27
28 Brenner asked the total number of lots. Blackman stated there are 45 total lots.
29
30 Brenner asked if the applicant totally agreed to put the playground in the center.
31 Blackman stated that's correct. It's in a central location.
32
33 Brenner stated they have an agreement with Fire District 13. She asked if the Fire
34 District could service it with staff, and why that is a problem.
35
36 ]on Sitkin, attorney, stated the Fire District had a number of these projects go
37 through at once, and made the same effort to resolve issues. This one project stepped up
38 first to resolve the issues, and indicated agreement with the Fire District.
39
40 Brenner stated this is in an urban growth area. She asked why a note shall be
41 placed on the front of the plat prohibiting accessory dwelling units. She asked why that
42 wasn't negotiated. Hart stated that may have been a request of the applicant.
43
44 Brenner asked if that could be amended. Blackman stated he'd have to ask staff
45 how that came about. The Council can amend it.
46
47 McShane asked if a new State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review would be
48 required if the Council made that recommendation. Blackman stated it would not. It was
49 reviewed as an urban scale project. The zone is urban residential mixed, six units per acre
50 (URM -6). With the amount of wetlands and buffers, there is some limit to the number of
51 houses that can be developed.
52
53 Brenner stated the majority of the people in the Birch Bay area are in favor of
54 accessory dwelling units. It's appropriate.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 1
1
2 Petur Sim, David Evans and Associates, stated he represents the applicant. It's a
3 standard condition staff puts on the subdivisions. It's up to the applicant to request
4 permission to pursue accessory dwelling units (ADU's). Some of these lots are 4,500
5 square feet in size, and are not appropriate for ADU. Some lots will be appropriate for
6 them.
7
8 Brenner asked why the County makes it a condition of a planned unit development
9 (PUD) in an urban growth area. She moved to delete recommendation 17.
10
11 Fleetwood stated he is opposed to the motion until he learns from staff the reason
12 for the condition.
13
14 Motion carried 2 -1 with Fleetwood opposed.
15
16 Brenner moved to recommend approval as amended to the full Council.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Blackman read the Whatcom County Code (WCC) section that says the accessory
21 dwelling units are the option of the developer.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: This item was further discussed, below.)
24
25 2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE /TIMBER,
26 OPEN SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE /FARM AND AGRICULTURAL
27 CONSERVATION (AB2006 -435)
28
29 McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council, as recommended by
30 the Planning Commission.
31
32 Brenner stated she supports the motion for all applications except one.
33
34 Elizabeth Olsen, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the
35 application in question is the Nielson Brothers Open Space Timber application. The Planning
36 Commission recommended denial. She recommends that it be approved. The Planning
37 Commission denied it for reasons that appear to be slightly arbitrary and capricious.
38
39 Brenner stated that the applicant meets the requirements. If it fits all the
40 requirements, they aren't supposed to pick and choose who they like and don't like.
41
42 McShane amended his motion to recommend approval of the resolution to the full
43 Council, except regarding the Nielson Brothers application. Approve the Nielson Brothers
44 application for Open Space Timber.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 Fleetwood asked the effect of this to overall revenues. Olsen stated that information
49 is on Council packet page 258. There are few open space /open space applications in the
50 county. She's made sure the public gets in return whatever value there is on the land.
51
52 McShane stated it's not a drop in revenue, but a shift in who pays the taxes. The
53 public gains the open space for an incremental tax increase.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 2
I Brenner stated this is a lot cheaper than a purchase of development right (PDR) or a
2 transfer of development right (TDR).
3
4
5 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, COMPREHENSIVE
6 PLAN
7
8 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
9 THE UR AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT CLUSTERING,
10 RESERVE TRACTS AND WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
11 (AB2006 -406)
12
13 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
14 and stated the intent is to minimize the number of suburban sized lots in the urban growth
15 area (UGA), so the areas can be fully developed at an urban density. The Planning
16 Commission recommended that the lots be clustered together and that the reserve tract be
17 unbuildable. The Planning and Development Committee requested a proposal for the
18 reserve tract to be buildable with one home. The changed text is in a memo he sent to the
19 Council dated November 20, 2006. He read from the memo (on file).
20
21 Brenner stated this is well done. She will support it. It talks about the reserve tract
22 being a building lot as long as it meets conditions.
