HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 20 20041
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 20, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM POINT ROBERTS TRANSITIONAL ZONE (TZ) TO
RESIDENTIAL RURAL — 1 DWELLING PER ACRE (RR1) FOR
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES (AB2004 -146)
Amy Pederson, Planner, stated the area is eight acres. One of the parcels is
currently vacant and cleared. The other has a house. In September 2000, the
County began reviewing the Point Roberts Subarea Plan. The steering committee
recommended that this area be zoned rural, one unit per acre (RR1) from urban
residential, four units per acre (UR -4). The transitional zone was supposed to allow
for two densities, one with services and one without services. The Planning
Commission recommended allowing a third option for someone to keep their old
zoning if sewer came to the property, which allowed the owner to keep his zoning at
UR -4. The Planning Commission changed the transitional zone densities and
rezoned Mr. Roy's property to the transitional zone. The Council removed that third
option, but Mr. Roy's property was not zoned back. The owner would like the same
zoning as everyone else in the surrounding area. His property is an island of
transitional zoning.
Brenner asked why the property is not suitable for UR -4. Pederson stated
also UR -4 properties in Point Roberts are de facto zoned one house per five acres
because of the lack of sewer and water. To recognize the higher density
development that is there, but without requiring urban levels of service, they zoned
that area rural residential, one unit per acre (RR1) instead. Mr. Roy could subdivide
his property into eight parcels, but it still would not be the density of the
surrounding area, which is about 3.5 units per acre. If he complied with clustering
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
and onsite community drain field requirements, the owner could have the same
density but would not be subject to additional requirements.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council because the
proponent is agreeable.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD2003 -0001, AND PRELIMINARY
LONG SUBDIVISION, LSS2003 -0004, " "BAY CREST NORTH
SUBDIVISION," JIJ CORPORATION (AB2004 -168)
Marilyn Bentley, Senior Land Use Specialist /Zoning - Plats, stated the
Technical Review Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended approval to
the Hearing Examiner, who concurred.
Brenner stated the report says that 38.6 percent of the acreage is for open
space and 40.7 percent is for the single - family lots. She asked what will happen on
the rest of the site.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that it will probably be for
roads. In the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), 15 to 20 percent of area is
common for roads and stormwater facilities.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the amount of wetland that will be filled.
Craig Parkinson, P.E., David Evans and Associates, stated less than half an
acre of wetland will be filled.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if anyone contacted the Blaine School District.
Bentley stated only comment from the Blaine School District was about a school
bus pick -up location. There is no ordinance to allow impact fees for the Blaine
School District. It's an issue between the developer and the school district.
Goodwin stated she and Sharon Roy met with a past school Blaine School
District superintendent in the past. The school district prefers not to have impact
fees. It has a good tax base. It gets more from property taxes than residential
development. If there is an impact fee, the district is concerned that people won't
vote for a levy.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that excuse is the reason the County needs to have
an educational in- service to educate people. Future residents may pay for it with
an increase in the price of a house, but it's not the same as a levy. One reason
rural residential levies are so high is because they aren't assessing impact fees.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Goodwin stated they can revisit that with the new Blaine school district
superintendent. However, Blaine school district levies are the lowest in the
county, and they have the best funded schools in the county.
office.
McShane stated the issue is the same with funding a Sheriff's Office precinct
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21) (AB2004 -163)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated Planning staff would explain the existing
short -plat and exemption processes.
Elaine Wick, Senior Land Use Specialist /Subdivisions, submitted (on file) and
read from a Power Point presentation.
Lee Carter, Engineering Technician IV, presented slides of an area near Toad
Lake before it was divided up by gift exemptions. There was minimal review of
drainage and things like that, which can be problematic to downstream recipients,
especially in the higher density areas.
