HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 12 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
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
March 12, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 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:
L. Ward Nelson
Sharon Roy
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. 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 committee spent a great deal of
time on this project. Originally, there was a moratorium on accepting pipeline
applications. The moratorium was initiated June 2000. The Council established the
Utility Planning Advisory Committee in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 2.125. One of
the things the committee was to do was to evaluate utility projects and work with
Comprehensive Plan policy updates. In this process, the committee looked strictly
at pipeline issues. They didn't get into a major rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan
utility chapter. They looked at trying to comply with what the County Council asked
for, which was to get siting criteria on the books.
The committee learned that the County has a limited ability to regulate
pipelines. The committee proposes a series of policies on siting criteria in areas
such as stable resource lands and agricultural lands. The areas would hopefully be
undeveloped or have low populations, and they won't have the encroachment
problems. There are also proposed policies on placement of pipelines not being
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
within 500 feet adjacent to specific high- occupancy uses, such as hospitals and
schools.
The committee also looked at safety issues. The best thing they can do
locally is to make people aware of where the pipelines are, what is in them, and
how to use the one -call system.
The Office of Pipeline Safety is the monitoring group. The State Department
of Ecology (DOE) is getting involved. Typically, pipelines are built to standards set
by the federal Department of Transportation. Whatcom County is not in a position
to get into that argument, unless they want to take it up with the federal DOT. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can't take comments on specific
safety requirements. The DOT has standards, and as long as the pipeline company
agrees to abide by those standards, then FERC is out of it. Safety was the number
one issue that the committee talked about.
The policies that they incorporated are also reflected in the code. They
recommended changes to Title 20. One issue is condemnation. Pipeline companies
can condemn someone's property. However, it is a situation in which the County is
not a party to an individual property negotiation. Once a pipeline company
achieves certification, it is given the right to condemn property. When the
company gets that right, it becomes an issue of fair payment. If the property
owner doesn't think that he or she is being offered enough money, that person is in
a position to say so through private negotiations. If negotiations don't result in an
agreement, it will go to the court system. There isn't a role for the County to play.
McShane asked if the County has an interest in terms of taxing. Olason
stated the County would apply a tax to the facility. In terms of the use of the land,
the owners retain a certain number of uses. That is a deal between the pipeline
owner and property owner, not the County.
The committee tried to make sure there are additional requirements for the
means and methods by which the pipeline company is required to inform the public.
One of the things the committee talked about is having open forums, public
meetings, and hiring a private contractor to give an unbiased discussion on what
the condemnation requirements are.
Preemption was another huge issue. The committee found that the County
doesn't have a role to play there, either. The committee also talked about
setbacks, in terms of safety. Statistics show about one event happening per day.
The likelihood of an event happening in any given place is extremely low, because
there are millions of miles of pipeline. There is a correlation between pipeline size
and pressure and the zone of effect, which is the likelihood of serious damage and
potential deaths. The committee didn't feel comfortable establishing a specific
setback that would be adequate in all situations. In certain cases, the zone of
effect could be several hundred feet. However, if the likelihood is one in a million
that an event would happen, and that setback is required on every corridor, it
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 2
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 becomes very onerous and difficult to permit and enforce. The onerousness would
2 be on the landowners, who would make the deal on the right -of -way. People in the
3 community didn't want to be over - regulated so their entire property would be
4 ruined if a pipeline comes through. There isn't a setback requirement for anything
5 other than a high- occupancy facility.
6
7 He's heard that the County has made it impossible to do anything within 660
8 feet on either side of the pipeline. That comes from the County's notice
9 requirement to make sure people know that they are close to a pipeline. The
10 committee recommended requiring a disclosure statement on properties within 660
11 feet of a pipeline. County staff doesn't support that recommendation, because the
12 County doesn't have the legal authority to require it. The Planning Commission
13 thought it should be on there, so it is included in the current proposal. The
14 disclosure doesn't limit use. It's strictly informational. If it was approved, the
15 County staff would have to figure out how to put disclosure statements on all the
16 properties, which could be extremely expensive.
