HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 6 20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 6, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "CREEKSIDE
MEADOWS," FILED BY CAREY BROTHERS (AB2001 -087)
Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, stated he represented the applicant. He would
respond to any questions.
Hoag asked about the attachment that delineated the Critical Areas
Ordinance requirements. She couldn't find it. She asked what was delineated
regarding the critical areas.
Jones there were issues on requirements on isolated wetland fill mitigation,
steep slope setback and protection, and some mitigation and setbacks associated
with Toad Creek. All requirements from County staff, the state Department of
Ecology (DOE), and Army Corps of Engineers were satisfied and are reflected in the
configuration of the plat as submitted.
Hoag asked if they are reflected in the findings of the Hearing Examiner.
Jones stated the staff reported to the Hearing Examiner said that they've complied.
Hoag stated the Hearing Examiner generally puts conditions on the plans, but
there wasn't anything specific to what was agreed on. She asked where the
assurance was that they follow through with what was agreed. Jones stated he has
a hard enough time getting his own staff to competently prepare documents and
reports. He didn't intend to take on the County staff. They did what they did, and
they reported in the way they deemed appropriate. The process took a year. It
involved those three elements. In the end, the staff reported to the Hearing
Examiner that they were happy.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated condition ten of the
Hearing Examiner recommendations says that the applicant must comply. The
attachment is part of the file. The specific one of concern is the geo- technical
analysis of lots 31 through 37. Staff is asking for information to be placed on the
plat and some geo- technical work to be done for any building permits. That is part
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
of the file and will be part of the process. He will ensure that it happens when the
plat is finalized. Signatures have to go through the County Council Chair and the
Hearing Examiner. It is clear that he needs to work with the Hearing Examiner so
the Hearing Examiner can give the County Council the things that the staff knows
as true. He will work with Hearing Examiner to expand the findings to be clearer.
The next couple of PUD's will be the same since the staff reports are already
written.
Hoag questioned a note on the plat prohibiting accessory dwelling units.
Middleton stated it is a requirement of Title 20 now. The applicant has to state up
front whether the accessory dwellings are intended or not.
Hoag stated the plat is in an Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX) zone. She
though that zone was designed for multiple uses. It seems like all they are putting
into the zone is residences. Middleton stated the UR -MX zone is not coming to
fruition the way it was intended when adopted. A lot of the problem is the water
and what the city will allow. For there to be multiple uses in that zone, it requires
certain siting criteria that have been impossible to meet given the water restraints
from the City of Bellingham.
Jones stated the Council will soon have an application to the west of the
property for a 22 unit townhouse project. The major obstacle is the prevailing
attitude of the City of Bellingham about what they want to have.
Hoag asked if they got water from the city. Jones stated the City Council has
acted to include this site in their water and sewer service boundaries. A city
ordinance was passed.
Grant stated it is Bellingham Municipal Code Ordinance 2000 -06 -028. It is
available, but is not clear in the Hearing Examiner finding. It is there.
Hoag asked if the Council has to make its own findings. Grant stated it is not
a bad idea, but the fact is on the record.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Grant stated there are three issues that he wanted to put on the record: the
traffic study, the speed slope geology, and the school impact fees. Regarding the
school impact fees, there was a recommendation for particular fees from the
Bellingham School District.
Jones stated that consistent with the State Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA) requirements, the clients entered into a contract mitigation agreement with
the district providing for appropriate impact fees. He submitted a copy of the
agreement.
Grant stated it wasn't submitted, but now it is.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Jones stated the district hadn't responded to the staff's request for
information, so the clients went to the district and worked directly with them.
McShane stated the agreement is for a fee of $1,481 for each residence.
Grant stated the second issue was regarding the Engineering Division's
condition related to a traffic study. They don't know what the results of the study
are and whether any actions need to take place.
Jones stated that a full traffic study was submitted prior to the Hearing
Examiner report. The conditions should provide that a traffic study be submitted,
and that there be concurrency by the developer in the event that the level of
service (LOS) surrounding the project falls below what is set forth in Title 20, which
is an LOS D. That should have been a requirement, in his view. In any event,
none of the intersections subject to the study fell below an LOS B. There were no
consequences. The conditions should be expanded.
Hoag asked to add that to the Council's findings.
