HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 24 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
September 24, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 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:
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON A SITE SPECIFIC REZONE OF A
36.2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND INTO A SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA,
AND THE PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION, " "BAY CREST LONG
PLAT ", FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 131 SINGLE - FAMILY
LOTS (AB2002 -335)
McShane stated the County generally does a good job in getting the cost of
its roads improvements reimbursed. A finding was that there is no evidence that
this proposal would create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services. He has some concerns that this will have some impact
on sheriff deputy service if the County doesn't charge impact fees.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated that is one of the
findings that have to be made. Developments must not overburden public services.
McShane stated they won't overburden the services, but there is an
incremental impact from developments over time. Middleton stated he agreed.
They have to look at that in comprehensive planning for those areas. It's very
necessary in terms of expanding urban growth areas. This project is already in a
long -term urban growth area. It has been zoned for urban development for a long
time. As far as this project goes, the Hearing Examiner was able to make that
finding. If this development wanted to expand by another thousand acres, then
that is when they will have to review the impacts to all the services before they
start rezoning those additional lands. If this were an affective rezone from rural or
forestry to urban, the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) official would have
looked at it more carefully.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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.
McShane asked if this area was designated as an urban growth area because
it was already urban. Middleton stated those lines were fought over based on the
politics of the day and based on whether public services could be provided. That's
why the pre -GMA zoning map and the current zoning map look very much the
same. People providing services in those areas have stepped up to increase their
levies, and that sort of thing.
McShane stated that's correct for sewer and water. However, he's heard that
the sheriff service in the Birch Bay area is abysmal. He asked if the County needs
to determine how it will pay for an expanded urban growth area at the time the
urban growth area is expanded, as developments come in, or if funding
mechanisms for providing expanded police services should have been created in
1997. Middleton stated it is a combination of all of those options. Through the
SEPA process, Land Use Division staff tries to communicate as best it can with the
Sheriff's Office to quantify the impacts that will occur. He doesn't know that he's
received a response from the Sheriff on this request. He is trying to coalesce the
permitting process better. He does fairly well getting input from the school
districts. School districts have found that if they provide comments on a
development, the school districts will receive some mitigation in return.
McShane asked if schools or fire districts have approached the County to say
that the County should require a blanket impact fee. Middleton stated the County
has to make a finding that there are adequate schools for plats such as this. The
more organized school districts provide information on what the schools can
provide. Other districts don't respond.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if the Blaine school district was solicited for
information. Middleton stated it was. The Hearing Examiner would not have made
the finding if that were not the case.
Roy asked if there is an indication that the Sheriff or school district saw the
notice. Middleton stated there was no indication. He has tried to increase the
distribution. On occasion, the Sheriff's Office will respond, but it's rare.
Fleetwood asked how they define an excessive cost, and whether that is a
subjective statement by the Hearing Examiner. Middleton stated it is a subjective
statement based on the Hearing Examiner's experience and through the
Comprehensive Plan, which establishes areas that have urban service.
McShane asked if they would see any proposals that have a similar process
as this. Middleton stated he anticipates more site specific rezones being brought
forward. Some areas are on the edge, and it is easier to keep areas rural. If
someone brings a viable project forward, he or she can ask for a site specific rezone
and prove the point at that time. Right now, the County is going to keep these
areas rural. This process is required for the Custer Intermodel Facility. This
request was fairly easy.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the development will address social impacts and if
there will be any community space for children.
Skip Jansen, JIJ Corporation, stated there are two recreation items as part of
the project. One is a 10,000 square foot playground area. As part of the road
improvements, he will put in a six foot paved trail to the bridge that crosses the
slough. It will be a pedestrian and bike path. The main access to the development
is within 2,000 feet from the public access to the beach. The development is about
a half -mile to the Birch Bay State Park.
Roy asked the price range of the homes. Jansen stated the homes would
range in price from approximately $140,000 to $190,000.
Fleetwood asked why this is necessary to come to the Council. Middleton
stated the rezone is a legislative action.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Continued below.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR HAL HART REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2002 -184)
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated his staff would
discuss subdivisions.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated his team works on
short - plats, legal lots of record, and subdivision exemptions, which are exempt
from Title 21, the subdivision regulations. To be a legal lot of record, the land has
to have been subdivided prior to zoning or subdivision regulations, or has gone
through the appropriate subdivision regulations. Many subdivisions and lots are
essentially illegal lots of record. Exemptions are legal lots of record because they
go through the process. In the rural, one house per five acre (R5A) zone, someone
can sell an acre of property, although it is not a legal lot of record, and a building
permit won't be issued for that site. The County Code requires that, before they
issue a building permit, the property must be a legal lot of record. That is
something that has to come through Whatcom County to make a determination.
