HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 7 20001
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
49
50
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 7, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Member Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON
WERRE FOR " "HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089)
Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, representing Mr. Werre, stated they have not
received a letter, but the Bellingham City Council voted unanimously to approve
the application.
Brenner stated she recalled from the last meeting that the committee
decided to move forward regardless of whether the City acted. The committee
gave the City Council the courtesy.
Hoag stated the committee held the item at the last meeting because the
code required a letter of availability, which wasn't in the file.
Jones stated the public actions, which are recorded by the City Council who
is the approving authority, would suffice.
Hoag stated the issue was about the availability of water. She questioned
whether that is what the City Council approved. Jones stated they approved the
availability of water and sewer, subject to their conditions.
Hoag asked Jones to provide a copy of the minutes. Jones stated he would
when they become available. He asked that the committee move forward. He
assured the County Council that the City Council gave its approval.
Hoag recommended approval to the full Council for consideration, pending
verification from Mr. Jones that the City of Bellingham approved the water
availability.
McShane stated that he would like to see the letter from the City Council
before moving this to the full Council. The code says that the file "shall have a
letter." There could be an administrative reason for holding up the letter. He was
sympathetic to the proponent.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
49
50
51
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated he expected a letter on
Tuesday.
Hoag questioned whether Jones would be willing to hold this item in
committee one more time. Jones stated it is grossly inequitable, form over
substance, to have the client pay him to come to the meetings because of
incompetent and lazy behavior by the City staff. It is wrongful. It is inappropriate,
and County Council should not aid and abet that kind of behavior.
Dawson suggested approving, subject to water and sewer availability.
Middleton stated that is exactly what the Hearing Examiner recommended.
Hoag stated that is what the Hearing Examiner did, however the County
code requires a letter of availability prior to the County's approval.
Dawson stated their approval would be subject to the letter.
Brenner stated that is all they are asking for. She requested legal counsel.
She was aware of the clause requiring the water availability letter. Staff had
already recommended approval. She didn't think there should be any legal reason
why the Council could not condition approval, subject to the letter. It isn't fair to
hold any proponent captive. There may be something personal going on. There
shouldn't be any reason why people are not treated equally. She questioned the
County's options for moving ahead with something if it is being held up elsewhere.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that has to be a battle
between the proponent and the City. The County cannot give the permit without
the water.
Brenner questioned whether the County could change that rule. Frakes
stated they could not. That requirement is from state law.
Dawson stated Council can give its preliminary approval.
Brenner stated the Council can approve it conditionally. She didn't want this
to happen again. She believed it was a County ordinance. Frakes stated the state
law could have been incorporated in the County ordinance. The Growth
Management Act requires availability of water for building permits.
Brenner stated availability of water is different than a letter stating the
availability of water. Everyone knows there is water availability. The City is just
sitting on the letter.
Middleton stated that, since the first planned unit development (PUD) at
Cordata in 1988, they have taken in applications that were in the City of
Bellingham service area. It has never been an issue. The County has approved
the applications conditional on getting water. The applicant won't start road
construction, build a house, or even get an address until they have water. That is
the way the County has been operating, until this project. The Hearing Examiner
reviewed this issue and told the City of Bellingham he wouldn't hold up the project.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
The Hearing Examiner moved it forward with the condition. Staff has reviewed
that section of code that the committee is concerned about. They will not take in
an application, today, without a letter. They are now allowing the City to hold up
applications. That is between the developer, the City, and their attorneys. The
taxpayers in the City of Bellingham will be the ones who will end up paying for it.
Staff is following the letter of the code today. It wasn't an issue before.
Hoag stated it may not have been brought up before, but it was the law.
Middleton stated the interpretation of the time is that, if it is in the
Bellingham city service area, it is a matter of form. It is not a question. The issue
of having a letter in hand is that there are many water purveyors that may not
have any water to give. Before an applicant brings in an application, the County
wants to know if water is even available. That was never an issue with the City of
Bellingham until now. Now, they are using their water as a bargaining chip on
other issues they want to bring forward. Whether or not the City and legally do
that is up to Superior Court.