Middleton stated the traffic impact issues are addressed in the Engineering
Division's recommendations. In the past, they've addressed any fatal flaws or big -
ticket items as a condition. In the past, they required that the study be submitted
to help with the minor improvements. It has to be completed before the final plat
is signed to ensure that those issues are addressed previous to the final plat being
put forth. Under regulatory reform, the County has 120 days to run this through
the process. Staff could stop the clock to do a full traffic study, and then see if the
traffic study is approved. Typically, the staff will defer anything it can until later to
defer any cost until later, before they have approval from the Council. That could
be problematic for the County Council because it doesn't see every mitigation effort
that may come forth. In the past, staff has assumed it was their job to ensure that
those things are done.
McShane stated that the development would go forward, and as the lots are
sold they would pay for some of the mitigation items. Middleton stated that one of
the reasons for regulatory reform was to give the staff a certain time period to have
the decision to the Council. At the same time, they struggle with how much
information is too much and is costing the developer money, and how much
information is needed to make a viable decision. The staff is at the point where
they are in that gray area. That is why this condition is here. The staff needs to
make sure it is met at the time of the final plat.
Hoag questioned whether they could do what Mr. Jones suggested by
including a condition requiring a traffic study that meets the approval of the proper
authorities. She questioned whether that would speed up the process while getting
the right level of information. Middleton stated it would. He will make those
suggestions to the Hearing Examiner for future proposals.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 3
1 Hoag asked if the Council could condition this proposal. Middleton stated
2 they could.
3
4 Hoag asked if they could add that specific condition to this PUD. Middleton
5 stated they could. He would like to talk about how he would administer that
6 condition. He didn't have the background information to address the specific issue
7 of concurrency to determine whether it is something that he can ensure happens on
8 this project. Staff has always inferred that the studies are upon the approval of
9 staff. If the Council wants to make the language more specific, it could.
10
11 Grant stated he would work on language for the evening's meeting.
12
13 Jones stated the point of the traffic study is to identify those traffic elements
14 that are impacted in a meaningful way by the proposal and to determine what the
15 effect is. If the facility fails by some standard, such as the LOS, then propose
16 appropriate mitigating measures that need to be taken so that it will be in
17 compliance. That is pretty basic. Doing a traffic study after it's gone through the
18 public process is shutting the door after the horse has left the barn. He appreciated
19 that Mr. Middleton wanted to keep front -end costs down, and there are ways to do
20 that. He wasn't that wild about deferring traffic studies until the final plans are
21 submitted because the entire public process is precluded from being involved in
22 that, and the decisions are substantially made. In this instance, they are fine.
23 When the staff says it needs a traffic report, it needs to step forward and
24 understand that certain transportation elements need to be examined. They, in
25 consultation with the engineer who is going to do it, need to come to that
26 understanding. That is the basis of the concurrency.
27
28 Grant stated they also needed to have the information gathered so it can be
29 reviewed concurrently.
30
31 Jones stated it is not an issue in this case.
32
33 Grant asked about an upgrade to Britton Loop Road. Jones stated there was
34 a need for infrastructure improvements on Britton Road in terms of right -of -way
35 acquisition and the basic road itself that needed to be of 3/4 standard. There was a
36 sight distance issue on the intersection with Britton Loop and Britton Road to the
37 south. Those were all addressed in the report, and the appropriate mitigation was
38 set forth. Staff reviewed it, and thought it was fine. His client agreed. The client
39 does what they have to do.
40
41 Grant stated he would work on language for the approval. Regarding the
42 geology of the situation, Mr. Goldthorp was concerned about steep slopes on lots 30
43 through 37. In his report, he said that his concerns were addressed by a study that
44 was previously done by the Toad Creek Estate project. Exhibit ten of that project is
45 a letter from Merit Engineering, which had two recommendations. Regarding this
46 issue, there should be on site geological and technical engineering investigations for
47 each of the particular lots, and the builder should comply with the
48 recommendations for each of those lots. There should be curtain drains used on
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
these lots. He didn't find anything in the Hearing Examiner's conditions that would
require either of those two things. Jones stated he did a geo- technical investigation
and had certain recommendations. They agreed with staff that those were
appropriate.
