HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole January 9 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
January 9, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Robert Imhof
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY ALLIANCE
PROPERTIES INCORPORATED FOR "WILD ROSE HILLS" (PUD00 -0002
AND LSS00 -0003) (AB200 -432)
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he took a look at the
Hearing Examiner's file on this case. He recommended that the County Council
remand the issue back to the Hearing Examiner to get a better idea of what he
wanted to do in regard to the traffic issue regarding the vehicles leaving Lakeway
Drive and going onto the access road that would serve this housing development.
He predicated that recommendation on regulation in the Whatcom County Code
(WCC) 20.85.100, which addresses a circulation requirement for a planned unit
development. Part of the requirement is that circulation access provision shall be
appropriate to the scale of the project and to the anticipated traffic characteristics
of the project. In this particular situation, he didn't have a chance to talk much
with the applicant. The staff report recognizes that the traffic on Lakeway Drive
may pose a safety concern. A traffic study was done in support of the project, but
the staff person also referred to a proposal by the applicant to provide a left turn
lane to accommodate entering and existing traffic to and from the project site in
order to minimize potential disruptions of traffic flow on Lakeway Drive and to
provide safety for entering and existing vehicles. That comment is on page four of
the staff report. In relation to the traffic flow and road requirements, both the
Planning staff and the Hearing Examiner found that approval should be conditioned
upon compliance with the attached conditions of the Whatcom County Engineering
Division, unless modified by the Engineering Division or appealed to the appropriate
agency. That comes from page 13 of the staff report and page 8 of the Hearing
Examiner's decision.
When he looked at the Hearing Examiner's recommendations and conditions
and the staff report, the Engineering Division's only relevant condition, or comment,
Committee of the Whole, 1/9/2001, 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
48
relating to this issue is that the traffic study has been submitted and is under
County Engineering review. The problem is that the record before the County
Council does not clearly indicate that County Engineering has completed its review
of the traffic study, nor is there any information on the record that clearly indicates
the conclusions drawn by the Engineering Division or the traffic study, relative to
the traffic flowing off of Lakeway Drive.
Nelson questioned whether it would have it's own access. Grant stated there
would be a road built connecting directly to Lakeway Drive.
There seemed to be a lack of findings relative to this particular issue in the
record. The closest thing they get to a condition in relation to that particular aspect
of the proposal isn't really a condition. There was some public comment. A
neighbor was concerned about the access road. Therefore, there is public comment
concern and also Planning staff concern, with no sufficient information to be derived
from the record to ascertain whether it is an issue.
He suggested that this case be remanded back to the Hearing Examiner so
he can ascertain what conclusions were derived by the Whatcom County
Engineering Division from it's review of the findings of the traffic study and
determine what improvements or modifications should be required at Lakeway
Drive to address the traffic flow issues identified.
Nelson questioned whether the traffic concern is specifically for Lakeway
Drive. Grant stated that was correct.
Ralph Black, applicant, stated that it is addressed in the traffic study they
did. The Engineering Division has it. It is recommended in the study, and he had
agreed with the Engineering Division, to provide a left turning lane.
Grant stated the problem is that, given the Hearing Examiner's written
decision, if the Council was to adopt it as written, there would be no condition or
requirement to actually make the applicant put in the left turn lane, if in fact the
traffic study calls for it. While the applicant is apparently ready and willing to do
so, he is not required unless it is a specific condition.
Black stated he didn't have a problem going back to the Hearing Examiner.
There is no big time crunch on the project. They spent a lot of time talking about
traffic, but not Lakeway traffic. They talked about the access out the west.
Grant stated there is a potential for even more lots nearby that would impact
Lakeway Drive.
Unidentified person stated that if they add on, they have to do additional
traffic studies and possible mitigation.
Black stated there are two access points. One access point connects through
the Birchwood proposal in the city. The original access started as a secondary fire
Committee of the Whole, 1/9/2001, 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
46
47
48
access only, which was the minimum 30 -foot gravel access. The City Public Works
and County Public Works Departments got together and started talking about inter -
linkages in the future for the entire side of the hill. They decided that they
preferred a full standard access instead of an emergency -only access. The idea was
that traffic would go the other way, through the Birchwood neighborhood, and
through the new, revised intersection at the corner of Lakeway and Birch.
McShane questioned the wetland issue. He questioned whether the wetland
delineation would be the burden of Birch Street. Black stated they did an initial
wetlands reconnaissance of that property. His position was that there are going to
be wetland issues on that road. The Birch developers have their own
reconnaissance and believe there won't be issues. He was very concerned that
there be some language put into this thing that requires them to get in and do that
study and determine whether or not these wetlands will be an issue. In particular
they've been very sensitive, because of the watershed situation, of the buffers and
things that are required in there. They have a lot of design work in this plat to
address those issues. They want them to get in and do their homework. They
have 18 months to come in and get their wetlands approval. If it can't go there,
then both the City and County Public Works Departments say that if it can't be done
for wetlands, then it doesn't become an access issue.
McShane questioned what would happen to that lot. Black stated it reverts
back to them and would then become a lot.
McShane stated there seemed to be a bit of a slope. He questioned whether
the homes would be designed with full daylight basements. Black stated they do a
one -up /one -down design, so it looks like a rambler from the road. There is a
walkout basement underneath. They are currently using that design on their
Brandywine hillside, which is really steep. They are going to use that same design
for these homes. He explained the topography of the area using a map. On this
site, it follows the existing logging road, so there isn't any disturbance outside the
existing logging road. Everything that wasn't touched by the loggers will remain
untouched on the plat.
Nelson questioned who maintained the area. Black stated they purchased a
piece of property zoned Urban Residential - Mixed Use (UR -MX) on King Mountain.
They want to be the first ones to figure out how to do the density transfer. The
County may want to address the watershed issue from a developer's perspective.
They have to be able to take existing density, pick a spot, and put the density
there.
Nelson stated they might just have to do that in the urban growth areas.
Black stated the city's view is that he takes the existing density and spreads
them out over a number of smaller parcels. That is unmanageable.
Brenner stated the urban growth areas are good for that, as long as they
don't do density dumping. That is what people are concerned about in those urban
Committee of the Whole, 1/9/2001, 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
growth areas. It has to be a balance. Black stated that is where the UR -MX zoning
comes in handy.
Brenner stated she didn't support the UR -MX zoning. It's a little too messy.
She liked this idea.
Dawson stated they would remand it to the Hearing Examiner for the
Lakeway traffic concerns.
Brenner stated it's nice to hear from a local developer. Black stated the
Magnolia Hills project was his first one, at 150 homes, on Lakeway Drive and
Woburn Street. They are in the middle of the Barkley project called Brandywine.
Not only does he develop the site, but he also builds the homes. They think the lot
configuration through.
2. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR DANIEL GIBSON
REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2001 -018)
Nelson moved to go into executive session for 30 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 6 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 1/9/2001, Page 4