Hoag stated that is not within County jurisdiction.
Middleton stated the County staff processes the requests. There are two or
three that are in the middle of all of this and that the City has over a barrel. Until
those projects give the City what the City is asking for, the projects will probably
not get their water and sewer. His staff report stands because the fundamental
issues of whether or not the roads should be there, the schools are taken care of,
and all the other things that matter are addressed. They are not going to do
anything until they get water anyway. He and County Planning staff don't have a
concern. It is two layers above them, now. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed
it, and it is now before the County Council. He understood they have to make a
decision and have their own concerns. The staff reports stands, which
recommends conditional approval upon water availability.
Hoag stated she was sympathetic to Middleton and Jones, but she has a
great deal of respect for the law. She was also concerned with the equity of the
situation. If the applicant can supply the County with documentation of the City
Council's approval, it should suffice.
Crawford stated he supported the Hearing Examiner's recommendation all
along. He didn't think that Mr. Jones had to spend his time going to the City in an
attempt to get draft minutes that may or may not be typed up. The Council needs
to move this forward. He moved to recommend approval of the Hearing Examiner
recommendations, as conditioned, to the full Council.
Hoag stated that they should move it forward without a recommendation
from the committee if they are not going to support having evidence of water
availability.
Brenner stated that if a development is within the Bellingham service area,
then the service is available. She questioned whether being in the service area
attests to the availability of services.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
48
49
50
51
Jones stated it doesn't.
Middleton stated they have processed applications in the Bellingham service
area in light of receiving the letter, because it was a matter of form to receive the
letter. The County no longer operates that way. They now require the letter.
Brenner questioned why they would have a service area if services are not
available.
Jones stated they exist often. There may be areas within the City of
Bellingham service area where the City is unable to serve. Some of the water
districts, specifically Water District #7, do not have the physical or legal capacity
to serve often. The Health Department has shut down Water District #7. Also,
they don't have the physical supply of water to serve even though they cover a
relatively large service area. It is important that a jurisdiction say they will serve.
They need to be responsible about it. He would provide a copy of the minutes
when they are available.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
McShane stated he didn't have a problem with this going before the full
Council at the evening's meeting. He would not vote for it, but he would not argue
against it.
Hoag moved to forward the item to full Council without a recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved that it be referred back to committee if the Council doesn't
approve the application due to the letter issue.
Hoag stated it could be referred back to committee. No one has a problem
with the development. It is just a matter of following the law.
Jones stated the Council has acted to approve Jack Laird's water and sewer
service, and his subdivision, which is served via Mr. Were's property.
Hoag stated that application had the letter.
2. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY HILLSIDE
ASSOCIATES (DICK STEERS) FOR "GOVERNOR ROAD" (PUD 98-
0001 /LSS98 -0010) (AB2000 -112)
Crawford moved to recommend to the full Council for approval with the
same conditions the Hearing Examiner listed on page eight.
Hoag questioned whether this application had a letter to serve.
Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, stated it didn't until about three hours ago, even
though the City Council acted months ago. He secured one from their Public
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
49
50
51
Works Department. Something bad is going on, and the County ought to get to
the bottom of it.
Norman Catanzaro, 4915 Samish Way, stated he represented Cedar Grove
Park, which lies south of Yew Street Road. The same builders who are making this
application built a project across the street from their park. With the start of that
project, there was an influx of mud from erosion. It has fouled up their lake.
They've had to dredge once, and there are weed problems that they are trying to
control. The park may be impacted again because of this. They want something
done to control the erosion that is on the other side. Would like to see something
done about the erosion from the last development before the next development
gets started.
Hoag questioned whether they have contacted the County. Catanzaro
stated they have. He has a list of the County staff he talked to. The County said
they would try to do something, but nothing ever happens.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated they received a complaint late
in 1997 and early in 1998. They made several site visits and issued three
correction notices. A fine was assessed. The County assisted in buttoning up the
site. It has been very difficult. The soil regime has a tremendous amount of fines
that are not trapped by a normal siltation fence or mulching. The developer has
been required to do a tremendous amount of land grading to do the additional
three sedimentation ponds. Mr. Jones is the engineer on -site. They have three
large sedimentation ponds, but those were not adequate to stop the siltation.