17
18 Fleetwood asked the implication of giving notice if there is no consequence.
19 Olason stated there could be a consequence. Someone has to pay to record the
20 disclosures. A property owner with a disclosure statement may have an impact on
21 sales. The committee looked at the effect of adjacent pipelines on property sales.
22 The information they looked at didn't show any appreciable difference. At the
23 worst, they took a little longer to sell. Other disclosures come from State statutes.
24 The County doesn't have a similar authorization for this disclosure. The County's
25 legal counsel informed staff that the County doesn't have the legal authority to do
26 that.
27
28 The other option would be to add the disclosure through the real estate
29 disclosure statements that are required upon sale, but that would have to be done
30 through a State legislative action. That is beyond the County's scope.
31
32 There is a section in the proposal about expediting projects. The focus of the
33 committee was to look at pipelines. The staff is also working on updates to the
34 Comprehensive Plan updates. The Utility Committee is also working on it. The
35 issue regarding expediting will be dealt with in that process. When the staff works
36 on the chapter update, it will recommend that the language come out. That
37 language has been in the chapter from the beginning. The committee didn't
38 address it, but the issue keeps coming up.
39
40 The staff report highlights the key issues that the committee struggled with.
41 The background report is available also.
42
43 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are any officially recognized corridors.
44 Olason stated there is a definition for utility corridor. They exist by definition
45 already. There aren't any specific utility corridors.
46
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
Andy Swayne, Utility Planning Advisory Committee member, stated there is
recognition that the Comprehensive Plan language says some things about corridors
without defining what those are or where they are. That situation still exists today.
Mike Kaufman, Utility Planning Advisory Committee Chair, stated there are
many different positions on this issue. There is a lot more work to do here. The
committee will learn a lot more things, as it deals with the electric issue, that will
affect its thoughts on the Utility chapter. An advantage of the 660 -foot deed
notification is that it's the first time that the guy next door is recognized. A 1,320 -
foot corridor or zone is created. Up to this point, only the landowner of the
easement has been notified. The committee decided that people within 660 feet of
the pipeline should know that the pipeline exists. The committee's best idea to do
that is the deed notification. The utility companies and staff resisted having a
special zone, but agreed that there is an onus placed on the property owner within
660 feet of a pipeline.
A study was done around Bellingham after the pipeline explosion, and it
indicated that there wasn't any land devaluation associated with the pipeline
explosion. Properties are selling for as much or more as they did before the
explosion.
Lately, it's been difficult getting a quorum of the committee together. The
committee decided to be consensus - oriented. The committee learned that eminent
domain is a negotiation between the association and the property owner. No one
else is allowed to be involved. Utility companies have said that they can't overbuild
their systems for future speculation. The rate structure stops them from doing
something. The franchise agreement is the key tool for the County to use, but he
doesn't know how effectively the County can use that tool. More time needs to be
spent looking at the franchise agreements.
Nelson asked if the committee worked well together, or if it was biased.
Kaufman stated the committee worked together extremely well. The material is
difficult. There isn't a lot of background. The committee tried to be effective for
everyone involved. They are further ahead than where they were a year ago. The
committee was as best as could be put together. No one got shortchanged and
everyone was listened to.
Fleetwood asked if the members of the committee began the process with
diverse opinions, and ended the process with their opinions reconciled with
everyone else's opinions. Olason stated most people thought that the County had a
lot more control and authority than it actually does. Once they started looking at
who is in charge, the committee realized that the County doesn't have control. The
committee learned that the best thing the County can do is have a good theory of
what it would like, and then advocate that theory. A lot of people who thought the
County could stop pipelines are disappointed. A lot of people who thought the
County could regulate pipelines are disappointed. Scott Smith was very
instrumental in putting the background information together and digging up old
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
court cases. The committee discussed a lot of case law, spent a lot of time with
FERC, and got counsel on preemption. They tried to be as thorough as they had
time and expertise to be. It was extremely helpful for the committee to have frank
discussions with the representatives of the utility companies that are on the
committee.
Kaufman stated the Council thought that the committee would recommended
where the utility corridors should be. Staff indicated that the County is not
prepared financially to pay for an environmental impact statement and other things
that would have to take place to make that happen.
