HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 11 20061
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
Public Works and Safety Committee
July 11, 2006
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Carl Weimer
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ON WEST ROAD (AB2006 -220)
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated State law allows the County to act as a
go- between for recuperation of costs by developers. He is available for questions. The
department's job is simply to verify that the project is legally able to apply for a
latecomer's, that the costs are appropriate, and that the benefit area is appropriate.
Brenner stated she would like to hear answers to the questions raised at the public
hearing. There were properties people felt did not appropriately belong in the benefit area.
She wants those questions answered.
Rutan stated there are three issues with latecomer's agreement. Two of the issues
have been dealt with. One issue is the benefit area. The Council can reject, accept, or
modify the area.
There was a comment from Nancy Evans at the public hearing about why Whatcom
County requires this. It's not a requirement. The developer meets the legal criteria to
apply. He read Ms. Evans' comments from the minutes.
Brenner stated the developer is doing a road to get him where he needs to go.
Putting that cost on the backs of people who already have their ingress and egress, without
the road, didn't seem right. Rutan stated that they could have done something that would
trip the requirement and benefit from this person doing the road. However, they don't have
to pay the fee unless they do something to trigger the requirement.
Brenner stated that they are talking about a narrow road that has to be widened.
The other people had another ingress and egress that was totally different from this road.
Mary White, Public Works Department, stated the only other way into this area is to
cross Dakota Creek, which would require a bridge.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 1
1 Brenner asked if every property being assessed has no other ingress or egress
2 presently, and if this is about widening the road. Rutan stated that is correct. If the
3 developer hadn't done this work, someone else in the area could have done work that would
4 trigger the widening requirement.
5
6 Brenner asked if this is about the private road. Rutan stated this is the public road
7 that provides access to their private roads.
8
9 White stated they still have to use West Road. She read the comments from Eric
10 Chesterley at the public hearing.
11
12 Brenner stated there could be different wording for the deeds that say future
13 improvements may trigger road improvements and latecomer fees. Rutan stated that would
14 be on every deed in the county. Every property has that potential. The intent of
15 latecomer's agreements is to prevent the first person developing in an area from paying the
16 costs for people who develop later. Lots that are already developed don't have to pay.
17 Whoever was first to develop in the area would have had to pay for the road.
1R
19 Crawford stated that Mr. Chesterley was told that the developer would pay the cost,
20 and now at the end, the developer is asking for a latecomer's agreement. Rutan stated the
21 developer asked him if the project meets the latecomer's agreement criteria, which it does.
22
23 White stated the developer did do improvements on the internal, private association
24 roads also.
25
26 Nancy Evans, Dakota Creek Community Association Treasurer, stated the association
27 put down gravel. Morning Star representatives said they would improve the roads after
28 they were done, at their cost. They never did any improvements that they promised.
29
30 Brenner stated any promises between the association and Morning Star would be a
31 civil matter.
32
33 Evans stated the association didn't have the funds to help Morning Star.
34
35 White stated the large parcel owned by Nancy Evans doesn't have access to the
36 internal roads, other than East Road. She may be able to subdivide and get access in the
37 future, but they don't know for sure. It would be the only access available. The two lots
38 outside of the boundary, below the Chesterley property, are being developed now.
39
40 Rutan stated staff recommends that the Council modify the boundary to include
41 those two lots. The Council would have to hold another public hearing.
42
43 Brenner stated modify the boundary to include every parcel that only can be
44 accessed from West Road. Rutan stated the developer can choose not to include any
45 property that could have been in the benefit area. The developer decided it's unlikely those
46 will develop. The more properties that are included in the area, the less expensive it is for
47 each parcel. If a property in the boundary area doesn't develop, the developer gets less
48 money reimbursed.
49
50 Brenner stated the County, not the developer, should do this. Rutan stated the
51 State law doesn't allow the County to do this. The developer would include lots that are
52 most likely to develop in 15 years. The County can add the lots to the south of the
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 2
Chesterley property. If those owners develop and build another access road, they don't
have to pay the latecomer's fee.
