HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 24 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 October 24, 2006
5
6 Committee Member Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Barbara Brenner None
11 Seth Fleetwood
12
13 Also Present:
14 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
15 Sam Crawford
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
19
20 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
21 FROM LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH AREA TO SHORT TERM URBAN GROWTH
22 AREA FOR APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES WITHIN THE SOUTHERN PERIPHERY
23 OF THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN, SOUTH OF HOLEMAN ROAD (AB2006-
24 386)
25
26 Elizabeth Olson, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
27 report. There has been an oversight during the process of putting together the community
28 plan. The property owner thought he was in the short-term planning area, but was in the
29 long -term planning area, and couldn't continue building his residence. Over half the lots on
30 White Horn Way in the long -term urban growth area were already built upon and serviced
31 with sewer and water. There must have been an oversight. Place this into the short-term
32 urban growth area. The Planning Commission agrees with the staff recommendation.
33
34 McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
35
36 Alan Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Avenue, stated he was out of the country when the
37 Planning Commission made this decision, and would have vehemently opposed this
38 decision. First, think about the outcome. Because a mistake was made in allowing this
39 man to build. The potential is another loss of 34 acres of trees on Point Whitehorn. In
40 January 2003, the Council made a similar decision to convert a longterm planning area into
41 a short-term planning area, which encompassed the Malibu Estates plat. That decision
42 resulted in 28 acres of trees being eliminated. The result, which is his main concern, will be
43 101 lots. He showed a photograph of the result of the development. By anyone's
44 definition, it is sprawl. Impervious surfaces are created. The staff report discusses the
45 Malibu and See Haven plat, but not this plat. The staff report also does not discuss the
46 contiguous 95 acres that were taken out of the Birch Bay urban growth area when the plan
47 was approved. This is contiguous to the 34 acres. He asked the reason for the selective
48 analysis in the staff report. This decision will enable this to happen again. If a wrong was
49 done to this gentleman and a permit was approved in a long -term growth area, two wrongs
50 don't make a right. It's not are oversight. That is 34 acres of trees. There are for sale
51 signs on this lot. If the County approves 34 acres to be changed from long -term planning
52 area to short-term planning area, someone will develop the lot at a density of urban
53 residential, four units per acre (UR -4).
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 1
Brenner asked if there are tree retention regulations. Olsen stated he believes there
are, but Point Whitehorn has been subdivided since 1997. Many houses have already been
built.
Friedlob stated that the Birch Bay Stormwater Plan hasn't been considered in this
analysis. It talks about the sensitive nature of Point Whitehorn and how the removal of
trees will contribute to stormwater runoff. Also, staff is working on a tree retention
ordinance. He asked if they need this amendment now. Don't enable a condition now that
will result in many more lots being developed. The site is completely wooded. There is an
alternative to this decision.
McShane asked about the area being wooded. According to the map he has, it
appears to be all platted, with the exception of some lots that could be broken into two or
three more lots. Olsen stated those lots can't be subdivided further. The lots at the far
eastern end have already been subdivided. One of those lots is the lot that is in the long-
term urban growth area, and the person can't finish his house.
McShane stated it appears on the map that the lots are all divided already, and
about 60 percent of the lots have houses already. Friedlob stated this person's house is
right at the boundary of some woods. He indicated the location on the map. This decision
will enable anything. The trees will come down. The property owner removed all the trees
from his lot. They found after that he shouldn't be building in the first place. The
correction will allow everyone to move trees and build on their lots.
McShane stated it seems that the lots are already there. They exist, whether or not
they are in the long -term or short-term area. He asked if the issue is tree - retention.
Friedlob stated it is.
McShane stated he's heard that issue of tree retention from many people in the Birch
Bay area.
Friedlob stated he is very concerned about the potential outcome based on the
precedent of contiguousness.
Brenner asked how many more lots can be developed if they convert from long -term
to short-term. Olsen stated the maximum would be about six extra lots.
Brenner asked if the only reason the person can't develop is because he can't get
sewer and water. Olsen stated the person can't get sewer.
Brenner stated the Council can't preclude someone from developing an existing lot of
record. She asked if the lot owner can put in a septic system. Olsen stated the issue is
that the owner is in the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. However, he is in the long-
term planning area.