Jones stated it is not silt.
Middleton stated it impacted the pond in Cedar Grove Park. In addition,
there was erosion and clearing activity downstream from the Skeers' property.
That was also corrected.
Catanzaro stated that the ponds have been bypassed water now runs
straight through. The ponds are not even in service.
Jones stated that wasn't true. The applicant is Hillside Associates, which is
Frank Muljat and two other partners. It has been contemplated that Skeers will
acquire the property. At this juncture, this is an application by Muljat and his
group. Of relevance to the project under consideration, it is not even in the same
drainage basin as the mobile home park. It isn't siltation that is occurring. They
have very fine clay, called colloid, that doesn't rise to the levels of silt. There is a
colloidal solution that can settle in the ponds for a year. It doesn't look nice, but it
isn't a growth or siltation. It is a solution that is suspended. The County's been
diligent, and so has Mr. Skeers, on that site. The ponds are not bypassed,
however a detention pond has a function to empty so it can serve its purpose.
They can't get the silt out of the pond. Eventually it will settle. There is a very
small quantity of actual particulate.
Catanzaro stated the lake becomes clear again a few days after rain. They
didn't have this problem until this construction project started. There is a lot of
sediment.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
48
49
50
51
Jones stated that muddy water with a lot of solution that is dispersed into a
large body of water will not been seen once it is dispersed. That is the
phenomenon that Catanzaro is seeing. It isn't that the solution has gone out, it is
just that it is a lot weaker.
McShane stated when they get into a pond, the chemistry is different and
organics are attaching.
Jones stated his client is very concerned and has taken extraordinary
measures, beyond County requirements, to try to alleviate this. The project before
the Council is in a different watershed from the watershed these folks are located
in.
Hoag questioned whether the development went through any analysis to
determine whether this would be a problem. She questioned whether this was
anticipated. Middleton stated he didn't know. Both the Public Works Department
and his staff are reviewing the project.
Hoag questioned whether the problem has been solved. Middleton stated he
didn't know. As long as there is open soil, there is the potential for discoloration of
the pond. They are spending more time on that project than a typical project.
They were invited on the site by the developer in an attempt to assist in
maintaining all the water on the site until the construction is completed. That is
difficult in this weather. His staff spoke to Roger McCarthy, who went onsite to
review what was coming off. There was no discoloration in the culvert underneath
the road coming from the Skeers project. The project before the Council is
different.
McShane asked about the attempt to hold all the water from flowing off the
site. Middleton stated they've tried triple siltation fences with backed up hay bales
in an attempt to slow things down. There are certain areas in which the fines are
incredible. They are trying to make sure, as they are putting in foundations and
doing utility work, that the water in the area is ponded on the construction site
itself.
Hoag asked what the County typically does when an applicant requests a
plat, and a geology report turns up a lot of fines of this type. Middleton stated
they require that the engineer or developer to come up with a plan to ensure those
are taken care of. Regarding this project, no one foresaw the amount of fines.
McShane asked about the fines that were incurred and action that was taken
in response. Middleton stated there is a complaint file that was recently closed. It
started in January 1998. They had activity in the file monthly. When the County
visited the site, there were two perfectly installed siltation fences, yet brown water
still kept coming out. They tried installing a third, then they added hay bales, then
they held up the water. Once the homes are built and the lawns are put in, it will
take care of the issue.
Jones stated he has rarely seen a similar condition. The soils are erratic and
are unusual. It is not massive; it is very isolated. A geologist could do a series of
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, Page 6
1 tests and never find one of these pockets. They could regulate and study until the
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
49
50
cows come home, but they will never totally know. They only create models,
which aren't reality. A model is a picture of reality.
