HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 10 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
February 10, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Sharon Roy None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Sharon Roy
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2004 (AB2004 -082)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the initiating procedure is
in Whatcom County Code (WCC) chapter 20.10.
Docket #2004 -B: Ferndale Urban Growth Area
Goodwin stated the City of Ferndale proposes to remove a portion of the
urban growth area (UGA) on the west side of the city and add UGA to the east and
north sides of the city to make it more efficient for transportation. The areas to the
east and north of the city have existing development and existing services. They
have to decide if the areas are logical places to grow. She described the property
in the proposed amendment.
Brenner stated there is little prime agricultural soils to the west.
Fleetwood asked the City's original intentions regarding ingress and egress
when it originally included in the UGA the area to the west of the city. Goodwin
stated their intention hasn't changed.
Brenner stated someone who lives on the west side of town doesn't have to
cross the little bridge or the single lane overpass. She doesn't understand how the
amendment would alleviate traffic. The place they would go would be straight to
the east, and there's nothing there but the people who live to the east.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the reason for adding the 212 acres to the north.
Goodwin stated she can't speak to the City's reasoning.
Brenner stated this application is incomplete. It doesn't include the text
amendments. It also includes a map that is incorrect regarding the location of
services. There are sewer and water services going to a new development to the
west. The services are there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like an opinion from legal counsel about
whether the application is legal.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County is required to
docket a proposal if the proposal is filed in a timely fashion. To be filed in a timely
fashion, the application has to be complete. WCC 20.10 sets out the parameters
the County must consider to decide whether an application is complete, including
whether the proposal includes the proposed map and text amendments. In this
case, there is a map that is included that provides for significant changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and which would necessitate text changes as well. However,
the application fails to propose any text changes that would bring the map changes
into compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Without an appropriate text
amendment in addition to the map amendment, the County would have a conflict
between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map. That would be a basis for
the Council to decide the proposal is incomplete. A core question is whether there
is a sufficient amount of information in the application for the Council to write an
appropriate ordinance that would reflect the sought after change. The map is
proposed, but they don't have any proposed text changes that would create a code
that is consistent with the map. Since they didn't propose text amendments, the
question is whether there is enough information for the County staff, Planning
Commission, and Council to craft the text amendments that would be necessary to
put in place the map change. If they don't feel comfortable doing that, don't deem
the application complete.
Doug Robertson, attorney, stated the County code and State law make sense
in this instance. There are ways that an amendment can be docketed. For a
proposed amendment to be automatically docketed, it has to be proposed by a city.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires the City to go through a legislative
action with a public process to propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
However, the City of Ferndale didn't go through the appropriate public process with
legislative action for this proposed amendment. It didn't comply with the Growth
Management Act (GMA), so the amendment can't be automatically docketed.
Dick Mattila, church pastor in Ferndale, stated they invested $1.5 million in
property on the west side of the UGA. When they started the process three years
ago, they went through a conditional use process (CUP) with the County and City.
At that time, there was no indication the UGA would change. They moved into an
area where they believed growth would move. The City required him to make
improvements to the water line. He would not have invested the money in this
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
location if he knew the City would not move in that direction. The City is aware of
his project.
Carl Reimer, 1055 West Laurel Road, North Bellingham Community
Association, stated he represents people on the east side that would be included in
the UGA. The issue today is if the application is complete. The application is not
complete. Don't docket this item.
Dennis Hawkinson, 5324 Bel Air Drive, stated he lives in a development that
has water and sewer. Work with the City to find him some relief. The residents in
his development are presently paying a surcharge for sewer and water. They are
developed highly above city standards. Some people with large families are paying
over $400 per month for water and sewer. They're trapped. If annexed into the
city, the surcharge would be reduced 50 percent. They can't annex to the city
because they're not in the UGA. Some people are in favor of the City's proposal.
Tim Blomquist, 6168 Olson Road, stated he is a property owner in the
current UGA. They have held property that has been in the UGA for 25 years, and
was turned down for annexation recently because he was told that the City wants
to remove the UGA. Don't docket the item.
Roger Almskaar, land use consultant, stated the application is incomplete.
There's little land in area one, east of the interstate, that is bigger than five acres.