McShane stated that they weren't site specific. It was a general
investigation, and each lot would have to have a geo- technical report on it, and it
would be put on the deed. He raised the issue last time. He was not that
concerned, but is always uncomfortable putting lots down when they haven't fully
addressed the geology. Jones stated that his consultant presented those conditions
to the County. The County concurred. They should be reflected in the document.
Middleton stated that if staff had concerns about those lots, they wouldn't be
here now. They would have addressed it up front. The conditions they are looking
for is making sure that any construction on those lots are looked at individually. It
depends on what kind of engineering has to happen. On the final plat, he would
look for a statement that lots 30 through 37 have to have the geo- technical report
for construction.
Jones stated those conditions would be filed under an Auditor's file number
and appear as a note on the face of the plat consistent with the new Title 21.
Grant stated that everything he wanted addressed on the record has been
addressed.
Jones submitted a copy of City of Bellingham Municipal Code 2000 -06 -028,
extending utility service.
Hoag questioned whether they could reference the geo- technical reports for
the lots on the Council's findings and include them as a condition, so it is very clear.
No one is going to go back to the Council's minutes unless there is a lawsuit. It is
more appropriate that it is spelled out in the document providing the permit. Grant
stated he preferred that. His objective in bringing forward these issues was to
impress upon Mr. Middleton the need to work with the Hearing Examiner to clarify
these issues. They are covered well here, and he didn't see any major problems.
He would come up with language regarding the traffic study.
McShane restated the motion, including the conditions stated that there be
findings included. The letter was submitted for mitigation fees for school, the
ordinance was submitted allowing the water and sewer, and the County staff
approved the traffic study. They would also include in the findings that the geo -
technical report requirements for the individual lots would be on the plats.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS F, I, AND 3) (A62001 -041)
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
McShane allowed a member of the public to speak on the Birch Bay - Lynden
Road MRL, which was approved for recommendation by the Natural Resources
Committee on February 20.
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, stated he was the representative for the
applicant. The area is next to the Custer Gun Club. There is a large overhead
power line. The outlet mall is across the freeway. This is a sand pit, not a gravel
operation. There are no screening devices. This location in the area of Custer has
a large amount of sand. There are many small operations in this area that haul
sand for septic drain field materials. This applicant blends the sand with other
materials. The blending operation will provide sand mixed with gravel in the Birch
Bay and Blaine areas. Otherwise, they need to rely on operations in Everson. This
allows a smaller operation. It allows some competitive activity in the large scheme
of things in the County. It would also reduce the number of truck trips. It would
lessen the impact on the road system. This site is compatible for the operations.
Neighbors in the area have no problem with the operation. It is a temporary
operation. Once the sand is removed, it will result in a pond. The County has
already approved the site for a conditional use of sand removal. The proposal
requires the applicant to install a huge acceleration /deceleration traffic
improvement on Birch Bay - Lynden Road. Other sites in the county don't even have
an accel /decel lane, just a driveway. The County has recognized this area as a
sand removal spot since 1996 or 1997. They prove that the hydrology will be
protected from the removal of the sand. There are no hydrology problems. Those
are the factors that support this proposal.
Hoag asked what the vote in this committee was.
McShane stated the committee voted to not recommend the proposal. There
is a draft state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) study regarding mineral
resources in Whatcom County. The County also has a gravel committee in place.
One issue to address soon is taking another look at the overlays and the criteria in
the Comprehensive Plan. In the western part of the county, they may need to look
at gravel differently than the DNR did. He was concerned that they might be ahead
of approving these proposals without having good criteria set, so they can establish
where and the types of mining they want to see in the far western part of the
county. It should be different than in other parts of the county. The fact is that
transportation to this area is a distance from where they have good deposits. In
other areas in that part of the county, there are over - burden issues. The concept of
a mixing operation would be attractive. He was not totally opposed to the idea.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Campbell stated that he concurred that a study needs to be done in this part
of the county. However, this is not a new operation. It has been in the works since
1996. The neighbors concur with the activity. The sand is removed to another
location for blending. It is very unique in that sense. The use is compatible with
the gun club. The power lines are an indicator that removal of sand under the
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
power lines seems to be a common denominator in lots of places. Even though the
study is imminent, this is not a new operation.