23
24 Crawford stated it has to meet one of the conditions, not all three conditions.
25
26 Brenner stated it seems that item C should apply when doing the construction itself.
27 There may be an environmental reason for it to not be contiguous to the other houses.
28 Aamot stated there is more flexibility if there are no houses on the property at all.
29
30 Brenner stated allow it as an option if someone can show that it won't fit. If they are
31 going this route, they should have a safeguard if someone can prove it. Aamot stated they
32 are talking about a density of one unit per five acres. One would have to have at least ten
33 acres to get two lots. There may be situations like that, but it's not often.
34
35 Brenner asked what would happen that were a scenario. Aamot stated the person
36 may not get the full density.
37
38 McShane stated there are times when a person just can't get the density amount the
39 property is zoned for. The County can't guarantee the density all the time.
40
41 Crawford referenced Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.20.320(2)(c)(iii) in the
42 memo. He asked what a negative impact to agricultural structures would be. He asked if
43 the zoning administrator would want more clarification on what that means. There are a lot
44 of requirements when there are agricultural uses that have to be distanced from certain
45 structures. Reference another chapter of the zoning code that has applicable setbacks.
46 Aamot stated the idea was to give an out if there is an operating farm.
47
48 Brenner stated they want to make sure that whatever goes in does not negatively
49 impact agricultural activities.
50
51 McShane stated that in all likelihood, the cluster will be near agricultural activities,
52 but they don't want the cluster up against the activity. He's pleased with the language as it
53 is in the substitute version from the memo. He moved to recommend approval of the
54 substitute version submitted by staff in the memo to the Council dated November 20, 2006.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 3
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated there must be a public hearing.
McShane stated his motion includes a recommendation for setting a public hearing.
C MMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER`S RECOMMENDATION ON
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, "SUNRISE MEADOWS", FILED BY
HARBORSIDE LLC (AB2006 -427)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item continued from earlier in the meeting.)
Martin Blackman, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the zoning
of this site is UR -6. There are 12 acres in the wetlands. The net developable acreage is
eight acres. At the UR -6 density, 48 units could be developed, and 45 units are proposed.
It is true that some accessory dwelling units could be allowed in this density. Three lots
could have a provision allowing an ADU if the lot is large enough. If the owner wishes to
pursue that option, future design and development standards should be developed to more
proactively pursue ADU options. In this case, the lots are small. Three or four lots may be
eligible. The Council can consider a revised condition for recommendation 17, `Three larger
lots in the southeast corner could apply for an accessory dwelling unit if they..so desire. A
..
Brenner stated a covenant is still created that prohibits the ADU's in an urban area.
She hopes the applicant would agree to removing recommendation 17. There are ways to
have ADU's on very small lots. Don't prohibit them at all. Keep silent on the issue, if the
applicant is willing. Blackman stated striking recommendation 17 could be adequate.
Brenner stated don't force a covenant on that area.
McShane stated it sounds like they are close to density. Greater density may be
accomplished through in -fill. Blackman stated it's up to the owner. He can't speak to the
owner.
Doug Robertson, attorney, stated he represents the applicant. The applicant is not
opposed to deleting recommendation 17.
McShane asked if ten ADU's would be allowed if applied for, hypothetically.
Blackman stated they would not be allowed because they would exceed density.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Blackman continued to state that there are four larger lots in the southeast corner,
not three. If accessory dwelling units were allowed for all lots, there would be traffic impact
issues. They'd have to look at the SEPA again. However, now they're talking about a
maximum of three that would be allowed.
Brenner stated she doesn't like to have absolutes, especially with accessory dwelling
units. Leave it blank.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 4
1 John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that when
2 they are reviewing plats and planned unit developments (PUD's), it's important to know
3 exactly how many units they are approving. Then, they can base the reviews and
4 concurrency analysis on the potential build out of those lots. That's important for
5 concurrency. It may not be a big deal for this project. However, it may be an issue in the
6 future.
7
8 Brenner stated she understands the need to be specific. However, leave it open.
9 There will be people who want to do it and people who don't. They don't know the
10 dynamics of the future, especially in Birch Bay. Don't preclude the options.
