Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 26 20021 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee February 26, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Barbara Brenner Sharon Roy Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2002 -084) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, handed out paperwork regarding the Comprehensive Plan schedule, the Bellingham urban fringe area review, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommendations for Comprehensive Plan designations for 2002. 2002 A REVIEW - WHATCOM COUNTY PDS 2002 B BELLINGHAM UGA - GUIDE AND SMITH ROAD The committee completed these two items two weeks ago. 2002 D FERNDALE UGA - PORTAL WAY AND ENTERPRISE ROAD Goodwin stated the applicant is Charlotte Olsen, and the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to add 12 acres into the Ferndale urban growth area (UGA). The area is zoned rural right now. It is located at the intersection of Portal Way and Enterprise Road, adjacent to the city limits. Approval would expand a city UGA. It would not affect designated agricultural, forest, or mineral lands, but 100 percent of the land has agricultural soils. The County is to review UGA's every five years. The property is in an aquifer recharge area. The applicant didn't request a fee exemption. The property does not have any major geo- hazards, flooding, or pipelines. The issue is whether an expansion of the Ferndale UGA is necessary. As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the County will do a detailed analysis of buildable lands in the City of Ferndale. The County will also take a close look at Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. Birch Bay. The County will not do a detailed analysis for other small cities. This application went to the City of Ferndale, which hasn't taken any action yet. Caskey- Schreiber asked the reason for the proposal. Goodwin stated the owner wants to put commercial development in there. McShane moved to recommend docketing, just to get it onto the table for discussion. He will not vote for the motion. Go with the five -year review process first. At least get information from the City of Ferndale first. Crawford stated they should docket the request. When a private party comes forward and asks for an opportunity to change the Comprehensive Plan designation in accordance with the five -year review, and they pay the appropriate fees, the Council can give them their chance to argue for the proposal before the Planning Commission. Brenner stated this proposal would avoid Ferndale and Bellingham bumping against each other. Portal Way is developing already. To protect that area, allow the City some flexibility in the other direction. Allow it to go through the process. McShane stated docketing all requests would slow up the process. Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed. 2002 E SUMAS UGA - AG TO UGA, UGA TO AG Goodwin stated the applicant proposes to add 58 acres in areas one and two of the proposal to the UGA. They are currently zoned agriculture. Approval would change the Comprehensive Plan designation from agriculture to the UGA. The other two areas outside of the UGA would be put into agricultural zoning in areas three and four of the proposal. There would be a net loss of ten acres of agricultural land. It's not under one ownership. The property owners are supportive. The issue for the City is that the areas in the UGA are difficult to service and are have an agricultural use. The City thinks the areas not in the UGA would be more logical for receiving City services because of their location. The City of Sumas already approved this, so it is automatically docketed. McShane moved to recommend docketing. Motion carried unanimously. 2002 F RR2 TO R2A - LAKE SAMISH Goodwin stated this would affect 500 acres. The proposal is to change the property from a suburban enclave designation to a rural designation, and to change the zoning map from rural residential, two dwelling units per acre (RR2) to rural, one dwelling unit per two acres (R2A). It would not affect a City UGA. It would not Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 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. directly affect agricultural, mineral, or forestland, but it has a forestry use now. The County doesn't have plans to look at the area at a future date. The property does have wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, and an alluvial fan hazard area. A fee waiver has been requested. There are agricultural soils in some of the areas. The area is not suitable for agricultural use. An alluvial fan comes from the hill over the freeway on the east side of the lake. There are quite a few steep slopes. The land around the lake is fairly flat. There is a pipeline route on both the east and west sides of the lake. Neither pipeline is directly affected. The land is a bit out of the designated area. The major consideration is the staff time it would take to do the analysis and the lack of data to base the decision. There is not a lot of good water quality data on Lake Samish. Staff could do some modeling, but there is no budget for it. The Council might want to appropriate some money to do modeling to make the decision defensible. She is concerned about a taking challenge on this issue. The County has to have some basis for changing the density. They must have modeling data to indicate a water quality problem. There are no staff resources to do that. Crawford stated one argument he's heard is that the County allowed a certain density in this