Winonah Woodell, 4915 Samish Way #67, stated she moved in the park in
1974 and never had a problem with the lake. It is a manmade lake. There is a
dam under the clubhouse. The creek from the dam runs into Lake Padden. They
have never had any problem until the development went in right across Yew Street
on Timberlake Lane. That year, they started having mud and silt in the lake. They
called the Health Department, who took samples. They followed the creeks up the
hill. She took 15 water samples. They found that the water was not a health risk,
but a lot of mud and silt, which is still is there. She requested that the County
send someone out there and track this down.
Jones stated there is a massive State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) logging operation going on. They are exempt under the County. They are
logging 30 acres.
Brenner suggested someone track down the source.
Hoag questioned whether the County could legally hold this application unti
the developer fixes the other problem. She also questioned what the three
correction notices and the fine were for. Middleton stated they were for increased
erosion control. He couldn't fine them for doing it improperly because they had it
done according to the textbook. However, it didn't matter. The ponds were still a
problem. At the end of it, he fined them until they could figure it out. One of the
things the developer did was spend thousands of dollars in sod to get it to slow
down enough to get it to silt out. Regarding the concerns, he will send out an
investigator to determine the source. Skeers is done, so it may be coming from
farther up. He will find out.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they cannot. They
have to have some reason that this project is creating the problem in order to hold
it up. The County cannot hold it hostage.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag stated that everyone agrees there is siltation that is coming from that
property into this lake. The question is whether they can legally hold up approval
of another development if they feel that someone has not solved the problem in
the previous development. Frakes stated they cannot. These are separate
developers.
Hoag stated Jones testified that it is under the Muljat group now, but will be
Skeers. Jones stated that is commonly known. That isn't the point.
Brenner questioned whether any borings were done ahead of time to see
how odd the soils might be. If this development is in the same area, she
questioned whether they could hold it up because they may have the same
problem. Jones stated there was a soils report prepared for the South Hills
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
47
48
49
50
project. The report followed due diligence. Nothing indicated this would be a
problem. The two developments are not in the same drainage basins.
Brenner stated they are in the same area and the weird soils may be a
reason to move a lot slower on this. Jones stated this project came before the
Council less than a year ago. At that time, it was a 29 -lot subdivision. It was
passed. Division one has been constructed. They have not encountered this
problem in division one.
Middleton stated there is an area about the size of the Council Chambers
that has problems. They were working in that area for about two years. It was a
cul de sac area. The problem was corrected after they finished that area. He has
heard they are seeing siltation again. This project before the Council is not the
issue. Someone may be putting in a garden that is creating a problem.
Hoag stated the testimony was that the problem began with the first
Timberlake Lane development. They also encountered problems with the previous
development. Middleton stated they are working up the hill.
Dawson questioned whether the project before the Council is above the
park. Jones stated it is in a different basin. It is west of Governor's Road. It flows
to the southwest. The projects they are talking about are southeast. On the
subject site, they've mostly blasted rock. There has been massive excavation.
Hoag stated she needed the answer to her question. Frakes stated they
need to look at the criteria of the PUD ordinance. If the criteria are met, then they
need to proceed with approval. They can't hold this up legally.
Crawford stated page five, section three, said there was testimony from the
Cedar Grove Park Association, who expressed concern about potential drainage
impacts on their properties and their lake. There was also evidence at the hearing
showed that the drainage from this development is in a different drainage basin
from Cedar Grove Park. The Hearing Examiner has seen evidence of this.
Hoag stated no one disputes that. The question is not whether this
development will further impact the park. The question is whether the Council can
hold up approval of this development until the problems with the previous
development have been solved.
Brenner stated her question was whether the unusual soils found in the
previous development could be found in this development, even though it is in a
different drainage basin. She didn't want the problem to affect someone else.
Woodell requested that the County provide someone who will find out where
the problem originates.
Middleton stated he would follow up on that problem. The development that
is going in is large, but the soil type they are talking about is about the size of the
Council Chambers.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
49
50
Motion this recommend approval to the full Council, with conditions, carried
unanimously.