Hoag stated there was a question about residential development, and that
there was a vested plat next door. She asked if the neighbor with the vested plat
spoke up. Campbell stated there are a series of holdings. Four or five of the
existing residences indicated they had no problem with the operation. He's heard
nothing from those people who own the plat.
Hoag stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee asked that decision on all
MRL's be deferred until the review is done. She concurred with that request.
(Clerk's Note: Took a five - minute break at 3:55 p.m.)
2001 -F BELLINGHAM UGA
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this one had been
debated heavily by the Council last year. This is an amendment to add a section on
Britton Road and the Mount Baker Highway. The Council approved it last year as a
docketed item, and then approved it as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
City of Bellingham appealed it to the Growth Management Hearings Board because
of a process issue. The County failed to adequately involve the city in the process.
They spent most of last year working on an interlocal agreement that defines the
process for a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment. This amendment meets the
criteria for a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment. It is less than ten acres, and
is consistent with the adjacent zoning. A letter from the city dated March 5, 2001
asks the County to not initiate this amendment because, although it fits the
definition of a minor amendment, it is poorly timed, that there is no need to expand
the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) in this location, and it's timing is contrary
to city and County interests in proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan review of
the UGA needs as part of the five year review, which is to be done next year. The
city provided other reasons to not consider the amendment at this time. She
displayed maps. The area is at Britton Road. Power lines are over the area. It
drops off into the Dewey Valley. There is five -acre density housing around it.
Everything in the UGA is zoned Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX) and Urban
Residential, four units per acre (UR -4). The site has agricultural soils on 2/3 of the
parcel, but it is not in the agricultural protection overlay (APO) zone because the
site is less than 20 acres. It is not impacted by wetlands, flood plain, wildlife areas,
or aquifer recharge areas. According to the Critical Areas Ordinance criteria, the
entire area is a seismic hazard area, based on geology and soils. However, much of
the county is.
Hoag asked if the information on seismic area is new information. Goodwin
stated they've always included that information.
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor, stated that this is a reapplication from last year.
He was discouraged that he could not review the comments from the city. The
Council just approved a plat in the same neighborhood. The city is working on
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 7
1 annexations to bring a junior high school in. They need to look closely at what's
2 going on. There is a new fire station and another project of multifamily housing.
3 Subdivisions that are almost complete are nearby. The high school just made
4 improvements to McLeod Road because of the growth in the area. This is an issue
5 that they brought forward to the Council on the basis that this is the next
6 commercial pod they will develop as they go out Sunset Road. There is a two -acre
7 commercial site, a 16 -unit subdivision, and a school. The UR -MX zone requires that
8 they cannot do anything within quarter mile increments. It fits all criteria of UR -MX
9 zone. Services are there. All the nearby buildings are on public sewer, other than
10 the non - conforming uses in the area. The Washington State Department of
11 Transportation ( WSDOT) planned a five -lane highway from Woburn Street to this
12 intersection plus 1,500 feet past the intersection. It is true that right -of -way
13 acquisition has not started. The City of Bellingham wouldn't have the Orleans to
14 Woburn Street improvement on Sunset Road if it wasn't for their own willingness to
15 spend more money than what the normal equation would call for. WSDOT would
16 not pay for it. This is the same situation. He doesn't expect WSDOT to spend the
17 kind of money that they used to on street improvements. The applicants are going
18 to be responsible for those improvements.
19
20 In retrospect, the Council carried this forward last year. They got through
21 the Planning Commission and Council with approval. The applicants made an
22 agreement with the City of Bellingham and the County to not go to the Hearings
23 Board. The proponent said it would step back and wait for the County and city to
24 do this minor project approval. They should go through the process. This is not on
25 the scale of Bellis Fair. They are talking about seven acres, four of which are
26 adequate for UR -MX planning. It is the County's interests they are looking at here,
27 not the city. Here is the retail sector of UR -MX zoning that was asked for.
28
29 Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont, stated that the City of Bellingham Planning
30 Department is in a state of denial about what is going on in their city. He's
31 watched a single - family lot go from about $42,000 to $60,000 in the last four
32 years. He understood that Councilmember Hoag is a big supporter of the city, but
33 he urged the Council to look at the city's claims with great caution. There is a
34 major study happening that is looking into exactly the number of lots and what is
35 available to be built on in the city. The numbers are different. He was looking for
36 an opportunity to bring forward the evidence that the area has changed
37 dramatically since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The developer would
38 cover much of the costs.