They can't build houses at an affordable price on only two or five acres. They need
economies of scale. Area two has larger parcels and is adjacent to sewer, water,
and arterial roads. The Ferndale school district recently purchased land for new
schools on the west side of Church Road. If this went through, the purchase of
property for the new schools would be questionable.
Anne Unknown, Ferndale, submitted petitions (on file) from Ferndale owners
requesting the Council to reject the application from the City of Ferndale.
Rod Erickson, 6343 Church Road, stated this is the first time the City of
Ferndale has ever used the excuse of saving farmland west of town. Of the 1,250
acres on the west side they want to remove from the UGA, less than 20 percent is
actual farmable ground. He is located adjacent to the new development on the
west side. The City of Ferndale used the same arguments to remove this area from
the UGA as it used against the people who tried to stop the development. They'd
better change their tactics. The application says the amendment will be for the
benefit of the community as a whole and not for private financial gain. The
community as whole in the west area is doomed for development.
item.
Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council to deny docketing this
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed. The City needs to do more work on this and go
through more public process. The County staff would have to do the work the City
should have done.
Fleetwood stated the motion must be in the positive, and moved to docket
the item.
Roy stated she was struck by the lack of public process. It appears as if the
County will take care of the public process. She's received a lot of feedback on this
issue. No one supports this amendment. There hasn't been an opportunity for
people to express themselves and come to an agreement.
Crawford stated the message is clear that there is an absence of support for
the amendment. There may be aspects of this proposal that are worth looking at.
The northern Grandview Road area is worth consideration for the UGA. The
concerns about Bel Air Estates has also to do with street improvements, sidewalks,
and schools. There may be a small area east of the city limits that is worth
reviewing. However the application as it is submitted does not allow the County to
docket those areas. He encouraged the gentleman from Bel Air to continue to work
with the City as best he can to docket something next year that makes more sense.
Brenner asked if cities are allowed to charge a 50 percent surcharge outside
the city.
Grant stated he didn't know.
Roy stated it's not uncommon.
Brenner stated they cannot look at what someone pays for sewer and water
to annex an area, but there's still the issue of fairness. The surcharge doesn't
seem fair.
Motion failed unanimously.
Docket #2004 -C: Bellingham Urban Growth Area
Goodwin stated the Council docketed this item last year. The joint process
with the City of Bellingham wasn't completed. Staff recommends the Council carry
the item forward into this year. This is not a new application. It is part of an
interlocal agreement with the City that says the County will update the urban fringe
plan for the city last year. There is an elaborate joint process of hearings planned.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin continued to state the item will look at the urban growth areas for
Bellingham, the five -year review areas, the Caitec application, and the Templeton
application.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 4
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
2 Brenner asked if the County has any discretion on this. Goodwin stated they
3 probably do. The interlocal agreement says the County will consider it in 2004.
4 There is not a new city application. If the County doesn't docket the item, then it
5 won't be consistent with the City of Bellingham. They'd want to work with the City
6 to amend the interlocal agreement.
7
8 Brenner stated the Council also approved the growth projections. She
9 though the City approved the medium growth projections. She asked how the City
10 can consider expanding its UGA's. Goodwin stated the City is only about 9,000
11 dwelling units short instead of the greater shortage it would have had if it had
12 approved the higher growth projections. The City still has a considerable shortage
13 of developable land unless it increases density in the city, which the City is working
14 on. The City will go through that process this year. The County may or may not be
15 able to make decisions on the UGA's for the city, depending on how lengthy the
16 City's public process is. The City is first trying to increase density before expanding
17 the UGA's.
18
19 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's something the County needs to look at. It's
20 bound to look at the issue.
21
22 Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council to docket.
23
24 Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
25
26 Docket #2004 -D: Point Roberts - Rural to Commercial
27
28 Amy Pederson, Planner I, gave staff report and stated the site is 10.6 acres
29 at Tyee Drive and MacKenzie Road. She explained the surrounding zoning and
30 uses. The request is to rezone from rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) to general
31 commercial (GC). The zoning would be the same as three parcels to the north.