Brenner stated that doesn't preclude the owner from building. She asked if the
Council can deny the change from long -term to short-term planning area, and allow the
owner to develop onsite septic and water. Olsen asked what they would do with the rest of
the plat of Point Whitehorn.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 2
1 McShane stated the plat to the west has houses. He asked about the existing
2 houses. Olson stated the houses built before the end of 2404 have both public sewer and
3 water.
4
5 McShane stated that someone who builds on those undeveloped lots would have to
6 have a septic system. Olsen stated that is correct.
7
8 Brenner stated they don't want to lose the trees or make development more dense.
9 She asked if the County can negotiate with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District for
10 health and safety reasons. That was the whole reason the Council took out Point
11 Whitehorn. Olsen stated Point Whitehorn is quite a bit away.
12
13 McShane stated one reason was that the Point Whitehorn area wasn't covered by the
14 Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. Also, they felt the urban growth area was big enough.
15
16 Crawford stated there are sewer and water services in the streets and 35 built
17 houses. He asked how this could have been an oversight. Olsen stated that on a small
18 scale map, the development would be hard to see. She doesn't know what was brought up
19 during the meetings. It's possible that those in the subdivision didn't think this would
20 happen.
21
22 Crawford stated he doesn't know how they missed it.
23
24 McShane stated someone could get a building permit today, but couldn't get sewer
25 and water, which essentially prevents development of those lots currently.
26
27 Brenner asked what they want to do to prevent tree removal.
28
29 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated ordinances are in
30 place. The problem is with the existing ordinance and stormwater special district standards.
31 Watershed staff say the ordinance covers parcels that are two to five acres in size or if
32 within 200 feet of the shoreline master program areas. Those are the two ways to retain
33 trees. They want to docket an additional low impact development ordinance and a tree
34 protection ordinance. That is work to schedule into the next two -year process.
35
36 Brenner asked if the County can negotiate with the property owner and the sewer
37 district on tree retention and low impact development. Hart stated the area looks like it is
38 in the short-term UGA. Large houses are being developed. There are some trees that are
39 preexisting on that lot. The larger issue is one of people who have the expectation that
40 when the County passed this, they were vested in the UGA. It's more of a mapping error.
41
42 Fleetwood asked about Planning Commission approval. Olsen stated the Commission
43 felt that there was an error. Even Dave Pros said he would recommend approval, even
44 though he is against turning the long -term area into a short -term area. He felt that this is a
45 scrivener's error.
46
47 McShane stated he recognizes that tree coverage is a value in the community.
48 Windfall is also a big issue out there. He looked at the Malibu division a week after they'd
49 cleared the trees, and much of it blew over. He is most concerned about the stormwater
50 issues and regulation in that area. Hart stated the stormwater plan is complete, but not yet
51 adopted.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 3
I McShane stated he is interested to see if they can make this change from long -term
2 to short-term contingent upon the final adoption of the Birch Bay stormwater plan. Damage
3 from stormwater is incremental. Many lots are left to be developed. They could be
4 developed in a way that is much more protective from a stormwater perspective. The plan
5 is done, but just needs to go through the process. Hart stated they do have a special
6 stormwater district ordinance on the books. It doesn't apply to this situation. He's not sure
7 the new one would apply. He can find out if it can be applied to a development agreement.
8 This would go into uncharted territory, and he would need legal counsel,
9
10 McShane stated keep this area as a long -term planning area until the time the
11 stormwater plan is approved. Hart stated they would have to define what approval means.
12 It could be the adoption of the existing study- as a reference document to the
13 Comprehensive Plan.
14
15 Olsen asked for which areas they want information.
16
17 Brenner stated that she wants to see the information in any areas that have erosion
18 problems.
19
20 McShane stated many trees went down at the Malibu site.
21
22 Crawford stated 35 of the total 72 lots have been developed. He asked if the
23 committee is saying that it will not correct the oversight and will condition approval on new
24 stormwater regulations, even though the development plat has been there for years. That
25 seems unfair. He hopes they notify 37 property owners that the County is going to apply
26 different standards because of an oversight.