39
40 Hoag stated she has respect for the city's jurisdiction and the impacts that
41 the County causes when the County changes the city's boundaries. If the County
42 sends this to the Planning Commission, the city has to respond as well. That is why
43 she hesitated to do things outside of normal review patterns. It is more efficient to
44 look at things as a whole than it is to pull items out separately. She asked when
45 the review of the UGA would be complete. Swanson stated that the Growth
46 Management Act (GMA) was adopted in 1990, and a plan was finally adopted in
47 1997. It is difficult to speculate when this review would be done.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Campbell asked if the ordinance allows for small sites under ten acres.
Swanson stated it is an interlocal agreement.
McShane stated that both city and County Planning Commissions and staffs
would look this at jointly. The city and County could disagree.
Hoag stated the ordinance says to take into consideration whether this is
scheduled for ordinary review. The kinds of issues that are being brought forward
with this project are the kinds of issues that the city will look at in a broader way.
Crawford stated he's always been supportive of the rezone. He asked why
the property owner to the east hasn't been a part of this. It seems it would be
good Mount Baker frontage to be included. Campbell stated the DOT will take that
property when they widen the road.
Crawford asked about the signalization of the intersection. He asked why
this project would help speed that signalization along. Swanson stated that the
owner at McLeod Road paid $80,000 for the signalization.
Crawford stated he drives that road daily, and would love to see that
intersection signalized. This is a great site for this.
Campbell stated that the DOT and the city do not plan on installing the traffic
signals. It is the County's obligation. If it is not on the six -year plan, it should be.
The issue is whose traffic is creating the problem, the city or the county. The
property owner will be responsible for signalization. His question is why the fire
department, school, and the recently approved subdivisions are not responsible for
that signal as well. Everyone should pay for this signal. He didn't think that the
County has a traffic impact fee system like the city does.
Crawford stated that the traffic numbers are phenomenal. There are 728
vehicles per hour going north and 340 going south. At the right turn from Britton
Road onto the Mount Baker Highway, there are 139 vehicles per hour. At the left
turn, there are 51 vehicles per hour. At the left turn from the Mount Baker
Highway onto Britton Road there are 80 vehicles per hour, and at the right turn
from Mount Baker Highway onto Britton Road there are 72 vehicles per hour. He
didn't know what the low -end standard is for signals, but someone has their head in
the sand on this. He moved to recommend docketing.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
Swanson stated that no notice was sent to the applicant about this being on
the agenda. He was at the meeting two weeks ago. He stumbled across it on the
agenda.
Hoag stated there needs to be a better way for that. Goodwin stated there
could be a better way. Everyone could have to send a notice, but it's a very
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
predictable system. It happens the same way every year. It comes in, and it is
introduced at the first meeting in January. Any applicant that puts in an application
should know the schedule because it is in the code. It comes to Council, and it is
introduced. The applicant needs to track it to see if it is moved forward. It is
scheduled for either one of two meetings, either the last meeting in January or the
first meeting in February every year. It doesn't cause some people a problem, but
causes others a problem. It is easier for an applicant wondering when something is
going to be on to call the Council Office than for staff to have to notify everyone of
the status after each meeting. It's not that tough for people once they know the
system. These gentlemen have done a few of these before.
Hoag stated she was talking about when it first hits the Council, not how it
moves through the Council. Goodwin stated it is always scheduled early in January.
Hoag stated it is not up to staff to update people on the process, but a
number of people mentioned that it caught them by surprise. The staff can notify
the applicant when the Council will begin to take up the project. From then on, it is
the applicant's responsibility to track the progress.
Goodwin stated they could include the timeline in the application materials.
Crawford stated the complaints he's hearing are about a lack of notification in
terms of what is up front. What they are talking about now is constructive. They
need to get people better informed about how the process works.
The second, unpredictable component is that people feel like they are getting
rejected to have things forwarded to the Planning Commission without an
appropriate hearing process taking place. The Council is judge and jury about
whether or not these applications go forward, and the Council is not having an
extensive debate to make this decision. All of the information is reserved for the
Planning Commission process, but the Council is making decisions out of hand
about whether or not it goes forward. He does want a screening process of some
sort, but doesn't know how to draw that line.