Crawford asked if the owners in the area named Cook have 24 potential lots or six
potential lots. White stated the Cook's have 24 potential lots, but the developer has chosen
to assess for only six lots.
Crawford stated the developer has already taken a look at this area in terms of what
may realistically be built.
Brenner stated the question is whether the Council agrees that this is realistic.
Rutan stated this is the developer's proposal. The Council has the ability to approve,
modify, or reject the proposal.
Brenner stated the Cook property may develop to a density higher than six units if it
gets services from Blaine.
V imer asked if the Mad�e�� property should b� Included because It may have access
from the portion of West Road that was not improved by this project. Rutan stated it is a
frontage issue.
Dale Buys, Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, stated there was a question of the Cook
property potential lots. Prior development has shown that urban residential, four units per
acre (UR4) zoning is being developed at a density of rural residential, one unit per acre
(RR1). All of the lots in this area are basically one acre in size. "f he developer chose to say
that future development would be similar.
Brenner stated someone may want to get the full zoning allowance in the future.
She asked if anyone talked to the Cook's about what they're planning. Buys stated they did
not. They have not done that depth of research on each parcel.
Brenner stated the Cook property could be developed at a higher density. They
should have asked Cook. Buys stated that to do this fairly, assume everyone will develop at
a density of one unit per acre. If this is a fair assessment, and the owners choose not to
develop, they don't pay the assessment.
Brenner stated she wants to modify the boundary to include the three lots south of
the Chesterley lot. It's what Mr. Rutan recommends. Rutan stated he misspoke. Including
those three lots isn't a recommendation. He only meant to bring to the Council's attention
that those three lots could potentially be inside the benefit area.
Brenner stated it wouldn't be fair to the people to not include those three lots.
White stated two of those three lots are being developed as single family lots.
Rutan stated those three lots already have their permits to proceed. They have
already passed the point by which this would be triggered. That's probably the reason why
the developer chose not to include those lots.
Nelson moved to recommend to the full Council to approve the latecomer's
agreement Exhibit A as presented by the developer.
Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 3
1
2 Brenner stated the changes could significantly reduce the amount everyone would
3 have to pay. She won't support the motion.
4
5 Nelson asked if the amendment would reduce the amount of money the developer
6 would collect by about $10,000. Buys stated the developer stands more of a chance of not
7 getting reimbursed for that amount of money.
8
9 Brenner stated the decision on the boundary didn't include the people in the area.
10 Only the developer was involved in making the boundary.
11
12 Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
13
14 Brenner stated she still wants to hear from people who want to speak. This will be
15 before the Council at the evening meeting.
16
17 Jim Buchanan, Morning Star Ventures, stated he is one of the developers. He never
18 said 11 would pay for all tl lese roads. He's not a developer. He's as truck- driver, and 11-11S
19 partner is a fisherman. He had one meeting with the neighborhood at one time to ask
20 about going together to pave all the roads. They never decided anything. The County
21 should revisit the short plat road improvement process regarding homeowner's associations,
22 which is making this difficult. They lie between his property and the West Road. He has to
23 go through their lots. He counted their lots to decide how wide the road needed to be.
24 There are 42 lots. Those owners can build all those houses and never contribute to the cost
25 of the road.
26
27 Brenner asked if that is true. Rutan stated private roads is a fire marshal issue.
28 County road standards require that even one lot can trigger it now.
29
30 Buchanan stated they paid over $75,000, a greater portion than the rest of the
31 property owners. If all the property owners pay, he and his partner will only get back
32 $60,000.