Wick continued to read from her Power Point presentation. With gift
exemptions there can be up to four people at once working on an area that has
been gifted, rather than one developer that works on a short plat. A short plat is a
more efficient use of the land. If a parcel is gifted into four different tracts, there
isn't any review and the owner may now know there are wetlands. The access is
on paper only. When people come in to apply for building permits, they will find
that it is difficult to develop because of the wetlands. If the property were short
platted, they would discover the wetlands and could cluster outside of the wetland
and buffer area. The wetland is better preserved with a short plat process. She
concluded reading from her Power Point presentation. One idea she's heard is to
bring back the five year moratorium. However, that prohibits people from being
able to sell the property if necessary. It doesn't necessarily aid the family
members. Anytime someone can apply for a gift- exemption, they also have the
right to apply for a short plat. The County is not denying them the right to
subdivide their property.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this was an outstanding presentation. It clarifies
why gift exemptions are a problem. One way to expedite the short plat process is
to move away from a road frontage charge to an impact fee.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager- Traffic /Development, stated that's true.
He referenced the memo of April 20 from Joe Rutan. The Engineering Division
position is outlined in the memo.
Fleetwood asked if the Public Works Department recommendation is to hold
this in committee. Donahue stated he believes it is.
McShane stated his impression is that traffic impact fees (TIF's) won't fully
fund the problems of development in a given area because it is only for traffic
impacts. The memo says TIF's may not be enough, and the road fund may have
problems making improvements needed to serve these plats. Donahue stated the
road funds are decreasing. TIF's cannot fund an entire project. The road fund and
TIF monies might not be enough.
Crawford stated that currently, someone who subdivides has to improve the
road in front of the subdivision to County standards. What is being proposed is,
instead of those improvements, the person just has to give money to the County
that goes into a fund for roads. Donahue stated that if they approve a TIF
ordinance, one would not have to do improvements to the short plats. The person
would instead contribute to the road fund. There would be various zones in the
county for road projects that those monies would go to.
Crawford asked who is proposing this ordinance. He asked the reason of this
funding shift. Donahue stated from the proposal is from the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC).
Caskey- Schreiber stated developers frequently don't engage in short plats.
This was an attempt to make the short plat process easier, so people won't have
this big burdensome process to go through for those with gift exemptions. The cost
is probably less. Frequently, the subdivisions that weren't occurring on road front
didn't have to pay anything. This is a way to spread the cost out to everyone
instead of just those with road frontage.
Donahue stated the road frontage for short plats can cost a lot. The TIF's
may not be that high. If collected from enough lots throughout the zone, it will
make it a more equal distribution of monies.
McShane stated there is a desire to make the system more equitable. Traffic
impact fees alone may not be a great solution. They can only be spent on the
actual impacts over an area from the new development. They can't fix any new
problems. The money has to be spent within a certain timeframe or given back,
with interest. The level is more typically set at one -fifth of the true cost. For the
time being, leave in the frontage improvement requirements until the TAC sees the
consequences of the TIF. Focus on how to make it equitable. It can create a
problem in the future for the County. Donahue stated no entity collects 100
percent of the cost of impacts.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Hart stated the City of Vancouver collects up to 38 or 39 percent of their cost
from impact fees. That's about the best percentage there is.
Fleetwood asked if they should include language that says previous language
exists, and have a qualifier that says this section will be null and void unless a road
impact fee is adopted. Aamot stated the County attorney is uncomfortable having
an ordinance contingent upon a future event. It is better to delete the provision
now, or leave it in and delete it later when there is an impact fee ordinance. Mr.
Hart recommends leaving it in. There is no vesting for impact fees.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any recommendation to deal with the
equitability issue. Aamot stated the only recommendation would be to take out the
language and then collect impact fees later.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when this ordinance might come forward. Donahue
stated working on it now. Part of the ordinance is to get some sort of
transportation model. They're working with other agencies on a potential model,
but it will take months.
Aamot stated they would need to do some amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan that identifies road deficiencies and new proposed projects.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Fleetwood moved to reinstate the old language from section 21.04.060(2),
ordinance page 10, "Frontage improvements to the public roadway(s) adjacent to
the subject property shall be completed to the current functional classification prior
to recording the short plat unless security is provided under WCC 21.04.140." and
number the new subsection (2) as subsection (3).
Motion carried unanimously.
Hart stated they've been talking about required transportation modeling,
which was not included in the 2004 budget. They will look at every financial
possibility, but to meet the timeline, he may have to request a supplemental
budget from the Council.
Brenner referenced the land division regulations and short - plat /long -plat gift
exemptions. The County's purpose for allowing a gift exemption was not for people
to turn over property once they received it. She's not particularly sympathetic that
people can't turn around and sell property that has just been gifted to them. The
purpose of a gift exemption was as a less expensive way for people to give property
to their children and family members.