Hoag suggested they look into "bad boy" laws.
Brenner stated "bad boy" laws don't punish people for mistakes. They
punish people for ongoing violations. At some point, when there is a problem,
there needs to be a stop -work order that stays in place until the problem is
resolved. They have laws now that can adequately address this problem.
Middleton stated they handled it through the normal enforcement
procedures. They issued correction notices. They held a pre- deprivation hearing
on a stop -work order.
Brenner questioned what would happen if the cause is still the same from
the same developer. Middleton stated they would get on it.
Hoag questioned whether they could issue a stop -work order until the
problem is solved. Middleton stated they could.
Hoag questioned whether the County could keep them from moving ahead if
it is not solved. Middleton stated they could. The last two times he visited the
site, the water ran clear.
Brenner suggested the park residents call Middleton when it doesn't run
clear.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999 OPEN
SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -120)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, provided a staff report. There
are six applications. The same owner owns four of the applications. Two of those
four are to take land from designated agriculture, and the other two applications
are to take land from timber and put them into timber open space. The staff and
Planning Commission recommendations are for approval.
Hoag questioned whether the Council has discretion to remove one of the
applications and deny it, even though it has earned the points it has. Goodwin
stated that if it has earned the points, it goes forward. If the Council doesn't agree
with the adequacy of the timber management plan, they could adjust the points.
Hoag stated most of the plans that were submitted were very good. A
number of them were excellent. However, she wanted to pull out the Breakey
(Unger) application for discussion. She moved approval of the other applications,
which are the McDonald and the four Farinha family applications.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated page 161 of the Council packet says that it is in the Lake
Whatcom subarea and that they plan to harvest five to ten acre clear cuts in ten to
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
49
50
51
fifteen years. She wanted to learn more about the timber clear cut and whether it
is in the watershed its potential affect on the lake. Goodwin stated that the
Council doesn't have a choice on whether or not to allow clear cuts. If they go for
a State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forestry permit, which they
probably will, they could clear cut these areas whether it is designated as forest or
timber open space. The only difference is for taxing purposes. Anything under 20
acres has to come out of designated forest classification and go into the forest
taxation. The County has no control over the clear cutting.
Hoag stated they are being given two points for their harvest plan. Clear
cutting in the Lake Whatcom watershed doesn't deserve two points. Goodwin
stated the Council wouldn't have to give them any points at all for the harvest
plan. What the Council really needs to look at is if its meeting the intent of the
open space taxation law, which means the land is primarily used for growing and
harvesting timber. If it does, then they would have a hard time justifying that it
doesn't meet the criteria for the open space timber classification, which is to
harvest timber.
Dawson questioned how many acres one would harvest at a time to ensure
that there is adequate light. Douglas fir has to have lighting to grow.
Hoag stated this plan is to harvest five to ten acre clear cuts and to break it
up into smaller pieces. That sounds like clearing for development. Giving them an
open space taxation break for clearing their land is not appropriate. Goodwin
suggested that the committee hold this item until they could get better information
at the next meeting. Staff could also provide more information.
McShane stated the harvest plan seems to refer to forest practices, which he
is not familiar with.
Brenner stated they don't have enough flexibility in the open space
regulations to deny an application. The committee should have a work session on
how they can get more flexibility in the ordinances that apply.
Hoag suggested that they look at the points that they've given for different
things. The Council can reallocate points.
McShane moved approval of the Breakey (Unger) application. At most, a
reallocation of points would drop the score to seven, which would still be approved.
He is happy with all the scoring. The applicant went beyond standard forest
practice rules by installing cottonwoods and wetlands.
Hoag questioned what would happen if they don't plant the trees they say
they are going to plant. Goodwin stated they would score a zero. They would
have to do a conversion. They would have to take it out of timber open space and
pay the back taxes.
Hoag questioned whether the staff goes to look and see if they've fulfilled
their plan. Goodwin stated staff looks at what they didn't do. The owner will pay
the back taxes if they didn't do what they were supposed to.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
48
49
50
51
Hoag questioned whether the owner would be required to pay back ten
years' worth of taxes if they don't plant trees on the clearing for ten years.