32 However, it is a large piece of property. The most significant issue is the habitat
33 conservation area, the Point Roberts Heronry and 300 -meter buffer, encroaches
34 into 40 to 50 percent of the property.
35
36 The 2001 Point Roberts Subarea Plan vision for this area is to be maintained
37 as a green buffer area. The commercial land was to be limited to the existing
38 commercial property. The goals and policies of the subarea plan specifically states
39 that the current commercial uses in the vicinity of the border are permitted, do not
40 allow new commercial uses. The subarea plan should be considered when
41 reviewing the application.
42
43 Brenner asked if there has been a discussion to subdivide the property
44 according to zoning into two five -acre parcels so that one parcel that is in the
45 heronry and buffer could remain zoned as it is, and the west half of the property
46 could be rezoned commercial. Pederson stated she's not aware of any such plans.
47
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council to docket this item, but
she is opposed to it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is opposed to the motion. It is not a part of the
subarea plan for commercial uses. The community has a plan for their vision. This
isn't part of the vision.
Motion failed unanimously.
Docket #2004 -A: 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update
Goodwin stated the County is mandated to update the Comprehensive Plan in
2004. Staff recommends docketing.
Fleetwood moved to recommend docketing to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket #2004 -E: Guide Meridian - Rural to Commercial
Goodwin gave a staff report and stated the request is to rezone 4.73 acres
on the Guide Meridian from rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) to general
commercial (GC). Part of the property is already zoned commercial. The parcel is
a flat lot that connects to the Guide Meridian next to the Hilltop Restaurant and
connects to Axton Road also. The eastern half of the parcel is already zoned
general commercial. The property is a large open field. There are three acres that
are already zoned commercial that have the access and should be developable on
their own without having to include the rest of the property. The applicant's
argument is that the parcel is split by zoning, making it unusable.
There are agricultural protection overlay (APO) soils. Almost the entire
parcel has agricultural soils. It's not subject to the APO because it is not five acres.
The entire parcel is in a seismic hazard area. The southern half is a wetland and
100 -foot buffer.
Fleetwood asked the attributes of a wellhead protection area. Goodwin
stated there are special requirements for properties in a wellhead protection area.
If within a ten -year time of travel of a wellhead protection area, the property is
subject to higher standards. They don't want any activity in those areas that would
generate pollution in the aquifers. The areas are regulated in the Critical Areas
Ordinance and the Mineral Resource Ordinance. Generally they allow residential
development.
Bob Carmichael, attorney, stated he represents the applicant. The applicant
bought the property when he thought the zoning was general commercial. The
Assessor's Office shows the entire parcel as zoned general commercial. He
submitted a copy of the application for a short -plat that the applicant tried to file on
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
the property six months ago, (on file). The hope was to develop light
manufacturing or another retail use. The owners put together the short -plat
application, and then found out that the lot had split zoning. One of the difficulties
with a split -zoned lot is that the area zoned R5A is only 4.73 acres. The split -zone
has turned the R5A portion into a substandard lot. The property is in an area that
has experienced some development. It would create problems to develop just on
the existing commercial area. The site has good access and would be a good
location for what is proposed. He asked the Council to docket this item so the
Planning Commission can consider it.
Roy asked about the substandard lot. Goodwin stated the lot is 4.75 acres in
an R5A zone. The owner can build one house, but can't split the parcel further.
The owner can have a residential or commercial use on the portioned zoned R5A,
but can't divide the R5A portion from the GC portion of the lot because it would
create a lot that is too small. To create a five -acre lot, the owner would have to
give up a sliver of the commercial portion through a short plat.
Roy asked the use of the property to the west. Goodwin stated it is a
wooded area. The rest of the surrounding area is pasture.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is no need for more commercial on a route
that is already plagued with traffic problems. They're trying to reduce access onto
the Guide Meridian so it can be a major transportation corridor. This isn't enough
of a reason to approve the rezone. If the Council approves the rezone for this
person, it will have to approve rezones for others in this area. She moved to
recommend approval, but is opposed to the request.
Motion failed unanimously.