Language in item 17 on Council packet page 327 regarding County review is
not necessarily true. In the past, the County has not guaranteed that a lot is
buildable. The County won't be held liable if a lot is not buildable. The owners still
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
have to develop to the same rules. Wick stated the gift exemptions were intended
for family members. Unfortunately, gift exemptions are going to family members
of developers and gift exemptions have become a development process. If gift
exemptions were mostly going to family members, and there was a minimum
amount of development, the problem wouldn't be so bad. Even family members
have to do their improvements when they come in for the building permit, and
sometimes it will be more expensive for them at that time. She doesn't know how
much the exemption process benefits the family over the plat process.
Brenner stated that if the County instituted the five -year clause again, it
would prevent developers from turning the land over. Wick stated it may not turn
over as fast, but it will still happen.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend that the full Council adopt the
ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend the ordinance to eliminate gift exemption part
and instead reinstate the five -year provision. Reinstate the language stricken from
Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 21.03.020(6) on Council packet page 336,
with added language that gifted property can't be sold or modified within five years.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. Staff has provided good
reason for why gift exemptions are not a good idea. People creating their own lots
without County review undermines the entire planning process. People can still
pass their property down to their kids.
Brenner stated they have to pay for the costs up front. The gift exemption
would allow the family to not pay up front. If someone is willing to take the time to
do all the work to avoid a short -plat, give them that option.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor,
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, referenced packet page 343,
section 21.04.080(2)(a). That section should not be deleted. The problem created
is that it is difficult to ascertain who the beneficiaries are. Someone would have to
go to court to determine who is to be benefited by the easement. Second, there
have been easements that really don't provide a clear statement as to the
beneficiary. Under those circumstances, the grantor of the easement has given
him or herself the easement, without benefiting a third party. The merger doctrine
comes into play. The result is that the easement is extinguished. Allowing people
to draft sloppy easements would invite those sorts of errors to occur.
Fleetwood asked the reason for deleting it. Aamot stated the reason was to
make the process easier. There was some concern about drainage easements.
Grant stated the folks down slope would be the beneficiaries of drainage
easements.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked if the easement goes with the property or the beneficiary,
should the beneficiary sell the property. Grant stated that typically, the beneficiary
is the property owner's heirs and successors.
Crawford stated easements should be written to benefit the property, not the
property owner, when the easement is related to adjoining property. Grant stated
it does.
Crawford stated that something like a utility easement doesn't benefit an
adjoining property. Grant stated that's a public use. There is still an identified
beneficiary.
Crawford stated an easement should not benefit a person. It should benefit
a property. Grant stated an easement could benefit adjoining property, which
would identify a beneficiary.
Crawford stated they should use the term "beneficiary parcel." Grant stated
it's better to leave the language as it was.
Crawford stated he doesn't want someone to think that the easement no
longer serves the new owner if a parcel is sold. Grant stated the beneficiary is
identified in respect to the purpose of the easement.
Crawford stated title companies don't always find the adjoining easements of
parcels. Then the owner didn't know there is an existing easement going across
the parcel, which was granted to the previous owners.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to reinstate the language in section
21.04.080(2), "(a) The beneficiary of the easement;" and to eliminate that
language from section 21.04.080(3), "...burdening of the easement a-Rd
benefo^ia Examples of...."
Crawford suggested the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) membership
include a land use attorney.
McShane stated the TAC works at the discretion of the Executive. Aamot
stated that's correct. It's created by County ordinance.
McShane stated the Council could amend the ordinance that establishes the
TAC. Aamot stated it could.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner stated gift exemptions don't require a survey. She asked when
short -plats started requiring a survey. Wick stated surveys began being required in
the late 1970's.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced item 23 on Council packet page 328 regarding
exemptions for wireless communication facilities. She asked if an exemption
prevents the County from requiring co- location. Aamot stated co- location siting
requirements would still be in place.
Brenner stated the County should move toward options for traffic impact fees
instead of doing the local improvement districts (LID's), which are burdensome for
people. Include that in the County's interlocal agreements with the cities.