Nelson stated he'd hoped that they would be able to identify specific
corridors. The State senators committed that local control should be recognized in
any FERC process. If there isn't something in the Comprehensive Plan that
identifies current corridors and specifications, then it doesn't help. Put the
environmental impact statements and permitting up front to save industry some
money. Olason stated there is a policy on how to use the preference siting criteria.
The committee developed a geographic information system (GIS) -based rating
system that goes mile by mile along the corridor route. It rates the corridor on six
to eight different parameters. Ultimately, the County has a lot of credibility when it
goes to a FERC hearing with a rating system like that. The committee has put
together credible policies. A conditional use permit requires compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, which is full of policies about siting a pipeline. When a
company comes in, they can run the GIS model themselves to see how they rate.
Ultimately, the County has said what it prefers. The real preference is to avoid
populations and unstable areas.
Nelson asked if that is all planned out so that they don't impact areas that
could be used as they plan growth for 20 to 30 years. He asked if the Council
would get information on a great location for pipelines and utilities if it looks at
urban growth expansion for Sumas, for example. Olason stated there is only two
ways to do this. Either the Council zones it and doesn't allow another use to
occupy a space, which reserves the area for a future for - profit company to come
through and take it, or they just try to locate it in areas that are less likely to
convert because there are other land use objectives, such as agriculture or forestry.
If it is out there, it won't have the same kinds of problems as it would if it was
against an urban growth area. Policy says that a company would have to notify a
city if it is close to an urban growth area. The companies usually do that. Other
cities may not be as knowledgeable as the County is know on pipeline issues, so
there may be a problem when it comes time for them to comment. If an area is
reserved, a pipeline company could condemn the property, and the landowner
would be required to have setbacks from the original property. The landowner
would own the property, sell 35 feet to the pipeline company, be restricted from
using 200 feet due to setbacks. Another company would come along and see a nice
spot to put another pipeline. That may not be fair to the landowner. Whichever
way they choose, they have to make someone uncomfortable.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
Kaufman stated they have to keep in mind how to stop proliferation of these
things.
Olason stated they also talked about having multiple corridors. Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) has a policy that says they won't do that. There is
another issue of redundancy. In the world of terrorism, a question is whether it is a
good idea to have all the utilities in one location. Another issue is separation, so a
gas line doesn't blow up and knock out a power line. Basic siting criteria are good.
The County has an idea of what it wants to have.
McShane recommended that the Council schedule a public hearing. Wait for
two weeks to work on any proposed amendments.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff will be working permitting process in goals
5D, 5E, and 5F. Olason stated that anything about expediting permits will be
consistently cleaned up in the update.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't know why goal 5F should be the County
responsibility. Olason stated the County has to comply with the Growth
Management Act, which compels the County to make sure it can adequately provide
services. Utility service is a big part of how the County accommodates growth.
One big issue was to make sure it didn't set up impossible scenarios for companies
to get power or gas. If goal 5F seems to be overly friendly, the staff can work on
it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson asked if they know where all the pipelines are. Olason stated they
.•
Nelson asked why it would be difficult to put the 660 -foot notification zone on
a GIS map. Olason stated people believe that notification requirements are the first
step to establishing other requirements and restrictions. Mapping for notification is
not a problem.
Nelson asked if FERC includes a notification process. Olason stated it does, if
there is a new proposal.
Nelson asked why it hurts to identify the corridors as notification corridors.
Olason stated that is basically what they did. If a person is within 150 feet of a
pipeline and requests an excavation permit, the person would be notified based on
the GIS information.
Nelson stated they keep talking about existing utility corridors. It would be
helpful to have those corridors mapped. Olason stated they could do that. They
don't want to identify proposed corridors.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
Nelson stated he had some serious concerns about the fiscal and
administrative impacts of Councilmember Brenner's proposed amendments.
McShane stated there are a few of Councilmember Brenner's amendments he
would support.
McShane moved to amend Council packet page 46, policy 5N -6, "...geological
eves conditions."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to approve Councilmember Brenner's suggestion for an
amendment to Council packet page 35, second sentence in the first full paragraph,
"The committee is comprised of a mix of utility- industry professions and private
cities t#at who have conscientiously attended...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to approve Councilmember Brenner's suggestion for an
amendment to Council packet page 37 at the bottom, "Electric power,
communications, petroleum, and natural gas...."
