HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 30 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 30, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee member Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION CREATING A LAKE SAMISH CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE FOR
WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000 -176A)
Crawford moved to recommend to the full Council as written.
McShane moved to amend the membership of the committee to strike
number three, a Lake Samish developer or business owner. This committee should
be representative of the residents.
Crawford questioned where the membership list came from.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it came from the Planning
Commission on suggestions from staff. The reason for including a business owner
is because there are areas in the Lake Whatcom overlay zone that prohibit certain
businesses, such as gas stations and greenhouses. There are people who question
whether they really want to prohibit similar small businesses in the Lake Samish
watershed. They thought business owners would want some input. There is one
gas station located at the north end of the Lake, and there is another site at the
south end of the lake that was envisioned as a convenience retail area. It is zoned
neighborhood commercial. Currently it could have a gas station. If the overlay
passed, a gas station would be prohibited.
Crawford asked if the panel is advisory to the County Council or the Planning
Commission. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission wants a committee that
would be advisory to them. Ultimately, it could also advise the Council.
Crawford stated it was initially formed to be advisory to the Planning
Commission and the Planning Commission is the entity who came up with the list.
Goodwin stated that is correct.
Crawford stated he liked the original list.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
McShane stated he wanted to see item seven in the membership be specified
to a commercial forestry property owner. He wanted a more specific
representative.
Crawford questioned Paul Isaacson about how he felt about it, because he is
a forestry owner.
Paul Isaacson, Lake Samish resident, stated he preferred they leave it as it
is. It depends on who is appointed. He doubted they would get representation
from a commercial, large -scale owner. If there is no rural forestry owner included,
there might not be any forestry participation.
McShane asked if most rural foresters operate their land as commercial
forestry. He is concerned about protecting forestry as a use of the land.
Isaacson stated there is not much difference between the two except in
zoning classifications.
McShane stated he has experienced people who own rural forestry land and
who are hostile to people who commercially harvest their forestry land.
Isaacson stated he would be concerned that they wouldn't have a commercial
forestry participation.
McShane suggested including representation by the state Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). They would provide valuable input on forestry lands in
the watershed. They are the major regulatory agency in the watershed.
Crawford agreed with the DNR representation.
Goodwin questioned whether DNR would be an ex officio or voting member.
McShane stated DNR needs to be a voting member. The state has an
interest in resources in the watershed.
Isaacson stated, regarding the developer /business owner category, that the
south Lake Samish quadrant is the only flat and level area without substantial
wetlands. He owns the area at the south end of the lake that can accommodate the
gas station. It would be okay to replace the businessperson representative with a
second forestry or citizen position.
McShane stated he didn't want to exclude those individuals.
Isaacson stated there are not many, and there wouldn't be a lot of
representation. Either way, he could provide the input.
Crawford accepted the addition of the DNR representative as friendly
amendment to his motion to recommend approval of the resolution.
Motion to recommend approval as amended carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
Matt Aamott, Planner, stated language was struck from packet page 250,
section (6)(d), which is reflected in the second sentence. He questioned whether
the intent is to add language to the first sentence, "A covenant shall ... exempt
divisions or short plats may be created..."
McShane moved to add language to the first sentence in section (6)(d) on
packet page 250, "A covenant shall ... exempt divisions or short plats may be
created...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Pat Jones, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), presented the TAC's
opinions and his own opinions (on file).
McShane stated the TAC said no to number four of the exemptions. Jones
stated the TAC said no to number six also. However, the Planning Commission
asked the TAC to alter number six to their approval because they wanted that item
included. On packet page 258, section 21.04.080(3), his own opinion is to change
language, "The owner ff�ayF shall specify the burdening...." It is important that an
easement, when created, specify the burdening, who the beneficiary is, and the
extent of the burdening. Through is experience, he's seen many easements
prepared without the benefit of burdening that end up in litigation. If they don't
know what the burdening is, they ought to not create an easement. It is not a
hardship and should be mandatory.
Crawford asked if there was TAC committee discussion on that issue. Jones
stated the TAC felt it went too far because one would have to hire an engineer. If it
is appropriate to hire an engineer, then one should do that. A burdening clouds the
title if it isn't defined.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated Mr. Jones' comments
make a lot of sense. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out a way to explain the
benefit and the burden from the onset. In some cases, if it were difficult to
estimate the number of trips, an artful lawyer could come up with reasonable,
subjective language.
Dawson stated an easement burden could be negotiated later. Jones stated
that is correct. It ought to be understood from day one. To the extent it requires
some technical analysis, then there should be technical analysis. In most cases,
technical analysis won't be needed.
Grant stated they don't have to put all the language on the map. There
could be a reference to another file. Jones stated that is correct.
McShane moved to amend language on packet page 258, section
21.04.080(3), "The owner may shall specify the burdening..."
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones stated the TAC recommendation in section 21.04.060(2) was an
oversight. The TAC intent is to have a clause or a suitable performance- securing
device in place. The staff supported the intent all the way through.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that in section .050(2) a
security can be provided. He was not sure the County's engineer would accept a
road that is not built.