area while computing how many people can live in this area. If the Council decreases that number, the question is where those people would go. One rationale is that they want less growth to occur in an environmentally sensitive area, and they want more growth to occur in places where they can manage the environment a little better. He asked if that is a consideration here. Goodwin stated that in the Comprehensive Plan, they divided urban growth between city urban growth areas and the unincorporated Whatcom County. They didn't allocate growth to Birch Bay, the new Columbia Valley urban growth area, and the new Sudden Valley urban growth area. If they add up the growth occurring at Birch Bay, Columbia Valley, and Sudden Valley, they've used up a lot of the rural growth allocated to the unincorporated county. There is an oversupply of lots in rural areas. A greater proportion of growth than they predicted is going on in those rural areas, because there is an oversupply of land there. They have enough land available in the rural areas to accommodate growth taken away from Lake Samish. McShane stated there is an issue of changed conditions. There was a suggestion that a mistake was made about this zoning by creating a suburban area where one wasn't intended. Goodwin stated that a changed condition, a mistake, or new information are the three things that can be considered to change the Comprehensive Plan. The County doesn't have substantial new information, but they would look at whether the designation was appropriate. If there isn't good water quality data, one area to look at is the traffic impacts and road capacity, which is something they can get modeling on from the Public Works Department. It might not be a reason to change zoning, but a reason to widen the road. If it's a mistake, they can say it wasn't a good decision in the first place. If this item is docketed, the staff will spend a considerable amount of time on this item. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. Brenner asked if the Planning Staff is overloaded. Goodwin stated they are. McShane moved to recommend docketing this item. Motion carried unanimously. 20021 R2A TO GC - POLE AND HANNEGAN McShane stated the committee discussed this briefly two weeks ago. The issue is of a Comprehensive Plan zoning boundary going through a building. Goodwin stated she talked to the applicant's attorney and to the Land Use Division staff. They looked at other options, such as considering it a nonconforming use. It couldn't be considered a nonconforming use. The building was built in the 1950's as a chicken coop. It's had various other uses over the years. It was recently re- roofed and re- sided. It is currently used as a personal storage building, which isn't a non - conforming use. It's an allowable use under the zoning. If it was a non- conforming use, it could be converted into a different non - conforming use. The owner could do a short -plat, keep the back two acres residential, and put the front acreage in commercial. McShane asked if that would require a Comprehensive Plan text change. Goodwin stated it would require an amendment if they modify the line. Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated she represents Faber Brothers Construction. There are two parcel numbers, but there is one legal lot. The Assessor's Office taxes commercial property separately from rural property. Two weeks ago, she talked about the merits of docketing this item. There are not a lot of options for the property owner to make full use of that existing building. Three - quarters of the building is commercial, and one - quarter is in the rural, one dwelling unit per two acres (R2A) zone. There are no good alternatives for this. Using the building in two different ways that are allowable in the two different zones does not take into consideration the different setbacks for those zones. They would have to apply for a variance from the rural zone because that zone has setbacks from property lines, but the commercial zone doesn't. There are also different fire code requirements. The question that comes up is where they should most appropriately place the new zoning line. She recommended that the Council docket this item, and then get involved in that discussion through the Planning Commission and Council. Faber Brothers Construction is just interested in their own parcel. They included their neighbor's parcel to create a nice, contiguous, straight property line for zoning purposes. They would not speak against an exclusion of the lower portion of the application. The neighbors immediately surrounding the parcel have all been contacted. Some of them were directly involved with Faber Brothers when they purchased the Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 property. There are very good relationships there. They have no reason to think 2 that the people immediately surrounding the property would have any negative 3 issues. Docket the item and give the appropriate public notice to the area residents 4 so they can all have an opportunity to comment, and not just those people that 5 Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber indicated she'd talked to. This decision can be 6 made in a quasi - judicial decision - making manner. 