Goodwin stated the County doesn't have the authority to do that, and doesn't have
the staffing to inspect each application to see if they really did plant the trees. If it
is in timber open space, the tax assessor double checks to see if it is in timber.
McShane questioned whether there is any difference in tax break between
timber open space and open space /open space. Goodwin stated there is some
difference. The tax break is based on a number of things and the overall score.
Hoag questioned whether the timber must be cut down to have a timber
open space classification. Goodwin stated that is the intent of the law; it's for
production of timber forest products. One could do firewood cutting and take out a
minimal harvest, but they have to do something to produce timber.
Hoag stated some of the other categories require public access to the land
and other provisions that one would not occur with the timber open space
classification.
Goodwin stated staff would look into the issue. They will need to get legal
opinions on that issue.
Motion carried 2 -1 Hoag opposed.
Goodwin brought forward a resolution initiating emergency zoning text
amendments to 20.90 - amendments section (AB2000 -128) that would
affect the way the County processes zoning text amendments. The amendments
would come forward from the Planning Commission as the commission gets done
with them, rather than bringing them all forward to the Council at one time. The
Planning Commission held a recommendation on the change and recommended
approval. Staff cannot move it forward unless the Council first adopts a resolution
calling for that item to be brought forward out of the batch of amendments, rather
than waiting until May when they are done with the rest. She suggested that the
Council adopt the emergency resolution at the evening meeting, and then bring
forward the ordinance at the next meeting for introduction. There is still time left
on the 60 -day comment period to the state agencies. Procedurally, they should
wait for two weeks.
Hoag questioned whether there will be any issue regarding the comment
period notice if the Council proceeds with processing things as they come forward
from the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated there will not. Many of the items
the commission has already finished and have been sent to the State Department
of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) so there will be enough
items to come forward. Those without the CTED review will be held to the end.
This will expedite the Council's process.
Crawford moved to recommend approval of the resolution to full Council at
the evening's meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
48
49
Goodwin stated the Council adopted Ordinance 99 -092 (AB99 -461) at the
end of last year to correct the scrivener's errors in the County Comprehensive
Plan. There was a scrivener's error in the ordinance. On Exhibit 1, item 1, the
language inserts the language on page 2 -30, #12. In reality, the language needs
to go on page 8 -30, which is the mineral resources chapter, not the land use
chapter.
Crawford moved to correct the scrivener's error on Exhibit 1 of Ordinance
99 -092, "1. Page -28 -30, #12:..."
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83
AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT
CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, submitted a substitute page five,
with a minor wording change to section .072(2) to make it more clear.
Hoag read the following paragraph on page five, which began, "The
procedures for Administrative Approval Uses...." When she went to Whatcom
County Code section 20.84.235, which is referenced in that paragraph, the only
approval criteria was a reference to compliance with the criteria established in the
appropriate zoning district, section 20.84.235, and section 20.84.220. Goodwin
stated the intent is that all the conditional use criteria used to judge an
administrative approval, would not apply to a lot consolidation. The only things
that would apply would be the three items listed on that page, which is that each
lot has water and sewer, has a building site, and has road access. That is all staff
would look at.
Hoag moved to change the language. The criteria cited are from WCC
20.84.220, which she read into the record. They should look at those criteria. The
Council takes into account the effect on the neighborhood.
Brenner stated she didn't agree with the first item regarding it being
harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. If one is in an R5
or R10 zone, and has a three -acre parcel, one is not harmonious with the
objectives. There are plenty of two- and three -acre parcels in R5 and R10 zones.
If a person has a platted lot, he or she should not be penalized because there have
been zoning changes. The only reason she approves of consolidation outside of
critical areas is for health and safety reasons.
Hoag suggested amending language to section .072, "...when processing a lot
consolidation relief application, except that the approval criteria of WCC 20� X35
20.84.220(1) will not apply."