Hoag stated there needs to be consideration of staff time and taxpayer
dollars spent. There does have to be a sifting process, which is what they are doing
now. Goodwin stated they are still trying to complete 1999 zoning items. Their
backlog is so great that, even if they have the staff time and Planning Commission
time, the Council doesn't have time to push them through. Their chance to get
caught up is much greater than if the Council has controversial public hearings.
2001 -I MAPLE FALLS RF TO R5A
Goodwin stated this is on the Mount Baker highway near Maple Falls. The
zoning around it is Commercial Forestry and Rural Forestry. To the west are Rural,
one dwelling per five acres (R5) and Rural, one dwelling per ten acres (R10) zones
around Maple Falls. Maple Falls is zoned Small Town Commercial. Regarding the
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas, the south of the Nooksack
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 10
1 River is designated a wildlife conservation area. There is a wetland on the edge of
2 it, but not in the area. The area is an aquifer recharge area. The 100 -year flood
3 plain is on two - thirds of the property. There are no steep slopes, alluvial fan
4 hazard areas, or seismic hazard areas. She received a letter from the state
5 Department of Natural Resources (DNR). One of the criteria the Council is to look
6 at is whether it affects natural resource land, including commercial and rural
7 forestry. This would. It wouldn't affect an urban growth area (UGA). This is not an
8 area they are scheduled to look at in the future, other than through the shoreline
9 program looking at channel migration zones.
10
11 The letter from DNR says that they do not believe that changing the zoning
12 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, citing goal 8E about maintaining
13 forestry land base.
14
15 Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont, stated he represents a person who has an
16 option, a conditional earnest money agreement. The property owners own this and
17 the property to the north. They are in their 80's and are trying to sell some of their
18 land. He's driven past the land many times and never realized it is there. The
19 person with the option wants to put in a bed and breakfast, a small gift shop, and
20 maybe a couple of cabins and space for a couple of recreational vehicles (RV's). It
21 would be a cottage industry. The rural zoning is more suited to that activity than
22 the Rural Forestry zone. There is quite a bit of high ground. The plan is to do this
23 project, and most of the land will remain in the state it is now with some trails and
24 minor amenities. There is no commercial forestry activities going on here. There
25 has been no forestry for 50 years. It is mostly pasture with some scrub shrubs on
26 it. There are a few large trees. The trees will likely stay as a site amenity.
27
28 The County got the DNR letter on February 23. It appears that it was written
29 because Senior Planner Matt Aamot solicited it. He requested a copy of that
30 information in the future. There are changed circumstances in the area. He
31 referred to the need for small economic boosts in the area, which is already
32 economically suppressed. In the Comprehensive Plan, goals 8E through 8G are to
33 attempt to maintain and enhance the county's forestland and forest industry while
34 avoiding land use conflicts. The Mount Baker Highway presents a good buffer or
35 declination line along the forestry use across the street. This land is not forestland
36 now, and won't be. The property owners have no plans to plant trees on it.
37
38 Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997, the East Whatcom
39 County Economic Development Plan was prepared for the Port of Bellingham and
40 the Mount Baker Steering Committee. It makes important observations in
41 connection with this amendment. It noted that previous forecasts assumed that
42 the east Whatcom County area does not grow as fast as the rest of Whatcom
43 County. However, the Mount Baker School District documented that population in
44 east Whatcom County has grown faster than Whatcom County as a whole in the
45 recent past. As population grows, diverse employment opportunities are important.
46 In Whatcom County, small firms with fewer than ten employees account for more
47 than 89 percent of the number of employees. That is what they are talking about
48 here. It would allow for employment in the local community and provide recreation
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
accommodations. Accommodations beyond Glacier don't exist. People who want to
use the recreation area don't have anywhere to stay unless it is west of the Mount
Baker Rim. This is another opportunity for the local area to have a little boost to
the economy.
Hoag stated the DNR says this land is productive forestland. She asked if it
was harvested prior 60 years ago.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hoag continued to ask why DNR would say that it is productive forest.
Swanson stated the DNR never looked at it. They got a letter from Mr. Aamot
asking them to write something, and so they did.