27
28 McShane stated it is an oversight, and he doesn't have any problem changing it back
29 to a short-term planning area. He also recognizes that decisions were made years ago that
30 did not take the stormwater implications into account. He knows there is a problem out
31 there. Properties have been harmed by poor management of water runoff from that area.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
34
35 McShane continued to state that they didn't used to know about that problem. Now
36 that they know about the issue, there is no problem with addressing it because of all the
37 existing homes that could potentially have problems if stormwater isn't managed the way it
38 should be.
39
40 Crawford stated he's also received complaints from constituents. Deal with a zoning
41 designation or Comprehensive Plan change exclusive of that issue. Look at new and old
42 regulations to find discrepancies. There may be some regulatory action the Council can
43 take if it is exacerbating a design flaw out there. However, don't condition an oversight that
44 should be corrected. Don't hold up this correction based on stormwater regulations.
45 Address the two issues separately.
46
47 Brenner stated someone did not buy, plat, and develop this area at one time. It
48 was a bunch of land that got platted. People are individually buying and developing the
49 lots. The rules do change. The condition could be voluntary. It could be a blessing for
50 anyone living down slope. It's not a development. It's individual lots.
51
52 Caskey- Schreiber stated there is no criteria for converting land from long -term to
53 short-term criteria. Any future conversions should have to adhere to any recent
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 4
1 modifications of development standards, design standards, stormwater management, and
2 any other regulation. She likes the idea of making the change contingent.
3
4 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the lots were
5 probably platted with the idea that they would hook up to sewer service. They may not
6 have room for a septic system, which may be a problem for this particular homeowner.
7
8 When they talked about converting areas from a long -term planning area to a short-
9 term planning area, they mostly talk about vacant land, not platted land. This area is
10 different because it is platted and has sewer and water services to the site. It is already
11 been converted. The question is how to address what may or may not have been an
12 oversight. If it wasn't an oversight, question the basis for the decision.
13
14 Olsen stated the staff report includes the difference between the short-term and
15 long -term urban growth areas. In this case, the description of the short-term urban growth
16 area is much more correct that the other description.
17
18 McShane asked about the Birch Bay Stormwater Plan.
19
20 Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the plan
21 is complete. The Executive has approved the recommendations. The Public Works
22 Department has brought forward additional service requests to address implementation of
23 the plan. The plan does not have any regulatory changes. It has recommendations for
24 regulatory changes. They have not been put on the Planning Commission or Council
25 docket. Through the budget, bring forward a resolution adopting the plan by reference,
26 including the principles and recommendations. That would provide the County some
27 regulatory authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). It would then be the
28 policy of Whatcom County to follow this document. It would give the SEPA official the
29 ability to require developments to follow this document. That doesn't take care of the single
30 family residences or other things that are exempt from SEPA. There are other
31 recommendations, such as a low impact development regulation and a tree retention
32 ordinance. Those are on Jeff Chalfant's work plan. He has to first complete the Shorelines
33 Ordinance, then do channelization under the Critical Areas Ordinance. They are talking
34 about the end of 2007 at the earliest.
35
36 Another big part of the management plan is establishing a flood sub -zone and a fee,
37 hiring a watershed keeper, and other educational and capital improvement projects.
38
39 He plans to provide an update to the committee or Council on this plan and the
40 Lummi Island issue, which is just about done. Since this has come up, he will bring the
41 plan to the councilmembers. He will then be available for questions. This is a significant
42 plan. The people of Birch Bay have done an incredible amount of work.
43
44 Fleetwood stated that by adopting the Birch Bay Stormwater Plan, they aren't going
45 to achieve the goal of allowing this guy to go forward in a reasonably near term with certain
46 stormwater protections. It requires regulations that won't be done for a year. If they are
47 going to achieve the object sought by Councilmember McShane, they have to do it by some
48 other means.
49
50 Crawford stated these are already platted lots. They're talking about building permit
51 applications. Middleton stated that this document does not affect that, whether it is short-
52 term or long -term urban growth area. This document goes beyond the bounds of the urban
53 growth area. It includes the entire Birch Bay watershed, Birch Point, and Point Whitehorn.