Olason stated they would address that and the other scrivener's errors in the
rewrite.
McShane withdrew his motion.
McShane moved to approve Councilmember Brenner's suggestion for an
amendment to Council packet page 45, policy 5M -6, "Require pipeline proponents
to notify all fire districts, water and sewer districts, and jurisdictions with urban
growth areas...." It is a clarification thing.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated none of the amendments warrant a significant change.
Hopefully the Council can approve the ordinance at the meeting tonight.
Nelson stated he wants to make sure that utility corridors are identified on a
map. Olason stated that is easy to do.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is premature to vote on this before they come
back with a revision of the utility chapter. Olason stated this was an assignment to
deal just with pipelines. Staff is working on the chapter separately as part of the
GMA update process. Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber's concerns are being done
during the chapter review. He wants to finish the pipeline changes so there aren't
two drafts of the chapter floating around.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
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 the pipeline issues are a part of the entire utility chapter.
The idea was to work on the pipeline issues to deal with the moratorium. This
ordinance will take care of the pipeline language specifically. However, the entire
utility chapter will be updated anyway. That update will address the permit
expediting problem.
Nelson asked if GIS mapping would be done in the update. Olason stated it
could be.
McShane stated staff recommended striking the disclosure statements. The
Utilities Committee recommends differently. He moved to recommend striking the
disclosure statements. It would require a public hearing. It is notification to every
deed within 660 feet of a pipeline.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how they do notification now. Olason stated they
don't.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if a buyer knows that he or she is buying a piece of
land that has a pipeline on it. Olason stated the buyer knows if it is on the
property. However, a person is buying property that is adjacent to another
property that has a pipeline, that buyer is not going to know about it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Councilmember McShane's reason for not wanting
that notification.
McShane stated there are two reasons. One reason is the burden on staff
and the cost. The other reason is that it puts neighboring properties in an awkward
position of having something on the deed that may be alarming and may create
fear. It puts a potential impact on an individual who would not otherwise be
financially impacted. It's a good idea from the committee's standpoint, but he's
torn by the fundamental idea of whether or not it is a good idea to put that burden
on county citizens. It should possibly be a federal policy.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a person would be burdened twice and not gain any
benefits. First, a person's neighbor could agree to sell land for a pipeline, and only
the neighbor would be compensated. The person would have to suffer again by the
property value going down.
McShane agreed.
Olason stated the County's legal counsel says the County doesn't have the
authority to require it.
Fleetwood asked the committee's reasons for including the disclosure
requirement. Kaufman stated the reason is to design a mechanism that
accomplishes that goal. Someone could step forward with a design for doing the
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
disclosure. It's important to the committee. They must recognize that a neighbor
is impacted and gets no say in the situation.
Olason stated there was a suggestion to pursue it through the State and
make it a disclosure requirement at the point of sale. Now, it won't come up
between independent parties who are selling to one another.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the consequence of a person not knowing that he or
she is within 660 feet of a pipeline. Olason stated the consequences are only in a
person's assumption of risk and awareness of proximity. He didn't know if there
were any monetary risks. It doesn't bother a lot of people, but other people may
want to know. Some people would rather live next to pipelines than next to people.
McShane stated he could change his mind on this motion, but approving it
will require a public hearing and they will hear more on it.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated he's done with discussing it in the committee.
2. 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)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the new zone was a direction of the
adoption of the Point Roberts Subarea Plan. Zoning standards and regulations were
not adopted concurrently. The purpose of the zone is to allow people to develop at
a density of one unit per five acres or a one unit per acre density. The higher
density is allowed based on providing cluster subdivision, open space, and
community sewer system. The ordinance establishes a new chapter of the
Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.37. The language is based on rural residential,
one unit per acre (RR1) zone. There were recommendations for changes to the
proposed chapter from Mr. Rosser. The Planning Commission went along with the
staff recommendation, except it made the zone specific to Point Roberts instead of
throughout the county.
Fleetwood asked how development at Point Roberts would look because of
this zoning, compared to what development would look like without this zone.