7 8 Caskey - Schreiber stated she looked at the property. The owner is using the 9 chicken coop to get more commercial property. They already have a commercial 10 operation going there. They don't need to have this building rezone solved to it continue with their operation. The building is five to six feet high. It is very long 12 and low. The owners are not going to have any commercial operation out of the 13 building. It's already allowed legally for storage. It's an excuse to convert 14 something. She speaks for the majority of the residents she's spoken to in her 15 neighborhood, which is directly south of a ten -acre parcel that they attached onto 16 the request. Her neighbors are opposed to the rezone. She already listed several 17 reasons why they are opposed. There is a school bus stop nearby. They don't 18 want commercial zoning going into residential zoning. There is not a need for it. 19 She opposed docketing the request. It's not worthy of the Council's time. 20 21 Starkenburg- Kroontje stated she wanted to correct some of the observations 22 made by Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. If the Council is taking Councilmember 23 Caskey - Schreiber's observations into consideration, they are not what the applicant 24 has presented. There is a full basement under the building. It is a substantial 25 building that the owner plans to make full use of. It isn't appropriate at this point 26 for the Council to subjectively make a determination based on one councilmember's 27 thoughts about the business. The owner made the application. The building is cut 28 in half by the zones, and this is the way they can resolve it. The question is how 29 much property should be put into the rezone. 30 31 Brenner stated that if the Council removes the request to rezone the larger 32 ten -acre parcel, it could have consistent zoning. She asked about docketing the 33 application and including only the area that is divided. 34 35 Caskey- Schreiber asked why the applicant couldn't submit a proposal 36 reflecting that next year. 37 38 McShane stated the Council would docket the application as it is written, and 39 the Planning Commission can make those changes. 40 41 Brenner asked if the Council can docket the request without the extra ten 42 acres. Goodwin stated nothing in the code says that a proposal can be changed at 43 the time of docketing. When it comes back to the Council, the Council can change 44 it then. The code says that the Council must either docket it or not docket it. The 45 Council could docket it with direction to the Planning Commission that the other 46 piece should be taken out. She would check the code. 47 Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. item. McShane stated that, in the meantime, the committee would discuss the next (Discussion continued below.) 2002 J AFFORDABLE HOUSING - KULSHAN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST Goodwin stated that if the Council dockets the five -year review of the Comprehensive Plan, staff would look at the housing chapter. The issue is the amount of detail that the Council wants the staff to go to while looking at that chapter. If the Council and staff goes with a 12 -month Comprehensive Plan schedule and many requests are docketed, staff will probably just update the U.S. Census data and look at housing trends, but not do major policy changes. This application proposes a more lengthy public process with some meetings to discuss goals, policies, and action items for affordable housing. Staff probably wouldn't do that this year if this item weren't docketed. Paul Schissler, Kulshan Community Land Trust Executive Director, asked that this item be docketed so the staff can work to improve the housing element. Five years after Comprehensive Plan adoption, there are tools and mechanisms that could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. By doing so, the County could forward some of the other countywide planning policies and create opportunities to create financing for local affordable housing efforts. There is a chance to do master planning with public sector leadership. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Schissler continued to state that other policy issues include farmland protection and sprawl prevention that can be generally aided by having a more effective housing element. This dovetails with what the cities need to do as they update their housing elements to assure that, as communities grow, housing of all types is available. Organizations in the community would be in a position to help staff. McShane stated he is hearing concerns about staffing levels. He asked how this would work with the five -year update. Schissler stated each municipality is updating their comprehensive plans, and this is the year to ask them to adopt policies and mechanisms to dovetail with County policies. He is sensitive to the burden that docketing these items puts on County staff and to the budget constraints. Sometimes grant funds are available to address issues like this. The Lake Samish issue would involve a lot of staff time, and may require outside funding if they are going to do an adequate job of it. The housing element won't require that kind of time and money. McShane stated the five -year plan would be done, and then the County would tweak the UGA's if necessary. He questioned whether it would be better to have the affordable housing component written in before they tweak the UGA's. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. Goodwin stated it doesn't so much affect the UGA's as it does the zoning. Staff considered the need for mobile home parks. That is an affordable type of housing that is being lost. That could be something to look at. They can also look to see if there is a need for additional multi - family housing. Each city should look at their affordable housing policies. She suggested that the County look at how land supply affects housing costs, but that doesn't guarantee that someone won't put in expensive housing. Look comprehensively at the alternative plan programs in the UGA's and rural areas. The Council can also make it a work program, and direct staff to work with these groups for next year. Brenner stated this is an important issue. If the Council is going to eliminate docket items, this would not be her first choice. Mr. Schissler can provide what information the County needs. The County is woefully lacking in affordable housing. Roy agreed with Councilmember Brenner. She's been involved in the Birch Bay planning process recently. This issue needs to be talked about sooner than later. Whatcom County will grow. It's important to accommodate for diversity and income. Fleetwood asked if the Council could prioritize the docket items. Goodwin stated it couldn't prioritize docket items. All items will be looked at. Crawford asked if the Planning Department has gone through an exercise to determine the critical path, based on the staff they have. He asked how the Planning Division determines how much workload it can take on. Goodwin stated she has three options for how they schedule each item and how many items they can do. She has two senior planners and herself. There are two other planners that can do the more routine issues. She would divide however many items there are by the time allowed, and get them done. Crawford stated the issue of the quantity of work will trend over to the quality of work. Goodwin agreed that it becomes a quality -of -work issue. If the staff has to do all of the proposed docketing items, then the five -year review will suffer. Crawford stated he strongly recommends that some of these items be removed. These items need to be prioritized as Councilmember Fleetwood recommended. If every proposal is accepted and docketed, Planning staff will be overloaded. Mr. Schissler's proposal is notable and worthy, but it's a fact of life that the Council will have to bump it. Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend docketing this item. Hart stated two things are going on. The State told him that the Council has to pass a work plan for the five -year review. Few counties will get it done. Anything beyond the five -year review will require an approved work plan. The Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 legislative session may ultimately change the timeframe in the next 30 days 2 anyway. He agrees that this is an important issue. He's been employed by 3 Whatcom County for 15 months and hasn't been able to connect with the housing 4 community yet. That's how busy his department is. Get the housing people in a 5 process and get a grant from someone to help the County do that in an inclusive 6 way. He's done this in other communities. Take a longer approach rather than 7 pushing it through rapidly. They will get a better product that way. The kinds of 8 things that they are asking are more qualitative, thoughtful policy fixes to the 9 system. That would take longer than the time the staff can give it this year. 10 During January of next year, the Planning staff can get going on it. Part of the five - 11 year update would be to look at that element. He would find a grant to update the 12 housing element. 13 14 Richard Emerson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County 15 Governmental Affairs Officer, stated Mr. Hart's idea about putting together the 16 players for affordable housing is something that he would be interested in being 17 involved in. He would work with the Planning Department in grant preparation. 18 19 Caskey- Schreiber stated this decision involves every councilmember. Put it 20 forward for that. 21 22 Motion carried unanimously. 23 24 McShane stated they need to have a discussion with the Finance Committee 25 and to make decisions very quickly. This Council is very interested in doing a lot of 26 planning for a lot of issues, including Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, agricultural 27 preservation, and pipelines. These issues are all very important. The resources for 28 planning haven't been committed for some time. That needs to be addressed. 29 That might mean looking at what this County is not going to do anymore. 30 31 Crawford stated they could also address generating additional resources. 32 33 34 20020 UPDATE - BIRCH BAY SUBAREA PLAN 35 36 Goodwin stated there has been a community planning process for several 37 years. The community plan is almost done. It will come to the Council. Part of 38 community planning includes amendments to the Birch Bay UGA and policy changes 39 to transportation, shorelines, zoning, and other issues. No amendments to the 40 actual Comprehensive Plan language and zoning boundaries have been developed 41 yet. The Council could docket it as a plan to review the community plan, and then 42 next year do the zoning changes to implement the plan. Or, the Council could 43 docket the community plan with the zoning changes, UGA boundary changes, and 44 transportation stuff with it. She recommended docketing the plan, going through 45 the plan, and if the Council agrees, look at zoning and capital project changes to 46 implement the plan. 47 Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 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 asked about doing this altogether next year. Goodwin stated there is a very active group of citizens that have been going to meetings every Wednesday for a year now, and they are hoping that something will happen to it. She recommended that the