33
34 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
35
36 Buchanan continued to state that the County road has been there for 40 years. All
37 he did was create three lots. The fourth lot is on the north side of the creek, and doesn't
38 affect this area. If these people never develop, they will never pay the fee. People who are
39 already developed don't have to pay. The six densities assigned to his properties was done
40 by the County. The City of Blaine created a local improvement district (LID) for water for all
41 these properties. If Dakota Creek did not sit between his property and West Road, he
42 would only have had to build a 16 -foot gravel road. The people who are protesting
43 collectively own six lots. He's only creating three lots, yet he's perceived as a big
44 developer. They are just as much a developer as he is. He tried to work with the
45 neighborhood by copying the association's covenants. He has paid a fee to cross over
46 Dakota Creek roads the last eight years. That fee was approximately $75 per each of the
47 his five road use permits. Last summer, he got notice of a fee increase to $875 per year.
48 He doesn't have any houses back there. When this road is done, their properties will
49 increase in value. He is just trying to be fair.
50
51 Rutan stated the gray shaded properties on the map are the ones not to be
52 assessed. Dakota Creek flows through the area. If it didn't exist, the developer would have
53 access over it and built a 16 foot gravel road.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 4
1
2 Larry Chesterley, 4109 Red Cedar Road, stated the large Chesterley parcel has a
3 house on it. It is his parents home. Only two units are indicated because part of it is
4 developed. His parents put in the underground services originally in the area. They didn't
5 get any latecomer's fees for it, because it was done in 1994 and preceded the statute. His
6 father was instrumental in getting piped water in the area with a local improvement district,
7 although his father still uses a well. Morning Star has the benefit of that.
8
9 The County should arrange for access along East Road. The road at the top of the
10 Evans property is also called Flora Avenue and was cut off by the Interstate 5, which meant
11 the Evans' didn't have access to the back part of their property. People are using the old
12 East Road, which doesn't really exist. People are going down that road. That use will
13 increase. The County should develop that East Road. All of the lots should pay, but that's
14 not how the statute is written. The County should create a long -term plan to grant access
15 to all the residents without going through private property.
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
19
20 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING LUMMI ISLAND FERRY LANDING KAYAK /CANOE
21 LAUNCH SITE (AB2006 -283)
22
23 Brenner stated part of the desire is to do improvement on the Lummi Island side.
24
25 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, read a statement from Public Works Director
26 Jeff Monsen, who couldn't attend the meeting. The department isn't doing anything that will
27 preclude this access and will work with the Parks Department to include it in the Parks Plan.
28 Road funds cannot be used for such development.
29
30 Nelson stated the County owns property on the Gooseberry Point side. He asked if
31 the County can use it. Rutan stated it can, as part of the Parks Plan.
32
33 Ken Richardson, Public Works Department, stated there is property on the island, on
34 the land side of the road, where the parking lot is being constructed. On Gooseberry Point,
35 there is a piece of property at the end of Emma Road that has access to water, although
36 there are tideland issues.
37
38 Rutan read the statement about the Gooseberry Point side.
39
40 Crawford asked why this came up. Rutan stated they were looking at the parking
41 plan. The department was not developing a park facility. It is developing a Public Works
42 Department facility. The department understands the need and desire for a parks facility.
43 The departments meet weekly to discuss these issues.
44
45 Crawford stated they suddenly got a lot of emails, as if the County is supposed to
46 develop a launch site. In the Parks Comprehensive Plan, he assumes kayaking is
47 addressed.
48
49 Brenner stated she was contacted by people who are sending emails, so she
50 suggested that they come to a meeting and send letters.
51
52 Crawford asked the status of the Parks Plan.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 5
1 Mike McFarlane, Parks Department Director, stated water access is the number one
2 priority of the community. Staff purposely left the plan broad. There are many
3 opportunities from within the county. They haven't identified any location in the plan. The
4 plan indicates that there is a need for access on Lummi Island.
5
6 Crawford asked if they need to keep the ferry and kayakers separate, for safety. In
7 the past, but not lately, trespassing has been an issue. It would make sense to create an
8 acknowledged area for people to use that is safe and doesn't trespass. Work with the Parks
9 Department to include things like a picnic table and restroom.
10
11 Brenner stated have a place where people could lock up their boats so the owners
12 can frequent the stores and other tourist places on the island.