Docket #2004 -H: Hazardous Material Policies
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and stated this item is a
request to change policy in the environmental section regarding an operating
permit program for facilities required to file a risk management plan under federal
law 40 -68. It has to do with hazardous chemicals. Staff questions whether the
County has this authority. He spoke with legal counsel and the County's
Emergency Management Division Manager. Another question is whether the
County has the expertise to analyze what is more suitable for chemical uses in
these facilities. In addition, there would be different standards between the cities
and County. The applicant requests the Council to add four new policies to goal
11A that deal with creating a process to require an operating permit for facilities
that have hazardous chemical as defined under federal law.
Crawford asked if the request is to regulate or permit the use of the
chemicals. Olason stated the purpose of the operating permit would be to require
these facilities to review their use of chemicals and determine if there are other,
less dangerous chemicals they could use instead.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 7
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
2 Roy asked if someone oversees this currently. Olason stated this is done
3 through review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They have
4 regulations and requirements.
5
6 Gerald Steel, applicant, stated he represents the Washington State
7 Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters (WSAPS) and himself. This is a request
8 for hazard reduction planning in the county. Currently, the federal government has
9 a process where a risk management plan is required of all industries that have a
10 certain amount of listed chemicals on site. The risk management plan deals with
11 the potential accidents that can happen and identifies who can respond. There is
12 an element of hazard reduction planning that the federal requirements don't
13 address. The county can address the hazard reduction planning. That's what his
14 proposed policies would address. The proposed policies say that when a facility has
15 to do a federal risk management plan, it would also have to do a piece for the
16 County to look at the way the facility handles the hazardous materials. The facility
17 would provide a report to the County about whether the facility can use less
18 hazardous methods and still accomplish its goals. If so, the County staff would
19 have the authority to condition the facility's operation on reducing the risks as
20 identified in the report.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber asked if this item is related to the proposed British
23 Petroleum (BP) co- generation plant or if Mr. Steel has brought this amendment to
24 other counties. Steel stated he put in an application to Skagit County that is similar
25 to this application. Their staff recommended doing it during their 2005
26 Comprehensive Plan update. He's asking the Council to docket this item so they
27 can decide how the policies should read to accomplish the objective.
28
29 Neil Clement, Emergency Management Division Manager, stated in 1999, a
30 list of threshold facilities were required to report to the EPA. As part of the risk
31 management program, the facilities were required to report a number of things.
32 The intent of the statute itself is to prevent accidental releases into the air and
33 mitigate the consequences of such releases by focusing on prevention measures on
34 the chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public and the environment. There
35 was originally 65,000 facilities in the United States that would be covered by this
36 rule. As industries looked at this program and decided it was onerous, they
37 reduced their levels of risk by dumping inventory, changing chemicals, and doing
38 exactly what Mr. Steel proposes. They voluntarily reduced their own risks so they
39 wouldn't be required to comply with the federal statute. He explained the
40 requirements of the federal statute. The emergency management services in the
41 region, Department of Labor and Industries, and Northwest Air Pollution Authority
42 considered combining efforts to assume the EPA's audit responsibilities, however
43 they couldn't make it work. One of the EPA's audit functions is to look at the entire
44 safety management process for these industries. Many of the industries, such as
45 the refineries, have extremely complex process safety regulations that they're
46 working under already.
47
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
There are about a handful of facilities that would be regulated by this
proposed amendment. He also questions the authority to impose an operating
permit. Some of these facilities are regulated by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council (EFSEC). There are other facilities located in three other municipal
governments that would not be impacted. Local facilities would have different
regulations.
If approved, he's not sure how the County would determine the adequacy of
the required review. He doesn't have the expertise to do that. He doesn't think
the County has that expertise.
The cost of efficiency is a factor. Changing some chemical processes to
achieve less risk may be cost - prohibitive and close the facility. He's not sure the
proposal would sufficiently reduce risk any more than it has already been reduced.
It would impose an additional burden on the industry.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is on the board for the Northwest Air Pollution
Authority (NWAPA), which does permitting and inspecting of a facility that uses
hazardous chemicals, including refineries. Clement stated the State Department of
Labor and Industries and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) also inspect those facilities.
Crawford stated he has a hard time picturing this process going on through
the Comprehensive Plan process. There are other methods that could be the
vehicle by which the concerns could be addressed. Clement stated he agreed. Mr.