Council at least take a look at this one to give the community the follow through that they hope for. She is concerned about a fairly large rezone at Cherry Point. It would take industrial land and zone it for residential use. It would require an environmental impact statement. The Planning Division doesn't have the budget and there is no applicant with money to fund that environmental impact statement. That might be one that would need to be moved to next year's docket. Brenner asked which would be more expeditious, phasing between this year and next year, or doing it all together next year. Goodwin stated phasing it would be better. If they postpone it to next year, she would recommend that they still phase the issue. She wouldn't want to send out 3,000 public notices to tell people the County is going to upzone their property, and then say they decided not to do it. She would rather look at the plan in concept, and then do the zoning changes. McShane moved to recommend docketing for the review portion of the plan, not the zoning part. Crawford stated he was concerned about the industrial land that would be rezoned residential. He questioned whether that involves an applicant. The rezone would come at the end of the year. Goodwin stated they are talking about a Comprehensive Plan change versus a zone change. The Council could look at the Birch Bay Community Plan, the proposal to change the urban growth area boundary, and can decide whether or not to put it into the urban growth area. Once it's in the urban growth area, then the Council can look at whether it wants to rezone now or wait. There are areas in the Lynden and Sumas urban growth areas that are still zoned agriculture because they are needed for the 20 -year planning, but they are not needed this year. Crawford stated he assumed that the owner of the industrial property has an intention to develop and profit from it. Therefore, the owner would apply to change the zoning. An environmental impact statement would be required, which the owner would have to pay for. Goodwin stated that is the way it should work. The Council can consider the community plan, and let the owner submit an application for the rezone and pay for the EIS. That is a better way to do it than the County paying for the EIS. The community plan, when adopted, will propose a rezone. Motion carried unanimously. 20021 R2A TO GC - POLE AND HANNEGAN (Discussion continued from above.) Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. Goodwin stated the code says that the Council will look at the docket, decide which items to place on the docket, and pass a resolution. It doesn't provide for changing the application. The applicant can come forward and modify the application before it goes to the Planning Commission, if it is docketed. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that the applicant would take the steps to remove that extra ten acres. If the applicant didn't do that, the Council can change it when it comes from the Planning Commission. Brenner asked the difference to the applicant if the Council waits until next year. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated the owner needs to begin using the building under the commercial codes. The Council would be postponing the owner's use of the business. The owner can't do any work to a commercial zoning standard on the building now, not knowing if it is going to be in a commercial zone. The impact is to their business plan. Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend not docketing. McShane stated they have to make a positive motion. He moved to docket. Motion failed 1 -2 with Fleetwood in favor. 2002 C BELLINGHAM UGA - SAMISH WAY Goodwin stated a citizen concern was that Lake Padden park takes up the entire edge of the urban growth area. The citizen didn't feel that it would be appropriate or affordable to extend utilities beyond Lake Padden park into the rural area when there aren't existing utilities out there. The citizen was also concerned about the rural character of the area, and didn't want additional houses and traffic in the area. Crawford asked the City of Bellingham's process. Goodwin stated the Council will do the buildable land supply analysis. If they identify a shortage in Bellingham, they would look at the four areas on the map that would be in the five -year review area. The City of Bellingham would look at other viable options. The City would look at this area to determine if this area is feasible. Crawford asked if the process is that the City would hold a hearing to get public input on what they would like the urban growth areas to be. Then, the City would tell the County what it would like. Then, the County will ultimately decide. Goodwin stated there is a new process requiring a joint Planning Commission hearing. The City staff would look at whether the City could service the area. After the joint Planning Commission hearing, it would go to the City Council for their input, and then it would come to the County Council for final decision. Crawford asked if the next public input stage would be at the joint Planning Commission meeting. He also asked if the City Council would get involved. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 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 the City Council would get involved. She explained the approval process. McShane stated the committee previously recommended that this be considered as a part of the five -year review process. Goodwin stated the concerned citizen didn't even want it in the five -year review. Heather Wolf, Langabeer, Tull, and Lee, representing the applicant, stated they are at the beginning of the growth management process. Consider the Templeton application in the five -year review process. The City regulates utilities, so they will make the final decision on that. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.72, POINT ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICT, TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROJECTS OF THE 2001 POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA PLAN (AB2002 -108) Michael Rosser, Point Roberts Taxpayers' Association, addressed this item and the next agenda item. The Planning Commission made changes to the two chapters in Title 20 that are relative to Point Roberts. The Planning Commission did not address those issues with any depth. He submitted paperwork on this item and the next item on the agenda. Brenner asked if this is about Lily Point. Rosser stated it is not all about Lily Point. It deals with Point Roberts in total, but it does make a special reference to Lily Point. Brenner asked what other area it would apply to. Rosser stated the tree retention ordinance would apply to all of Point Roberts. It singles out Lily Point as having cultural and archaeological significance. Accept what the Planning Department recommended in addition to his recommendation to Whatcom County Code section 20.72.652(7). That section expired some time ago. Put that section back in. It acknowledges the 200 -foot buffer around the heron rookery. The heron rookery is the largest heron rookery in North America. It provides herons to other colonies throughout the region. This is the first year that the golf course is getting up and going. It is on top of the rookery. There is now more predation by eagles in the area because the eagles have a better shot at the rookery. It is important to maintain the tree buffer. (Clerk's Note: This item was held in committee.) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD A NEW POINT ROBERTS TRANSITIONAL ZONE (TZ) DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.37, TO IMPLEMENT THE 2001 POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA PLAN AND MAP (AB2002 -107) Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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. Michael Rosser, Point Roberts Taxpayers' Association, stated this is entirely new zoning created to answer a number of issues in Point Roberts. A development issue includes an oversupply of lots, yet some people would still like to develop their land. The steering committee came up with the transitional zoning. The idea is to allow someone to develop land at a greater density in exchange for preserving open space. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Rosser read from his letter to the Council dated February 26, 2002 (on file) regarding this item. All of the Point Roberts subarea planning goals are addressed to one degree or another within the transitional zoning. That is the intention of the transitional zoning. With some minor changes to this chapter, they can address their goals a lot more. The Planning Commission made this chapter applicable to Point Roberts only, and struck everything that makes it applicable to the entire county. However, it gives the zone legitimacy if the entire county has to adopt this. He didn't see why the rest of the county should have to try and reinvent the wheel. Brenner stated some of the language in the proposed ordinance specifically deals with Point Roberts. She asked if there are things in here that wouldn't apply to another area of the county, and if there would be a need to have zoning specific to Point Roberts. Rosser stated nothing in the ordinance is completely for Point Roberts. The transitional zone was envisioned to be countywide. Goodwin stated staff wrote the ordinance to be a generic zone that could apply to any district. It was written to implement the Point Roberts plan, but it could work anywhere. Rosser read through the suggestions made in his handout. Add his recommended section 20.37.057. Brenner asked Ms. Goodwin to look into whether or not that language is necessary to allow those uses. Goodwin stated she would look into it. Rosser suggested deleting section 20.37.102 regarding private boating infrastructure because it is a conditional use, and adding 20.37.105 regarding recreational trails, per his letter. Add "maximum lot size" to the title of section 20.37.250. This is a cluster development. They are trying to make it cheaper for infrastructure. Houses should be located close together so it is less expensive to put in utilities. That rationale is included in section 20.37.251, which also puts a size limit of 12 lots onto any lot cluster. Strike language from section 20.37.305(1) and (2), per his letter. They don't want to have something that is supposed to be open space to be clear cut logged or to have a strip mine put in. Take out that language. The philosophy is that people can do anything they want, as long as it complies with section 20.37.305(2). The density bonus is being given because they want the wildlife habitat and forest preserved. As long as an owner maintains the purpose of paragraph (2), he or she can do anything. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, 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 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. Section 20.37.320 is the meat of the entire reserve tract concept. He would like to see the reserve tract referred to as the "open space reserve tract." He also suggests the definition that comes from the open space definition instead of the reserve tract definition. The intent is to not let the owner develop the reserve tract in the future. In a 1993 study of Whatcom County residents, people said that open space is the single most important planning issue facing Whatcom County over the next 20 years. This community is trying to address that very important issue. Virtually all of the areas included in the transitional zoning areas of Point Roberts have a high environmental value and a low economic value, by virtue of the existence of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, unstable slopes, and cultural heritage sites. There are a lot of reasons why one can't or wouldn't want to physically build in these areas. That's why the clustering option makes a lot of sense. Save the wetland, don't build in the 100 -year flood plain, don't build close to the unstable slopes, cluster the houses close together, and put all that stuff in permanent open space. That is the idea behind the transitional zone. McShane stated this item and the previous item will be held in committee for two weeks. Goodwin stated the committee doesn't need to discuss these items in great detail at this point. If they want to make any changes to the Planning Commission recommendation, the Council has to have a public hearing. The decision now is whether they should approve it exactly as it is or have a public hearing to make changes. McShane stated he preferred to hold this in committee, and then schedule a public hearing in the future based on the recommendations of the committee. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UTILITIES CHAPTER, WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, AND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 21, TO ADD AND CLARIFY LANGUAGE RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND OPERATION OF UTILITIES, PARTICULARLY NATURAL GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID TRANSMISSION PIPELINES, AND TO INCLUDE SITING CRITERIA FOR TRANSMISSION PIPELINES AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO PROMOTE HEALTH, SAFETY AND PUBLIC WELFARE (AB2002 -109) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the staff report does a good job of explaining what they did and why they did it. Utility Planning Advisory Committee members are present. The Planning Commission approved this unanimously. They only made one change regarding notification. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 13 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 was initiated because of a moratorium that the Council has extended several times. This advisory committee was established to look at this. In doing so, they spent time trying to find out what peoples' issues were about pipelines. In going through this effort, they identified four or five major areas that people had concerns about, including information and education, notification, monitoring, and siting criteria. The advisory committee didn't establish pipeline corridors for a number of reasons. One reason is that existing pipelines were built years ago. Many were built without consideration of many of the issues that they have to consider now, particularly environmental issues. Some of the pipelines are not in good sites. Another reason is that there has been a lot of development in those areas, which made it difficult for the advisory committee to mandate any of those routes as being the only routes. The other issue is that the companies may not want to go where the routes go. The advisory committee dealt with siting criteria by defining its preferences. The advisory committee found out that the County doesn't have a lot of authority at all. They are preempted in most areas by the federal and state governments. The staff report does a good job explaining that. The advisory committee provided a background document to the County Council a while ago. That document goes through a lot of the issues that came up before the committee, and translated into these recommendations. The advisory committee recommends adoption of the ordinance. Brenner stated no one seemed to be concerned about fair compensation for easements. Olason stated the advisory committee talked about that. Mike Kaufman was concerned about it. One of the issues is that it is an individual discussion between the pipeline company and the landowners. The County doesn't have anything to say about a private party transaction, which is what it is. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is concerned about the policy and language in the Utilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, policy 5A -6, regarding expediting the project review process once an area has been identified as a possible utility corridor. The only influence the County has is in the siting criteria. Don't push staff to rush through that. She would like to remove all that language. Mike Kaufman, Utilities Planning Advisory Committee Chair, stated that is language from the early 1990's. It means that the County would plan first, and then expedite. Puget Sound Energy conceded and agreed to remove that language. The public perception of expediting something would be wrong. From a company's standpoint, it would be a public relations nightmare. Olason stated that when that language was written, the idea was that the County has to comply with the Growth Management Act. One of the ways they do that is to ensure that they can accommodate development. When development occurs, they need to get the utilities there. This language is a policy relating to service providers more than regional transmission pipelines. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 14 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 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 stated she is uncomfortable with the statement that the County has very little jurisdiction. There is a gray area where no one is sure of jurisdiction. She doesn't want to abdicate any of the County's jurisdiction just because someone tells the County that it doesn't have jurisdiction. Kaufman stated his statements are his own, and he is not speaking on behalf of the committee. The committee reacted in a timely manner to what it was asked to do. A lot of information on pipeline transmission facilities doesn't exist. They are a consensus -based group. A lot of the language that would have required something was stripped down to a recommended guideline because the committee felt that the County didn't have jurisdiction. That's why a lot of the language ended up being rewritten. The Planning Department is light years ahead of where it was a year ago. They now have background information to use, and there is now a Planning Department staff person who understands the issues. The recommendations are a good start. It certainly isn't the end result. As the committee moves forward to looking at the issues of electric transmission and other utilities, they will continue to move this issue forward. Some of the high points of the process included all the community meetings that the advisory committee held. The funding for decent advertising of those meeting was appropriate. There was also a meeting on eminent domain. They hired out a third source to bring someone in and discuss the options with the community. The County should intervene whenever possible. The recommendation is to intervene, whether they are for or against a project so the County can at least sit at the table and participate. The advisory committee watered down the issue of franchise agreements. However, a franchise agreement is one open door that the community can walk through and use. The power to implement what the County wants is in the franchise agreement. A company cannot condemn government property. They have to deal with the County and come to terms. He asked that the franchise agreement process start early, not after the fact. As the company comes in, it must deal with a code of ethics in this county. If a company lies, misrepresents the facts, and works out of line from what the County wants, the County can, in the end, make the franchise agreement difficult to get. That concept needs to be explored with due diligence through the legal department. That is one powerful hand that the community has. The County has an obligation to represent and protect its citizenry from the corporate raiders. Sharon Askew, Lynden -Birch Bay Road, stated the pipeline runs through her former husband's property and at the back of her property. She's concerned because her property is hers to do with as she wishes. Because the pipeline runs through these areas, there becomes a restriction on what she can do with her property. Pipeline companies offered minimal compensation for her property. She knows someone who can't sell their home because the pipeline on their property devalued the property. Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 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 stated that if the County has the right to require disclosure on a deed, then the County has the right to require the pipeline company to pay for the devaluation of the property. Olason stated the concern has to do with whether or not the County has an opportunity to influence or restrict where the pipelines go. The County can generally only influence a route when it gets involved early in the process. The County's authority to require notification on the deeds is questionable. Other notification requirements, such as the right -to -farm ordinance notification, were authorized through or previous to the Growth Management Act. When it comes to requiring a notification, which could have some negative impact on property value, he doesn't think the County has the authority to do that. The recommendation is that the information to the public say that a pipeline is within a certain distance from the property line. Setbacks create a false expectation in the buyer. One hundred fifty feet may not be far enough away in a catastrophic event, or the setback might remove a lot of property from use if there is never an event. The advisory committee discussed all these issues for months. It became clear that the County is a small player in the regional transmission process. The County has to be informed. The County also has to be careful not to expect more authority that it actually has. The eminent domain issue, for example, is that the company is in a position to make the deals and go through court proceedings once it is given approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Coming to agreement has to do with people understanding what the values are. All eminent domain is about is whether a fair price is offered for a piece of property and the pipeline's impact. That is really a private party issue. The County has to be careful when it reviews a project for a permit that it doesn't become an advocate for the citizenry to fight that project. McShane stated this item will be held in committee for two weeks. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 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. Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 17