With the help of title companies, he reviews when the parcel was actually split off to
determine whether it was done in a legal fashion. It is a gross misdemeanor to
offer for sale property that does not exist.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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.
Most of the work done in previous years was done through a short -plat
process. Two or three years ago, Title 20 was approved. Along with that approval,
significant road improvements were required for short - plats. Because it then cost
tens of thousands of dollars to do road improvements, the County adopted the
ability to do gift exemptions. Unfortunately, the Council took away the five -year
waiting period. Because of that, the public is losing out. He begged the Council not
to allow that, but it happened. More lots are created by exemption than by the
process that requires hearings, staff reports, applications, County review, and
public comment.
Fleetwood asked for an example of creating something by exemption.
Middleton stated a person could gift five acres to a son. The son immediately sells
the five acres to the public. That exemption has had no public or County review
regarding whether or not there are any services to the area or critical areas. A
person actually came into the department because he received a great deal on five
acres. The acreage was entirely a category II wetland. That person is going to
have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on mitigation to build the
property. There can't be a septic tank, so the owner will have to buy a neighboring
piece of property just to put in a septic tank. The owner hasn't been able to get
water. Exemptions have none of the review. More lots are created by exemption
than there are by short -plat and long -plat. Because of the exemptions, the Land
Use Division staff now has to work with owners to figure out mitigation and do
many site inspections. The amount of work is dramatically increased. Instead of
planning the project with a person, the staff has to react to straight lines drawn on
a piece of paper.
McShane asked often they have to do this. Middleton stated he is doing five
times as many mitigation plans as they did two years ago. They are doing 100
instead of 20 plans.
McShane stated it's a matter of who wants to bring this forward and open up
Title 21 again. He has some draft language. Staff asked the Council for an
emergency ordinance to stop exemptions, which the Council passed. Two weeks
later, the Council went the opposite direction. There is some political pressure.
Middleton stated it was more than continuing the exemptions. The County lost the
five -year waiting period. The person who was gifted the exemption used to have to
wait five years before selling the land. Now, the person doesn't have to wait five
minutes. A couple dozen short -plats had critical areas issues, road construction
issues, or water availability issues. The developer no longer had to do the short -
plat, and gifted the lots to relatives, who then sold it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if people recently did this around Lake Whatcom to
get around the subdivision moratorium. Middleton stated people can still do five -
acre exemptions.
Hart stated a lot can be as small as five acres in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Right now, staff is tapped out. However, work with Sylvia Goodwin.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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.
This is a big issue. The last thing he is trying to do is polarize the county over
planning issues right now. He'd like to build broad support in the community. He
has to take the time to tell the horror stories, show the impacts, and develop hard
numbers. At the time, staff postulated what would happen. The staff now has
good evidence out there if they have time to gather it. They could do it on next
year's work program.
McShane stated there are other issues with Title 21. Some influential people
in the Building Industry Association were not happy with exemptions. The
Technical Advisory Committee said the County should get rid of them altogether.
Hart stated the engineering community is specifically against exemptions.
McShane stated the engineers go through the awful work of trying to get
someone a building permit on a five -acre parcel when it's a bad parcel. Hart stated
they might get the architectural community or other industry communities to go
along with it.
Roy asked if people in favor of exemptions didn't want to be stopped from
giving land to their children. Middleton stated that was it. It looked like a
heartstrings vote. He's had to tell people the bad news that the County requires
road frontage improvements, so the retirement potential is gone. However, the
vast majority of what he deals with appears to be a legal circumvention of the
platting process.
Hart stated the issue came up because of how the Engineering Division fee
increases were impacting individuals who came in for a short -plat. It didn't have
anything to do with the building process. That is another issue that needs to be
discussed.
McShane stated there was also an issue regarding the safety of public
access. Middleton stated the case that tipped the scale was a person who would
have had to pay $70,000 to upgrade the substandard County road so he could
develop one $50,000 lot.