Hoag stated is standard practice. Mr. Aamot has to put it out for comment to
the agencies. He was not asking them to shoot the proposal down. Swanson
stated that if Mr. Aamot had the time to do that, Mr. Aamot could have sent him a
copy of the letter two weeks ago.
Goodwin stated that it is common practice. The department sends all
applications to DNR and all the cities and asks for comment.
Hoag stated the picture of the area shows trees. Swanson stated he was out
there. He invited her to drive by the area and take a look at it. It's not trees.
There are a few alders, a few large fir trees. He will bring photos to the Council at
its meeting on March 20.
Hoag stated a comment was made that one -third of this is above the flood
plain. Swanson stated that is what the map shows. There is plenty of high ground
there.
Hoag stated she was concerned about rezoning the portion in the flood plain.
The last thing they need is more development in the flood plain. She asked
whether the application would be viable if it was restricted to the area that is above
the flood plain. Swanson stated it would be nice to count the adjoining land for
density purposes, in terms of the cabins they want to build along with the bed and
breakfast. It is a very good question, but he hasn't thought it through. There
would not be any lot lines. They are talking about cabins that are to be used as
part of the bed and breakfast. There would be a lodge -type building or small cabins
that would only have bathroom and sleeping spaces.
Hoag asked if he would accept a deed restriction that land would be
developed only on this portion. Swanson stated that would not be a problem.
Hoag questioned whether the changed circumstance is that it has grown
faster than was planned for. Swanson stated that was correct. The study
recognizes a need for more jobs in the area because it has grown more. That is a
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
justification to rezone now, because this proposal would offer additional
employment for the area.
Hoag asked if this is up for review. Goodwin stated there is no review on
whether the County is going to have Rural Forestry versus Rural zoning. They are
looking at the entire Comprehensive Plan amendment. The main thing they are
going to look at that would affect this area is the Shoreline Management Program
and whether it is a channel migration zone. She suspected it probably is a channel
migration zone. It is a low, flat area along the Nooksack River. As they do the
shoreline regulations, there may be additional setbacks. They are about two years
away from knowing that.
Hoag asked about the criteria they must consider during review. Goodwin
stated the criteria include whether it is scheduled for an upcoming review, so that it
should be held up. The answer is no. Another criterion is whether it affects natural
resource lands or agricultural lands. The answer is yes because it is designated as
forestry land and would be removed from that.
Hoag asked if Ms. Goodwin has any comment on the discrepancy between
what DNR says about productive forestland and what the applicant is saying about
no trees. Goodwin submitted a 1998 air photo. There are trees, but they may
have been cut or are alder or scrub trees.
McShane stated there is a distinct difference in the size of the trees from the
trees across the river, where there are larger trees and where the clear -cut comes
to an end. Goodwin stated the DNR probably did not go out and look at this site,
but looked at the forestry zone and the air photos. She didn't think they have the
staff to check each spot.
Her only other comment was that in the Rural Forestry zone, a person could
have a house with an accessory dwelling unit, a bed and breakfast, and a cottage
industry. Those are all allowable uses in the Rural Forestry zone. In the Rural
zone, one could have those same uses. In neither zone is an RV park allowed.
Hoag asked how many of those uses would the proponent be able to have.
Goodwin stated that the owner could have one house, one accessory dwelling, and
a cottage industry. The bed and breakfast would have to be in one of the units. If
the owner had 20 acres, there could be four lots. Each lot could have one house,
one accessory dwelling, and a cottage industry if it was rezoned to R5. The owner
would have to live in one of the houses to have an accessory dwelling. There could
be two houses on each lot and a cluster subdivision on the uplands outside of the
flood plain. At the most, they could have eight houses.
Swanson stated the potential owner doesn't want to live here. That is part of
the problem. He wants to live somewhere else part of the time.
Hoag asked if the proponent could have a bed and breakfast if he doesn't live
there. Goodwin stated that a bed and breakfast doesn't have to have the owner
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
48
living there. The owner could rent the house to someone who would operate the
bed and breakfast. The nature of a bed and breakfast is that someone has to live
there and rent out the rooms. Rental cabins are not a bed and breakfast. One
could just have rental cabins that are operated through a travel agent, but there
could only be two cabins, and the owner would have to live in one of them.