13
14 Tom Barrett, 1304 - 39th Street, Bellingham, stated he is a good kayaker and he
15 would be terrified to try and cross Gooseberry Point to Lummi Island. It is very dangerous
16 and windy. Have a nice kayak launch on Lummi Island for kayakers. He showed photos.
17 The kayaking community is asking for beach access in the ferry landing area. The current
18 access area is quit steep St ^p aiid rocky. I I There a vJ areas Ci�iSc to the fcri y landing that ar e
19 County property. When the County bought the parking area property, it also got the
20 tidelands. Have a gently sloping path parallel to the road and the beach. It's a perfect area
21 for kayaks. The best location is the location between the two evergreen trees. Consider a
22 ferry fee for a walk -on with a kayak. It would encourage people to not drive on, and allow
23 kayak portage. Kayaks know to be cautious around big boats. There won't be much
24 interaction between kayaks and the ferry. Safety is always a concern with kayakers. The
25 proposal would leverage existing ferries. All they're asking for is a path to the sandy beach
26 area. He understands that shoreline issues are tricky.
27
28 Steve Walker, 902 Wilson Avenue, stated it's a great idea to have an access in that
29 area. He runs trips in that area for university students. It is a missing link in the kayaking
30 opportunities in the area. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lost its
31 resources to care for its public campground at the south end of Lummi Island. People from
32 the community are doing the work, but access is missing. Design the parking lot in a way
33 that doesn't preclude future use to saltwater access.
34
35 Paul Luthold, City of Bellingham Parks Department, stated this is the best paddling
36 town in the nation, according to Outside Magazine. Kayaking is a great recreational activity
37 for a healthy community. It can provide prime economic benefits to the area. The City's
38 master planning process lists access to water and more trails as its top priorities. Water
39 trails are an aspect of trails in general. There are many requests for more water trails.
40
41 Mike Passo, 1015 Railroad Avenue, stated he owns a sea kayak company in town.
42 They provide day trips in the Bellingham area and multi -day trips in the San Juan islands.
43 From his perspective of bringing people into the area to do kayak trips, there is a lot of
44 interest in Lummi Island. They do many trips out there. He's only found two places to
45 launch legally. One of those is through a personal relationship at Willows Inn. The other
46 location is Church Beach. The church just lets the public use it, except on Sundays. This
47 access would be very handy. Often the west side is very windy, and the east side is
48 protected. Have a launch on the east side of the island.
49
50 Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated he speaks on behalf of
51 a number of private property owners. They would like to see any kayak access be at the
52 ferry dock site. Many people don't understand the tideland designations of Lummi Island.
53 It is unique on Lummi Island. The County may be able to install a walkway that angles
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 6
1 down to the beach from the ferry dock to the beach on the north. Kayakers won't get much
2 wake from the ferry down there.
3
4 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGING THE SPEED LIMIT FOR A SECTION OF
5 MARINE DRIVE FROM 40 TO 35 M.P.H. (AB2006 -285)
6
7 Brenner stated she likes to ride her bike on that section of the road, but doesn't do it
8 often because it is scary. She's not sure changing the speed limit would help with speeding,
9 but have Sheriff deputy presence to help with the speeders.
10
11 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated he hears this complaint from every
12 neighborhood out there. This section of road will be part of the Coast Millennium Trail. One
13 issue is the bridge over the railroad. They've considered an alternate access. This area will
14 continue to see recreational use.
15
16 Enforcement is key. People will drive a road at what is comfortable and safe. Make
17 a road safe for all users, especially pedestrians and bikes. No matter what the laws say, the
1 1,... F '4.. .J 4. ..Y will always The County 11 L_ J 1_•1._
1V law of gravity and momentum will always will. he County will sign the road as a Dike
19 route, use the double width fog line as a designated bike route, and advise people to
20 dismount the bike and walk across the bridge. As the County bike lanes move out from the
21 city limits, there is capacity to do things using grant funds.