Pianning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 5
The low impact development regulations and tree retention will cover all the urban growth
area, short-term or long -term. The vast majority of the regulations affect the zone,
whether it is in the short-term or long -term area. Most clearing permits would not change.
They already plan to change the tree retention ordinance. The person who can do that is
not available.
Brenner stated there doesn't seem to be a total commitment that tree retention is
what they want. According to Councilmember McShane, tree blow -down doesn't seem to
work. Another question is whether they want people in that area on public sewer and water
or on septic systems and wells. She asked which is better for preventing erosion.
Middleton stated there are too many variables to say one way or the other. A tree retention
ordinance has to take into account soil stability, blow -down potential, and other things.
Achieve the goals and objectives for the character of Birch Bay, while allowing people to use
their property in a safe way.
Brenner stated single family homes are exempt from SEPA.
McShane amended his motion to recommend approval when the Birch Bay
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan is adopted.
Fleetwood asked if there can be a resolution approving the plan in a couple of weeks.
Middleton stated there could be.
Hart stated they are waiting for a sewer connection on one. It is a septic system
going in, even though sewer is in the street. If there is a way to consider excluding the one
house that is already to that point, allow that one house. However, that may create other
problems.
McShane asked how many homes have been permitted in this area before the
mapping area was discovered. Olsen stated the eastern end was platted in the 1990's.
Point Whitehorn plat was done in 1997. A portion of See Haven was platted in 1957. There
are 71 lots. Of those, 36 have homes on them and seven have building permit applications.
In the last two years, six or seven have been permitted.
Friedlob stated he supports the motion. The Stormwater committee will work with
staff over the next two weeks to assure that a meaningful resolution is put in front of the
Council.
Crawford stated nothing in the plan affects anything on a building permit. The
question is why they are delaying. If it isn't going to affect anything, go ahead and approve
the change.
Fleetwood asked the effect this condition will have. Hart stated they have to take
small steps to get to their goal. This is a small step. Passing the resolution to adopt the
plan by reference is a building block for the tree retention work that will begin.
Fleetwood asked if this condition will insure that this particular development will
build in a way to protect Birch Bay. Middleton stated it is the first step toward
implementing the regulations but it is not land use control.
Fleetwood asked if this developer will be subject to a higher standard than he would
otherwise be subjected.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 6
1 McShane stated there is potential for a subdivision in one area. Therefore, SEPA
2 would apply.
3
4 Crawford stated make the motion apply to just subdivisions. He would support that.
5 He is concerned that they are being unfair to the owners of the 30 remaining lots.
6
7 Brenner stated subdivisions have already happened.
8
9 Caskey- Schreiber stated the development could be denser than what it is.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
14 ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY ADDING ON -FARM PROCESSING TO CHAPTER
15 20.36.100 — ADMINISTRATIVE USES, 20.36.150 — CONDITIONAL USES,
16 20.40.100 — ACCESSORY USES, 20.40.138 — ADMINISTRATIVE USES,
17 DELETING SELECT TEXT FROM 20.36.162, DELETING 20.40.158, ADDING
18 AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE DEFINITIONS TO
19 CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS AND ADDING LOT COVERAGE RESTRICTION
20 TO CHAPTER 20.40.450 (AB2006 -388)
21
22 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated gave a staff
23 report. The rural section now requires administrative review instead of outright approval.
24 In the agricultural section, what was administratively approved now requires a conditional
25 use permit. There is additional language about seasonal employees. The Agricultural
26 Advisory Committee recommends the ordinance.
27
28 Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council. She asked if the people
29 who asked for this are okay with the ordinance. Olason stated he believes they are.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
34 ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY ADDING NEW LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE
35 RESTRICTION OF SALE OF MULTI - FAMILY FARM WORKER HOUSING
36 STRUCTURES TO CHAPTER 20.36.140 — CONDITIONAL USES, AND
37 EXPANDING THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE PURCHASERS TO INCLUDE
38 INDIVIDUALS OR ENTERPRISES WHOSE PRIMARY BUSINESS IS
39 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (AB2006 -389)
40
41 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
42 They have added language to make sure this applies only to farming operators, not housing
43 investors. It will remain a conditional use permit.