11
12 Blackman stated assess it for the maximum potential that can be accommodated.
13
14
15 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
16
17 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING, ON AN
18 INTERIM BASIS, WCC, TITLE 20, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 20.78
19 ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ENSURING THAT
20 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE OR PROVIDED
21 CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH
22 MANAGEMENT ACT (AB2006 -443)
23
24 (The Council will introduce this ordinance at its evening's meeting, with a hearing to
25 be scheduled for December 5, 2006 or a later date.)
26
27 Brenner stated she doesn't see that they're doing anything but letting people know
28 that the County is going to do something. She doesn't see specifics. It's more like a code
29 scru b.
30
31 Fleetwood stated Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.78.050 has teeth.
32
33 Brenner stated they already have that through the State Environmental Policy Act
34 (SEPA).
35
36 Fleetwood stated this includes more opportunities for mitigation.
37
38 Brenner stated this is a summary or preface of what they will do. She asked if this
39 has any more teeth than what the County already has in place.
40
41 Doug Robertson, attorney, stated it provides teeth and is beyond SEPA. It needs to
42 be adopted. Through SEPA, an applicant can do a very accurate traffic study, and the
43 County is limited in the amount of mitigation it requires. Concurrency allows the County to
44 look at the cumulative effects of the area. The language can be loosened up from what is in
45 SEPA to decide the impacts. It provides better defense so the County is not defending SEPA
46 appeals. However, they need to cleanup the language. There are some technical
47 shortcomings.
48
49 Brenner stated she doesn't agree that this will do anything right now. Robertson
50 stated the County's overall plans establish concurrency throughout an area. That is the
51 difference. This is the preliminary stage. He gave an example of how this ordinance is
52 applied.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 5
McShane referenced WCC section 20.78.030(2). He asked if that section applies to
someone who asks for an extension and has a previously applied for long plat or planned
unit development that needs additional work before being fully vested.
John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it allows the
County to exempt projects that may not be complete within the timeframe of the permit,
but before the permit expires. Some permits may be renewed. The action of renewing the
permits would not require any evaluation.
McShane asked about the type of application that has to go to the County Council for
renewal or extension. Everett stated this ordinance says that action isn't required.
McShane stated the Council has conditioned past extensions. He asked why
extensions would be granted without concurrency, if they recognize a concurrency problem
in a given area. Everett stated the intent is that the project is substantially unchanged
when renewed, so the impact is similar or the same when the permit was issued. This
section doesn't trump transportation capacity certificates.
McShane referenced section 20.78.030(5)(b) about subdivision of land that results in
four or fewer dwelling units. He asked if that is because they think short-plats don't cause
much of an impact. Everett stated five trips in one direction on a road is about where there
is a measurable impact to a road, according to transportation engineers. If the project
doesn't result in at least five trips moving in one direction, then it is considered to not have
an impact. Once the impact fee is in place, those smaller projects can contribute toward the
overall concurrency issue. They just don't need to hire a traffic engineer to do that kind of
analysis.
Brenner asked if regular renewals happen just through the administration. Everett
stated most do.
Crawford asked if there is a restriction on the remaining property in a short-plat, so
it can't be further subdivided for another period of time. Everett stated that short-plats is
an issue for which they will at look a solution when the staff revises this ordinance. They
may have to look at other aspects of the subdivision code.
Crawford stated he is not opposed to short- plats. However, protect the people who
legitimately want to do a short-plat, versus a larger developer who tries to take advantage
of avoiding concurrency. It seems like they are allowing some exemptions. He is looking at
protecting the cost of short- platting from ballooning. The exemptions are listed in section
20.78.030(5), but then subsection (6) says that they might have to be required anyway.
He's uncomfortable with that. Everett stated that this section says that the only thing they
want to do a concurrency evaluation on are projects that have an impact to a transportation
facility. The reason for subsection six is to address a six- or seven -lot plat that may not
send more than five peak hour trips in one direction. The developer would have to make
that case. Subsection six allows the County to consider specific cases.
Everett stated the language in subsection (6) is for projects that are not already
specifically exempted.
Crawford stated it's important to spell out the director's responsibilities, as literally
as they can in these types of situations.
McShane stated he is fine with the language the way it is.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 6
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated gated short-plats have a serious impact on traffic. They
2 backup the main road. They should have to mitigate for the impacts.