22
23 If they lower the speed limit, the speed differential becomes a problem. They will
24 get some people who will drive at the naturally comfortable speed, and others will drive the
25 limit. Therefore, people who are pulling out onto the road won't know how fast people are
26 approaching. He will install speed counters that will judge speed and vehicle types. He will
27 come back with a recommendation.
28
29 The geometrics of the road are terrible. The County has committed money to
30 improve the bike route, and will continue to do so.
31
32 Brenner stated that roads beg for people to go fast if it is smooth, wide, and with
33 great sight distance. Rutan stated the science of traffic - calming is coming up with creative
34 ways to get people to feel uncomfortable going fast, without reducing safety. He explained
35 the general use of traffic calming methods.
36
37 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
38
39 Rutan stated that instead of reducing the speed, install visual cues to get people to
40 slow down.
41
42 Brenner stated this is not just a case of calming the speed because people don't like
43 fast cars. This is a dangerous road. Work with the Sheriff's Office. There is a lot of regular
44 traffic that speeds through there. Rutan stated those who speed are the daily commuters,
45 not those out for a Sunday drive.
46
47 Nelson asked if this is similar to Northshore. Rutan stated Northshore is worse. He
48 will approach the Northshore community about what they want to do. Every year, the
49 County has to rate the roads on a number of issues, per State law. Now, Northshore is the
50 problem. That was before designating this road as the Coast Millennium Trail.
51
52 Nelson stated there are many roads with the same problem. People will make very
53 strong arguments about their roads not being safe.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 7
Brenner stated there aren't many roads on which people bike a lot.
Robert Lemke, 1334 Marine Drive, stated the Marine Drive speed limit should drop to
35 miles per hour. A speed limit of 40 miles per hour is too fast. It is too fast for the
bridge. In addition to bicyclers, he is concerned about accidents. There have been many
accidents. The County should be concerned about lowering the speed limit to help prevent
these accidents. Don't wait until someone is killed. Lower the speed limit now.
Brenner stated that the speed limit on Marine Drive changes from 35 to 40 and back
to 35 miles per hour. Consistency is important.
Betty Lemke, 1334 Marine Drive, stated this area of Marine Drive is highly populated.
Homes are close together and close to the road. There are small children and a store. The
bridge is extremely dangerous. There isn't much room for cars. This is a well -known bike
trail. Several roads in the area have a speed limit of 35 miles per hour and have homes far
apart, homes back from the road, and less traffic. The area will be dangerous unless the
speed is reduced.
Brenner stated she agrees that this is not the only dangerous area. This is one of
the main bike routes. It is ridiculous to have a higher speed on the bridge than on the clear
area. Rutan stated that bridge is structurally very sound, but it is federal government is
beginning to consider functionally obsolete bridge replacements.
Brenner stated there is no difference between this area and extremely curvy and
narrow roads. Rutan stated he realizes that bridge is very dangerous.
Nelson stated it could be separate from the bridge. Many people want slower speed
limits. In areas like this, cite people who exceed the speed limits. Do an analysis of the
area. Rutan stated that information is in the six -year transportation plan.
Brenner stated the Council needs to look at the big picture, but pay attention to
areas people bring to the Council's attention. They don't need a comprehensive analysis of
those areas.
Crawford asked how the State of Oregon is able to replace every bridge. Rutan
stated they have not maintained investments for bridge replacements. It is funded from a
Congressional line item and a lot of State funds.
Robert Lemke stated that if possible, lower the speed limit. In the future, people will
read the paper and see that people were killed in an accident and know that the Council
could have done something, but didn't.
Brenner stated make a priority for reducing those areas that are a danger.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 8
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
r�
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
y coy
ga F.Brov*r- vis, Cowncil_C erk
STATE OFr2;
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 9