Steel's intent is a good one. If they can reduce risk, they should, but the industries
are doing this already.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Steel stated the concept of the air pollution agency dealing with this is not
true. It deals with much smaller quantities of air pollution. This proposal deals
with only the most serious places where hazards could happen. There might only
be six companies in the county that qualify for this company. Many companies may
reduce their use to get out of the program. That's fine. This program only deals
with those people who present the greatest risk to the county.
This amendment is not a significant addition to what is already required.
He's asking that the County get involved in the process so it knows what hazards
are happening to the people of the county. He's also asking these people to look at
the issue of whether or not they can reduce risk as they do their federal planning.
Federal planning doesn't address how to reduce risk, just what to do with the risk
that exists.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Steel to speak more candidly about case
scenarios, who it would affect, and what they're talking about. Steel stated this
program only takes place when there is a threshold activity such as a major
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, 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.
expansion or improvement that would trigger the process of writing a report that
talks about reducing the risk. The County would look at that report to decide if it
will direct the company to reduce the risk. The objective is not to make the
industry less effective, productive, economical, or competitive. It's just to look at
an issue that the County would otherwise not look at and that would be important
to the County if there were a major incident at one of these facilities. These are
the six most hazardous facilities in the county. The proposal is for the County to
look at a report prepared by each facility on how the facilities would reduce their
hazards.
Roy stated risk analysis is how the employees handle chemicals, for example.
She doesn't see what amount of paper would prevent catastrophic terrorist events.
She doesn't get the connection. Steel stated there would be a section that is not
addressed right now. When a major update or improvement is done, the facility
would look at the way the hazardous materials are being used and if they can be
used safer. Now, they only look at what happens if it breaks. However, the County
can require them to write a report about safety improvements that would reduce
risk.
Fleetwood asked if this application is complete. Olason stated it is. The
question is whether they have clear authority to step into this role and make
demands and regulations.
Steel stated this report would only be written during a major upgrade. The
County authorizes building permits and State Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA) reports. The County has authority to do these things. They may find that
the best way to implement these procedures is through SEPA.
Fleetwood asked if it is appropriate to docket an item when they're not clear
if the County has authority. Olason stated that when staff looked at this proposal,
the question was in terms of the benefit the County would receive and the ability
the County has to deal with these companies that actually don't permit through the
County. When British Petroleum (BP) does a realignment, it doesn't come to the
County. In terms of land use approvals, not a lot of these are under land use
permits. They're either outright permitted or under another regulatory agency. For
the companies that the County can deal with, the question is whether it's worth the
time.
Fleetwood asked if the Council can docket something conditioned on staff
looking at the question of authority.
Steel stated the Growth Management Act has provisions that allow the
County to do this. There may be some preemption in another place.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she would rather not do a
lot of work on something if they're not likely to approve it.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 10
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.
Fleetwood stated they don't know that yet.
Goodwin stated the Council can't docket something conditionally. Either they
docket an item and go through the process or don't docket something. If docketed,
the staff can do further research and recommend denial if there is no authority.
Olason stated staff will also have to follow this up with code. Staff will have
to have expertise to do the review talked about in the proposal. There's always a
lot of additional overhead when they take on a new program. They have to
evaluate if it will be worth the time and effort, and if they can truly succeed at
bringing forward this worthy cause. He's not sure they can. More of this upfront
work can be done before docketing to verify the clear authority the County would
operate under. That isn't included in the application.
Steel stated he can provide a legal analysis of the County's authority. The
County has authority. The question is the limits to the County's authority.
Brenner asked if today is the deadline for docketing items. Goodwin stated
they have to consider the entire docket together. They can delay them all. This
project might not have to be docketed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It
could just be considered as an ordinance, outside of the Comprehensive Plan if
there is merit to the proposal. It wouldn't be a zoning amendment.
Steel stated it's tied to environmental regulations.
Goodwin stated the environmental regulations are in Title 16, which can be
changed at any time of the year. Another option is to not add it to the
Comprehensive Plan, but add it to the Emergency Management Plan, the SEPA
rules, or some other regulation.
Brenner moved to table this item. They don't need to docket it. Have staff
find out if the County has the authority to do this.