Crawford referenced section 21.04.090 on Council packet page 244
regarding water supply and asked about having to have a lot of or greater than five
acres to have a private well. Wick stated one could have a density of one unit per
five acres. One can have a lot smaller than five acres, if the density is not smaller
than one unit per five acres. Someone can do a cluster plat of 20 acres with one -
acre lots, but one can't have more than four lots. That language was added in
December 2000. That language has not changed with this new proposal.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the additional language added to sections
21.05.050(3) and (4).
Brenner stated she can't support the ordinance because of the gift
exemption, but she likes the rest of the ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about page 354 and a remainder parcel being ten
acres. Aamot stated that requirement is in the zoning rules of Title 20.
Aamot stated they should delete findings 24 through 27 to be consistent with
the road frontage amendment.
Fleetwood moved to delete findings 24 through 27 of the ordinance.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to recommend approval as amended carried 2 -I with Brenner
opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.)
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004-
121)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -122)
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, spoke on the waiting
period for permits. They are currently taking applications for mid- to late -July.
They've backed up 15 days since yesterday. There is an avalanche. Anyone who
thinks they might be in the business of building a house in September is coming in
now.
Crawford stated that last year, they hired and trained some additional
personnel. He asked if the department needs to do that again. Hart stated
Executive Kremen will authorize overtime use for the plans examiners, who worked
with him on Saturday. They've opened a new line at the front counter. They've
just trained someone. They just lost another person to Skagit County. They are
bringing on seasonal help soon. March is their big month. He hopes to have
someone new in about a week to do the wetland evaluations. One seasonal
employee present has been very helpful in going wherever someone needs help.
Crawford asked if fee generation from the added volume would cover these
additional costs. Hart stated he anticipates that would be true. They use interns
for data input, which is now permanently a part of their budget. Interns can assist
up and down the land use office. They get 20 more hours per week here and there
to make the system better. The volume is up 38 percent from last year. They are
adjusting to the increase. There have been three and a half years of a constant
increase.
McShane stated he's having trouble keeping up in his business. People are
having a hard time finding consultants. He asked if there has been a lower quality
of work the Planning staff receives from inexperienced contractors.
Elaine Wick, Senior Land Use Specialist /Subdivision, stated she's seen some
of that happening in the arena of subdivisions. New consultants are popping up
everywhere. Land Use Division staff ends up spending an exorbitant amount of
time training those consultants, who can then go out and consult with the people
who are trying to apply for permits. That work doubles and triples the amount of
time staff spends talking to people.
McShane stated he's working with people who aren't very experienced. Wick
stated there isn't any type of degree or certification. Anyone can hang a shingle
and become a consultant. The way people become consultants is by talking to the
Planning Department about what they have to do. In addition, there are many new
realtors that don't know a thing about land use or subdivision regulations, which
puts Planning Department staff in the business of training them.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated it's great to give people overtime, but it can be really stressful
when the institution expects people to put in overtime. It's not a permanent
solution. She would support a more permanent solution during budget time. A
three year upward trend is a good indicator that not much will change next year.
Hart stated they will see the Health Department, Planning Department, and
Public Works Department develop the one -stop shop and do a better job integrating
as a team and outreaching to the public about what constitutes a complete
application for the subdivision process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any way to separate easier projects from
the more elaborate projects. Hart stated he would look into it. Sometimes there is
a way and sometimes there isn't. In addition to opening up the Planning facility,
they will look at ways to make the process more efficient.
Fleetwood asked if any of the amendments to the Ordinance adopting
amendments to the Whatcom County Land Division Regulations (Title 21)
(AB2004 -163) constitute a substantial change.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, asked if the committee wants
staff to check with legal counsel. She doesn't think they would be considered
substantial. The Planning Commission recommendation was subject to adopting
the transportation impact fee ordinance, which is what they are doing. She will ask
legal counsel.
Fleetwood asked committee members about scheduling items or future
Planning and Development Committee meetings. He will schedule the Birch Bay
Subarea Plan in committee on May 4, and hold off on consideration of the Lummi
Island Subarea Plan until a later date. Goodwin stated they need to schedule a
public hearing on the Birch Bay Subarea Plan at some point.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 10
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
2
Planning and Development Committee, 4/20/2004, Page 11