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
Brenner stated she would be willing to state that health and safety issues
shall be taken into consideration. She was not comfortable adopting something she
hasn't had a chance to read. They moved the changes weeks ago because they
adequately reflected her concerns. She moved off of where she was to respect the
concerns of everyone else.
Hoag stated it is the conditional use criteria. Councilmember Brenner has
seen it over and over.
Brenner stated she didn't know it by heart.
Hoag stated there are parts of this she is not comfortable with, but she is
willing to make changes, providing they are still protecting the neighborhood.
Typically, Councilmember Brenner is interested in protecting the neighborhood.
Brenner stated she was still interested. For health and safety reasons, this
addresses it. However, the County can't force the lot owner to change things
because the lot doesn't match with the view of how the County thinks things should
be.
Hoag stated the first two items are aimed at other things. Items three
through eight in section 20.84.220 is what she wanted in the language. She read
section .220(3) regarding disturbing neighboring uses.
Brenner stated she agreed with section .220(3).
Hoag read section .220(4) regarding providing adequate services.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated that is already covered by sections two and three of the
ordinance. Goodwin stated schools wouldn't be covered.
Hoag stated this is more thorough.
Brenner agreed with section .220(4).
Hoag read section .220(5) regarding additional requirements for public
facilities and services.
Brenner agreed with section .220(5).
Hoag read section .220(6) regarding detrimental use. They will not have to
worry about that with a lot consolidation anyway.
Brenner agreed with section .220(6).
Hoag read section .220(7) regarding vehicular approaches.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
Brenner agreed with section .220(7).
Hoag read section .220(8) regarding the destruction of natural features of
importance.
Brenner agreed with section .220(8)
Hoag moved to amend language, to the proposed ordinance in section .072,
"...when processing a lot consolidation relief application, except that the approval
criteria of WCC 29.84.23S 20.84.220(1) and 20.84.220(2) will not apply."
Goodwin stated language at the beginning of section .072 says that the
zoning administrator shall grant consolidation relief if the all of the circumstances
one, two, and three apply. Given that statement, they can't further condition
approval by adding seven other items. They would have to add language that the
zoning administrator must reference the additional seven items.
Hoag suggested they add a new item, .072(4) that will say, ".072(4) That it
meets the approval criteria of WCC 20.84.220, except WCC 20.84.220(1) and WCC
20.84.220(2)." Goodwin stated that would work. It makes approval more
subjective and discretionary. It is more like the wording they are removing.
Hoag stated it is very important discretion.
Brenner questioned who would make the determination about what excessive
is, in terms of added cost to public facilities and services. The purpose of this was
health and safety.
Hoag stated this is an administrative approval process. If the administrator
looks at it and determines that it should be denied, then it could be appealed to the
Hearing Examiner. At that point, the person can prove there isn't a problem.
Brenner questioned whether staff would prefer specific criteria or a general
statement that it not have a negative effect on the general health and safety of the
public. Goodwin stated it would be better to reference the criteria that are written.
They should look at criteria one through four that are proposed to be stricken
because they are more specific to lot consolidation.
Brenner disagreed.
Hoag also disagreed. Many of the councilmembers were dissatisfied with that
language.
Crawford stated the approval criteria may not apply because the lots were
already divided anyway. That paragraph provides a process the people have to go
through. The approval criteria are eliminated regarding this process because they
have the criteria of one through three already stated.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, 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
Hoag stated that the Hearing Examiner or the administrative official has no
recourse to stop a detrimental use, even if they meet criteria of sections .072(1)
through .072(3).
Hoag amended her motion to add, .072(4) that will say, ".072(4) That the
proposed consolidation relief meets the approval criteria of WCC 20.84.220(3)
through WCC 20.84.220(8)." The following paragraph will also be amended,
"...when processing a lot consolidation relief application, except that the approval
criteria of WCC 20.84.235 20.84.220(1) and 20.84.220(2) shall not apply."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated she did not approve the one -acre or 60 -feet changes, but will
support them if they are the will of the Council.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the amended ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Planning and Development Committee on
September 12, 2000.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/7/2000, Page 15