Crawford moved to recommend moving this amendment forward to the
Planning Commission.
McShane asked who owned the property across the highway. Swanson
stated the current owner of this area also owns the land across the highway. It
struck him as odd. There is R10 zoning all around, and Rural Forestry is nowhere.
Hoag stated that everything around it is Rural Forestry zoning, except the
ten -acre peninsula that goes into it. Swanson stated that finger of R10 is about
100 acres.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
2001 -1 WATER AND SEWER AMENDMENTS
Goodwin stated the Planning and Development Department staff docketed
this item. It is to amend the Comprehensive Plan policies to allow the public water
and sewer service within Resort Recreational Subdivision, and clarify that water and
sewer is allowed within the Small Town designation. There are several areas in the
county that would be affected by this. The Recreational Subdivisions, Point Roberts
in particular, want sewer. The Comprehensive Plan policies clearly say that they
cannot have sewer outside of an urban growth area unless it is to correct an
existing health problem or environmental issue. They are precluded from getting a
grant or designing their sewer system unless they are a UGA or the County changes
its policy.
It recently came up in Deming. The Nooksack Tribe wanted to put a sewer
plant in to serve the town of Deming, which has very small lots that would benefit
from sewers. The Comprehensive Plan policies are conflicting. One area says the
County should encourage the development of water and sewer for small towns. In
another area, it says they cannot have sewer outside of an urban growth area. At
this time, they assume that one could have sewer within a small town, but they
would like to clarify it.
There are other areas that this would affect, including the Mount Baker Rim,
the Glen at Maple Falls, and other recreational subdivisions along the Mount Baker
Highway. A lot of them do have small sewer plants just to serve their RV's or
recreational cabins. Some that could benefit from sewer. That is what this policy
would allow.
Hoag asked if there is a concern that it may cause increased densities in
areas that are particularly fragile. Goodwin stated it could cause increased
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, 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
47
48
densities because of the fact that many lots are undeveloped because they can't fit
a septic tank and can't get sewer. It probably would allow some development
within those recreational subdivisions or small towns.
Hoag questioned whether there is a down side to additional density
connected to sewer in Point Roberts. It is not an area where they need to worry
about stormwater. Goodwin stated they are going to need to work on stormwater
for Point Roberts and some other small towns. Generally, the recreational
subdivisions have tight boundaries according to the Comprehensive Plan
designations. They tried to follow the areas that are already substantially platted or
developed. Under the Growth Management Act's Areas of More Intense Rural
Development criteria, they are precluded from expanding those boundaries unless
there is a changed condition. She didn't see them expanding the boundaries of any
recreational subdivisions. There are some vacant parcels that could be further
subdivided.
Hoag questioned whether Sudden Valley is a recreational subdivision.
Goodwin stated it is, and already has sewer throughout. This would not affect
Sudden Valley or other areas that already have sewer. It just doesn't allow them to
extend the sewer.
Hoag asked if there is a downside to adopting this. Goodwin stated the only
downside is that it could encourage some additional development within those
recreational subdivisions that might detract from development within the UGA's
where they are trying to get development. Someone likely to live in Point Roberts
wouldn't be likely to commute to Bellingham or another UGA. In a few of the other
areas, a lot of the recreational subdivisions have covenants that don't allow
residency all year long. It wouldn't have a major impact on the distribution of
population across the county.
Hoag moved to recommend that this amendment be forwarded to the
Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
This item was held in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.38, AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY, TO
ENHANCE THE APO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES; TO CLARIFY; AND TO ENHANCE
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS (AB2000 -356)
This item was held in committee.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/6/2001, Page 15
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
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane stated the committee needs to schedule special meetings.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, suggested scheduling a special
meeting devoted just to agricultural issues, and another meeting devoted just to
cottage industries.
Hoag agreed.
The committee concurred to meet on March 15, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss
cottage industries and March 22, 2001 at noon to discuss agricultural issues.
Goodwin asked what to schedule for the next regular meeting on March 20,
2001. She suggested scheduling discussions on the Urban Residential Mixed (UR-
MX) zoning amendments, which have been pending for a long time, and the
definition of multi - family. It has been on the agenda for a long time also.
McShane stated he would defer to staff's judgement.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 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, 3/6/2001, Page 16