3
4 Brenner stated deal with that through impact fees. She moved to amend section
5 20.78.030(6), "Except in the case. of 20..78:030(5)(x). and (b) above, the director, at his 'or
6 her discretion, At his e- he- ` iSEFet`"", the di-^ ^F ^- may require...."
7
8 Crawford stated that traffic impact fees will apply to all developments. Everett
9 stated that is a Council policy decision.
10
11 Crawford stated this ordinance does not preclude a regulation that every
12 development will have to pay. Subsection (7) talks about using these short-plats as part of
13 the computation when studies are needed. There is a difference between requiring a study
14 and having to pay the fees. Don't add the burden of a study on a development of four or
15 fewer houses.
16
17 Caskey - Schreiber stated don't exclude subsections (a) and (b). There are 210
18 pending short-plat applications. This is the way the rural county is subdividing. They add
19 up. They impact the roads. They should pay their cost. She's comfortable with the added
20 expense.
21
22 McShane stated the language as it is written is fine. The director may step in only in
23 extremely rare instances, such as back -to -back short- plats, which are prohibited. Blackman
24 stated he has recently seen back -to -back short-plats that avoid the long -plat procedure.
25 They must control those. He is keeping records on them for the rewrite.
26
27 Crawford stated he would like to see those records and know how they are getting
28 through.
29
30 Motion failed I -2 with Brenner in favor.
31
32 Everett stated there is one text change he recommends, suggested by the Public
33 Works Department, to amend WCC 20.78.100(27), "Transportation Facilities means all
34 principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials; major collectors, and minor collectors
35 in Whatcom County as defined in the atien
36 ctienal Gessifleatien GawdeliRer, Whatcom County "
ount "Development Standards chapter five
37 "Road Standards" incorporated herein by this reference."
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
40
41 McShane moved to amend WCC 20.78.100(27), "Transportation Facilities means all
42 principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, major collectors, and minor collectors
43 in Whatcom County as defined in the
44 FuRetmenal I^'...� s'fieat'en Guidelines, Wha-tcom County 'Development Standards chapter, five
45 "Road Standards" incorporated herein by this reference."
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49 Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset. Drive, Bellingham, stated concurrency, under State law, is
50 meant to enable growth, not stop growth, in areas where they've directed growth to go.
51 The Comprehensive Plan is to assure that concurrency can be achieved. If concurrency
52 can't be provided in a growth area due to an unforeseen circumstance, the County is
53 required to formulate a new plan to allow the growth or designate another place for that
54 growth to go. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is very specific about that.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 7
1
2 McShane asked in what way did today's discussion include the idea of stopping
3 growth using concurrency. Mr. Petree is-making a presumption. It's clear to the Council
4 that this will encourage growth. Counties that have higher percentages of traffic impact fee
5 collection are growing rapidly. Petree stated he's pleased that they all understand that the
6 purpose of concurrency is to encourage growth where it's planned.
7
8 Brenner stated concurrency isn't to encourage growth. It is to ensure that growth
9 pays its fair share. There isn't anything in the Growth Management Act that says
10 concurrency will be used to encourage growth.
11
12 Caskey - Schreiber stated she Never viewed this as a way to slow down growth. It's
13 about putting the costs of the growth where they should be, instead of on the taxpayers.
14 Concurrency will help hopefully them put growth where they want it, and also mitigate some
15 effects of growth on communities such as Birch Bay and Kendall.
16
17 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs Director,
18 stated it looks life she can work with and tweak this ordinance. She will provide
19 information on concurrency. Concurrency is under the Growth Management Act as a WAC.
20 It is to keep the wheels moving. It's not about paying. That is what impact fees are for.
21 There is a provision in the WAC that says concurrency can't be used as a stop- growth
22 measure.
23
24 Brenner stated is about making growth happen smoother, not about encouraging or
25 discouraging growth.
26
27
28 OTHER BUSYNESS
004'1
30 There was no other business.
31
32
33 AD30URN
34
35 he me adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
3
37
38
39 Jill ixon, Minutes Transcrip ion
40
41
43 A-r,os'c W HA rcoG'L
44 V • O..1N C�
45
46
47
48 Djna I a/ fo un. 1 Clerk sis
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL.
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFleetod, Commi tee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 11/21/2006, Page 8