Olason stated he would be willing to do that if Mr. Steel provides additional
background information.
Brenner agreed.
Fleetwood stated that would table all the other docketed items.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council to docket this item, but
recommends against the motion. There is a procedural route that will get them to
the same place without docketing.
Motion failed unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 11
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.
McShane stated this might fit in the industrial lands chapter. Goodwin stated
industrial lands is in the Land Use Chapter. Next year they are working on urban
growth areas. Industrial lands is a section of the urban growth areas. They could
look at those policies next year.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 20) CHAPTER 20.85 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, CHAPTER 20.89 DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURE,
CHAPTER 20.90 AMENDMENTS, AND CHAPTER 20.71 WATER
RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2004 -081)
Troy Holbrook, PDR /TDR Coordinator, stated there are four proposed minor
modifications. They are intended to facilitate the transfer of development rights
(TDR) program, provide clarity and consistency in the code, establish a framework
for a TDR bank and oversight committee, and to address procedural issues.
The first chapter is Whatcom County Code (WCC) chapter 20.85, Planned
Unit Development (PUD). Alternatives to TDR's that can be used to increase
density can inhibit the TDR program. The receiving zones allow the PUD process to
increase density. The proposed language requires that TDR's be used to increase
density before using the density bonus provisions in the PUD chapter. A developer
could get a 35 percent density increase, for a maximum of 13.5 units per acre.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she'd prefer to round it up to 14 units per acre.
Maximize density. Holbrook stated that is a PUD change for the entire county.
These changes only affect TDR receiving zones. Staff can look at that suggestion.
The next chapter is WCC 20.89, Density Transfer Procedures. The proposed
amendments clarify language, establish consistency with other code sections, and
provide the framework for the development rights bank. The language establishes
receiving areas in the city. Provisions are added to allow in lieu of payments if no
certified development rights are available, using the development rights bank.
They would be used to purchase development rights out of the watershed and
purchase sensitive areas in the watershed. Transfers are prohibited if the
development rights are already encumbered and prohibited from development.
An oversight committee for the development rights bank would be
established and make recommendations to the County Council on policies and
procedures for how the bank will function and TDR transactions.
Brenner stated the City of Bellingham turned down the option of developing
a bank. She asked why the County would put itself in that position. Holbrook
stated the City Council didn't deny the bank. They supported the development of a
bank, but didn't agree on the concept of how it would be operated. That's why he
recommends an oversight committee.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 12
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 language just sets up the framework for developing a bank. How that
bank would be structured isn't decided yet.
Brenner stated she supports the bank, but not having the County be the
bank and the depositor at the same time. There's too much of a conflict of interest.
Holbrook stated the oversight committee will discuss those issues.
Holbrook stated the next chapter is WCC 20.90, Amendments. This
language is similar to language in chapter 20.89. Rezone requests will be reviewed
to determine if they're appropriate as a receiving area. They may be required to
use TDR's to achieve their requested densities. Putting this language in this
chapter makes the information more accessible to those requesting rezones.
Fleetwood asked if this language limits their ability to include rural areas as a
sending area. Holbrook stated there is not. The language keeps the option very
open.
Holbrook stated the last chapter is WCC 20.71, Water Resources Protection
Overlay District. They realized the need for this change from the recent TDR
program. If development rights have already been encumbered, they can't be
transferred out of the watershed.
The amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and facilitate
the TDR program.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Roy stated she complimented Mr. Holbrook and the Planning Department for
the work that's gone into this program.
Peter Watts, 2154 Northshore Road, stated he represents Evergreen View
Ventures, Inc. He supports the program. They are affected by the downzone and
proposed TDR program. They had 250 development units which has been reduced
to 25 units. The press commented that the people who have TDR's are getting a
free ride. There are people who have proceeded in good faith with proposed
developments of their land. He has incurred $320,000 in hard costs. He
contributed to the Northshore sewer trunk line, Agate Bay water service, and
various planning costs. Proceed in good faith. Implement and maintain a viable
TDR program based on the recommendations from staff. He complimented the
staff for keeping the public informed of this program. The amendments to the code
will insure that this program has a good chance of success.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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.
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 14