Pederson stated certain areas are zoned transitional. They were previously zoned
urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3) or four units per acre (UR -4). It is a
higher density zoning that can't be realized without public sewer. Most of the
parcels are small parcels. Anything larger than an acre can't be developed at the
higher density without sewer, so they are restricted to a density of one unit per five
acres.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
The rural areas in the middle of Point Roberts were connected to form a
connected area of open space and trails. The intent was to preserve the rural
character of the area, and alleviate some of the hardship to some of those property
owners who couldn't develop because of the sewer restrictions. The 2001 Point
Roberts Subarea Plan did change the zoning. It was a downzone of potential
density. The owners couldn't realize that density now because of a lack of sewer.
If the sewer had come to the area, they could have realized the higher density.
Fleetwood asked if there was significant opposition to the transitional zone.
Pederson stated there was a mix of opinions. There was a lot of confusion about
what the zone would do, and a lot of concern about the open space requirement.
In this zone, there is a sliding scale of required open space, depending upon how it
is treated.
McShane asked if staff prefers that the zoning be specific to Point Roberts or
general to the entire county. Pederson stated it might be an option for other rural
areas. If they were going to apply the zone to other areas in the county, they
would have to strike the language making it specific to Point Roberts. That can be
done at a later date.
Fleetwood asked the fundamental purpose of the zone. The Council changed
the density in December. Pederson stated they are implementing the zoning
chapter. Without this text, all they have are lines on the map. There is nothing in
the zoning ordinances now that says what a person can and can't do in the
transitional zone. They would have to defer back to the Rural, one unit per five
acre (R5A) or RRI zones without this text. Staff needs the codes in place to let
people know what they can and can't do.
McShane asked for the rationale of a maximum lot size of one -half acre, the
maximum number of lots in a cluster being 12, as referenced in section 20.37.251.
Pederson stated there was a concern about a limit on the homeowners' association
members. The number of lots clustered in the agricultural protection overlay
district is 16, with a minimum distance of 500 feet between subdivisions. They
already limit the number of lots in a cluster subdivision. It is not a new concept.
There are concerns about limiting the association membership.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it is a good idea to limit
the number of lots in a cluster subdivision. Most of the parcels aren't huge, but
when there is a huge parcel, such as the Lily Point area, then 30 or more houses in
one cluster would feel like an urban area, not a rural area. That was something the
Growth Management Hearings Board commented on in the agricultural protection
overlay zone. It's a good idea.
Staff has a concern about limiting the homeowners' association numbers,
particularly as it relates to Lily Point. There is a potential for 100 to 150 lots. If
they limited the homeowners' association to 12, they will have Lily Point with four
or five different homeowners' associations, which would make it difficult to manage
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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.
a commonly -owned parcel such as a golf course or trail network. A larger parcel
would be more efficiently managed as one homeowners' association than by
segregating the area.
McShane asked for the rationale of the minimum lot size of 15,000 square
feet, as referenced in section 20.37.251. The 4,000 square foot lot that he lives on
is big enough. Pederson stated that is language carried over from the RR1 zone.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane moved to amend section 20.37.251, "...The minimum lot size shall
then be 15,000 square feet."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add language to section 20.37.251, "...The minimum lot
size shall then be 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot size shall be one -half acre."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add language to section 20.37.251, "...The minimum lot
size shall then be 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot size shall be one -half acre.
The maximum number of lots in a cluster shall be 16."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to drop specific references to Point Roberts, and make it a
countywide district. Strike the Point Roberts designation, and replace the language
that was removed to make it a specific zone. Goodwin stated they don't need to
replace that language. They aren't likely to have this zone in Lake Whatcom.
McShane withdrew his motion. They can deal with it when they want to
create the transitional zoning elsewhere.
Roy asked if Mr. Rosser's suggestions represent the community's opinion.
Michael Rosser, Point Roberts Taxpayers' Association, stated they are. There
are four goals set out in the Subarea plan. The transitional zoning is the key to
realizing those four goals. The cluster size would satisfy goal two, building a sense
of community. Have smaller clusters with a piece of land for which the
homeowners would have a personal stewardship. Point Roberts has a rural feel.