McShane stated he has no qualms about revisiting Title 21 at any time.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he and Matt Aamot had
proposed to the Planning a number of changes to Title 21 to close some of these
loopholes. The Planning Commission ended up ignoring the staff's suggestions, and
staff ended up spending the night just trying to keep the status quo.
Middleton stated that in doing an exemption, County staff still has to
determine whether there is a legal lot of record. His staff does almost as much
work on something that doesn't have any effective review for critical areas, water
availability, and public services. Staff still has to do a tremendous amount of
paperwork so the owner can turn around and sell the property. It takes up a lot of
staff time, yet they are not giving the public what is the County's duty to provide.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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.
When someone buys a lot that has been stamped and approved by Whatcom
County, the buyer doesn't look to see that it was approved because of an
exemption and assume that it's a buildable lot. The most serious case was the
buyer who literally bought a swamp. It was in an existing short -plat that was going
to set aside and protect that swamp and create four viable building lots. Because
the road frontage was so expensive, it made the project not feasible. At the same
time, the owner wanted to get an investment out of it and ended up selling five-
acre plots.
Roy asked if the road frontage cost is an issue the Council should look at in
conjunction with the exemption issue. Middleton stated they can't look at one
without the other. The Growth Management Act provides for development traffic
impact fees. The County does not currently have a traffic impact fee on the books.
McShane stated he looks forward to having this come before the Council.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON A SITE SPECIFIC REZONE OF A
36.2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND INTO A SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA,
AND THE PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION, "'BAY CREST LONG
PLAT ", FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 131 SINGLE - FAMILY
LOTS (AB2002 -335)
McShane moved to approve the amended ordinance that the councilmembers
received today.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UTILITY CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2002 -084Q)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated three different parties reviewed this
chapter. First, the Utility Committee reviewed the introduction, pipeline, power
line, and telecommunications sections. He reviewed the sewer section. Matt Aamot
reviewed the water and solid waste sections.
The issue with updating the chapter was to first make sure it met the
minimum GMA requirements. They also clarified language that didn't make sense.
It wasn't a major overhaul of anything. It was primarily cleaning things up. They
didn't get into the electrical section very much. The Planning Commission approved
it as it is.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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.
it did.
McShane asked if the Planning Commission changed anything. Olason stated
The introduction included an update of name changes and that sort of thing.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if regional transmission proposals have to do with
proposals outside of the county. Olason stated region transmission proposals refer
to large distribution and transmission facilities that cross Whatcom County
boundaries.
Olason read through the rationale of the changes in the Utilities Chapter (on
file) .
Roy stated there are other alternative energy sources in addition to solar, as
referenced in the Action Plan, items nine and ten. Olason stated item ten is to
enable different kinds of facilities. Item nine is a Uniform Building Code (UBC)
thing. A lot of work was done on that in the 1980's. Item ten gets to that issue.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about the Planning Commission's recommended
change to item 32 in the Action Plan, regarding no- protest agreements. Olason
stated that issue was held over at the Planning Commission because they never had
a quorum of the same people who were there during the first meeting when they
discussed this issue. There was a question of whether that language was adequate.
Staff developed an alternative paragraph that further clarified it. The new language
is on Council packet page 151.
McShane asked if utility transmission corridors apply to power plants. Olason
stated it does not.
McShane asked if the Comprehensive Plan addresses power plants. Olason
stated the issue of power plants needs to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The only place they are addressed is in conjunction with the corridor a power plant
is attached to.
McShane stated the question is whether they are going to see small power
plants along these utility corridors that are of no benefit to the county. Olason
stated that how they want to accommodate the ones left for review is a policy
decision. There is a question of whether that is really what Whatcom County
wants, and whether the County should try to get in on the Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council's (EFSEC) game or leave it up to legitimate companies to take
the leap and request that review. They haven't developed any strong power plant
policies. That is something the Utility Committee would get into at some point.
McShane stated an individual power plant could come forward and not cause
measurable impacts, but the cumulative number of a bunch of power plants will
have an effect. If the county is going to suffer the cumulative effects, it should
receive cumulative benefits. Olason stated there could be a larger view of what
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, 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
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.
should be accommodated in any given locale. It's more efficient to run gas down a
pipe than run power down a line. The Whatcom County code only allows power
plants in industrial areas and forestland. Otherwise, they are not going to go
anywhere. Methane power plants that would be in agriculturally zoned land will be
another question. The County is going to have to address those questions in the
next few years.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/24/2002, Page 8