44
45 Brenner moved to recommend adoption to the full Council.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49 Addendum:
50 4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INCENTIVES FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENCES,
51 INCLUDING COTTAGES AND CARRIAGE HOUSES (AB2006 -346)
52
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 7
1 Fleetwood stated he wants to delete the second and third resolved statements.
2 After hearing from the Planning Commission, he is not necessarily inclined to say that he
3 supports incentives. He hasn't participated in the discussion.
4
5 Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
6
7 Fleetwood moved to amend, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the
8 Whatcom County Council supports consideration of incentives...." and "BE IT FURTHER
9 RESOLVED that the County Council supporters consideration of incentives to relieve
10 concerns...."
11
12 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated staff will provide an
13 analysis of where accessory dwelling units are allowed. The question is where and how they
14 should be allowed in rural areas. The Council and Planning Commission need data to see
15 what is happening with accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in the rural zones. They are trying
16 to push affordable housing on one hand. On the other hand, they are trying to balance
17 affordable housing with not creating to much development that would burden services.
18
19 Brenner accepted the motion as a friendly amendment to her motion.
20
21 McShane stated the current zoning allows ADU's. He is most interested in item six of
22 Exhibit A. Location has to do with affordable housing.
23
24 Brenner stated this is only for urban growth areas.
25
26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
27
28 Hart stated the question is defining the areas where the Council wants this to apply.
29 If they leave it as a UGA, that will include the two stand -alone UGA's and all the city UGA's.
30
31 Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to amend item two in Exhibit A,
32 "Appropriate zoning shall be aFeae in ahe urban growfhas
'..are where the county encourages
33 density and shall be a use by administrative approval. All other areas shall be governed by
34 existing regulations regarding accessory dwellings, including conditional use process."
35
36 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment
37
38 Motion to recommend approval to the full Council as amended carried
39 unanimously.
40
41
42 OTHER BUSINESS
43
44 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that if the Planning
45 Commission adopts the first three parts of the Bellingham urban growth area, which are the
46 land supply methodology recommendation, the land policy recommendation, and the map
47 recommendation, then have a study session or two in November. There is three years of
48 information to go through. Staff are writing the other pieces of the urban fringe pieces
49 now. As the Planning Commission finishes these three items, he will bring forward the
50 remaining chapters to the Planning Commission, then this committee.
51
52 Fleetwood asked if the recommendations would include recommendations on Caitec
53 and King Mountain. Hart stated they would. There will be many policy issues. They've
Planning and Development Committee, 10/24/2406, Page 8
1 done an environmental impact statement (EIS) with the City. The question is whether they
2 amend the EIS if they come up with something different from what the City wants to do. If
3 they start making a lot of changes to the three or four alternatives they've looked at, they
4 may come up with a new and preferred alternative, and may want to spend staff time
5 working on that new alternative.
6
7 McShane asked if the current EIS was (inaudible) once by the City. Hart stated the
8 City did not amend, but it did a draft an EIS, and then a final EIS (FEIS). They can always
9 amend the document to include another scenario. The City jumped in front of the County to
10 define the land supply and land use policies they want. The County may want to look at an
11 alternative that more closely resembles the direction that the County Council wants to
12 consider.
13
14 McShane stated that is difficult to do. Hart stated staff would be prepared to do
15 that.
16
17 McShane asked if the person doing that would be able to be at any Council meeting.
18 Hart stated that staff person would be available at meetings.
19
20 McShane stated he will bring up issues, raised by citizens to the City Planning
21 Commission, that weren't addressed in the first EIS, particularly regarding Lake Padden.
22
23 Fleetwood stated he would schedule a special meeting the afternoon of November
24 14, 2006.
25
26
27 ADJOURN
28
29 The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
30
31
32
33 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
35 .�``�'►'titiiiiiiil��,���
36 ATTESTS *,�� C: O [;�V�1�'�i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
37 �`� .• �ATC0 +.�����'•; WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
38 �•
39 J•4
40 ' U : •
41
42 Dand%BrovOp* s,' •, r4iI ; $rk AethFle9t'w'ood, Committee Cnair
43 S
Planning and Development Committee, 1012412006, Page 9