The community doesn't want that feel to change with development. This zoning is
a way to realize the maintenance of those goals while maintaining property values
and allowing some development.
Fleetwood asked if there is a definition of `open space design.' Rosser stated
the original text mentions the open space reserve tract' and reserve tract.' Those
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
two definitions were not consistent. He wanted to make them consistent. There
was some ambiguity in the language. The bulk of the changes he proposes are in
section 20.37.320. When they created the zone, they wanted to permanently set
aside open space areas. A developer could translate the language to mean that the
reserve tract can be developed later on. He suggested that they call it 'open space
reserve tract' to take away the ambiguity. It is open space. It is not a reserve
tract. There is no obligation for a developer to develop all of his land. He can hold
some land back for future development.
McShane moved to add section 20.37.057, ".057 Forest preserves, wildlife
reserves, natural systems education, and /or interpretive areas."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber out of the room.
McShane moved to add section 20.37.105, ".105 Hiking, jogging, cross -
country ski trails, and bicycle trails."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber out of the room.
McShane moved to amend 20.37.321 as recommended by Mr. Rosser in his
letter dated February 26, 2002.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to strike language in section 20.37.305(1), "...Clustering ins
intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency, and re
ef 'and which are suitable for agriculture, forestry, epen spaee, er possible future
develepn9en ."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend the ordinance to the full Council and
schedule a public hearing in two weeks on the ordinance, as amended by this
committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. 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)
McShane moved to strike finding nine in the ordinance on Council packet
page 123. The Planning Commission added it to match a text change that he wants
make now.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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 moved to reinstate language of sections 20.72.652(1) and (2):
"(1) The applicant shall retain existing trees over eight inches in caliper as
measured four feet above ground level to the maximum extent feasible. Cleared
areas including the building site, driveways, parking areas, and areas to be
landscaped shall not exceed 3,000 square feet or 50 percent, whichever is greater
of the total lot area.
(2) The county shall require that trees to be retained be identified on a site
plan. The county shall also require site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree
retention."
Brenner asked if this is just for residential areas.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated it applies to all of Point Roberts.
Brenner stated she is concerned about doing this. She wouldn't have a
problem if it just applied to Lily Point. She's not sure how this would apply to a use
such as a restaurant. She questioned how they would not exceed 3,000 feet if
there is a building and a parking area.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated one could have a larger
lot.
Brenner asked if there is an administrative exception of a person can't do
what he or she was zoned to be able to do. Pederson stated there is a variance
procedure.
Goodwin stated they could increase the square foot limit. The 3,000 square
foot limit was based on Lake Whatcom, where that amount of impervious surface is
the maximum. It could be bigger.
McShane amended and restated his motion to make it 5,000 square feet
instead of 3,000 square feet. Reinstate language of sections 20.72.652(1) and (2):
"(1) The applicant shall retain existing trees over eight inches in caliper as
measured four feet above ground level to the maximum extent feasible. Cleared
areas including the building site, driveways, parking areas, and areas to be
landscaped shall not exceed 3,000 square feet or 50 percent, whichever is greater
of the total lot area.
(2) The county shall require that trees to be retained be identified on a site
plan. The county shall also require site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree
retention."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner suggested amending section 20.72.201, "...in all zones, including
except expansion of existing...." The County might find that some of the gas
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
stations will survive. To not allow someone to add another pump will defeat the
purpose. They don't want to have more gas stations. They could allow gas station
expansion of adding extra pumps by administrative approval. It might be
worthwhile to allow one gas station to expand if another station closes altogether.
McShane so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add section 20.72.652, "(9) a 200 -foot treed buffer of
existing vegetation should be maintained around the heron colony."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend section 20.72.652, "(8) in the event ef safety
cenceffiS including Trees may be removed under the following circumstances: (a)
immediate trunk failure potential;...." He doesn't like the language as it is now.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to reinstate 20.72.656(2), "(2) Commercial development of
any parcel along a collector street shall require a no- protest agreement to
participate in a local improvement district, road improvement district, or
transportation benefit district."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend approval to full Council and a public hearing
in two weeks for the ordinance as amended by committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning and Development Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
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, 3/12/2002, Page 15