Jones stated the County engineer would accept a road that is not completed
if the performance bond is in an amount sufficient to finish the road. That is
typical. The County accepted the first division of South Hills when it was still
woods.
Middleton stated that if the County engineer wants to take trees and hope a
road is there, then he didn't have an objection.
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated that is the current
policy. It has worked as long as the performance bond is in place and adequate.
Jones stated that is allowed under long plats, even in the new regulation.
There was an oversight on the short plats.
Aamot referenced language in section .050(2), "Improvements are
required... unless security is provided under WCC 21.04.140." He suggested they
use the same language in section 21.04.060(2) for consistency.
Jones agreed.
Isaacson stated he had a concern about the easement beneficiary and the
parcel that would be burdened. He provided an example. He was concerned about
creating too much regulation while trying to define the use of an easement. He has
never seen in any county how to define the exact potential long -term use for many
years. That attempt could harm the County. He asked how to define all the uses of
every easement for ingress and egress in the County.
McShane stated this is not going back into history, but is for future
easements.
Isaacson asked if it is in the County's best interest. There may be alternative
uses in the future. That is what the court systems are for. They can't practice law
in Title 21. Many uses can change.
Dawson stated the property owner couldn't prevent people from having
access, but should be able to negotiate and regulate the activity that goes around
the property. It doesn't prevent negotiation. It gives the person up front more
control.
Isaacson stated he was concerned that uses would be restricted.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Jones stated preparation and creation of an easement is the practice of law.
It is a question of whether the practice is good law or bad law. One writes
easements to accommodate the intent when they are granted. That is the
burdening.
Jones suggested amended language on packet page 263, section
21.05.030(1)(b)(iii), "...may shall conclude
eh een9n9ents that the notified cities and agencies are in concurrence with the
application." That is his suggestion, not the TAC's suggestion. This suggestion
addresses the issue that the City needs to respond in a timely way and not come in
at a public hearing after the comment period. That blindsides the applicant. The
City of Bellingham does that at its whim. They take an arrogant approach to how
they deal with the County. They know they have the water in the long run. They
don't participate in the public process. They lay stuff on the table at the last
minute. The County Council ought to send the City a message that the County will
conclude the City is in concurrence with the application if it doesn't play by the
rules. There is no technical merit for this suggestion.
Aamot stated he met with the City on this issue. There was similar language
proposed. The City objected to the language and told the County to not assume
why it doesn't respond. The staff tried to make a more neutral statement that said
the County can proceed without the City's comments.
McShane stated it gets down to the issue that someone goes through the
procedure, the County goes along with it, and then the City comes in. He can
understand why someone might be upset with the City. Numerous times he has
seen that issue. The County is running into that issue elsewhere. At some time,
they will have to have a work session between the County and City councils'
planning committees. The animosity is severe.
Dawson suggested a time limit for the City to respond.
Isaacson agreed with Mr. Jones on this suggestion.
McShane agreed, but was concerned about sending a message to the City.
They have not been receptive to the messages that have been sent so far.
Jones agreed that whatever the County writes in its ordinance, the City will
disregard because of their water rule. It may be a futile message.
McShane stated he might be helpful in sending that message.
Middleton stated a deadline wouldn't matter. Currently, when staff doesn't
receive a response from the city, they continue processing and make a note in the
staff report. Usually, the City will provide a comment of objection to the Hearing
Examiner. The County doesn't conclude that the City objects or doesn't object.
Dawson asked how long the County gives the City to respond. Middleton
stated the City gets the same agency timeline that everyone else gets. It is also
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
rare that they see any response from the Department of Transportation. Most of
the timelines are 15 or 30 days, depending on the regulations.
McShane asked if that was the reason for the Department of Transportation
(DOT) issue of ingress and egress. Middleton stated that is an issue. The City of
Bellingham's ammunition is water. The DOT will not comment, and then at the last
minute they will deny providing a road. As a result, the County wasted a year and
the developer wasted a great deal of time and money to find out he or she can't
even get onto the property without further legal review. He sympathized with Mr.
Jones and agreed in theory, but didn't believe it would change the purveying
attitude.
Goodwin suggested keeping the subdivision regulations a little more vague
and work with City through the City of Bellingham interlocal agreement. Staff has
been working jointly with the city on procedures for jointly processing rezones in
the urban fringe. They have made good progress and will bring it before the
County Council as a proposed amendment to the interlocal agreement with the City.
After they finish the process for rezones, they are going to work with them on
subdivision and conditional use permits. She is optimistic they can develop a
process that everyone will work with. It might take some time. Rather than
bogging down this ordinance, they could deal with the issue through the interlocal
agreement, especially since the City of Bellingham is the only city they are having
problems with. The process is smoother with the other cities.
Jones referenced the TAC recommendation on packet page 265, section
21.05.030(5). This came to the TAC from a County Council meeting. It was in
connection with a specific project that wanted a time extension but did not want to
comply with new subdivision standards. It relates to platting. State law requires a
five -year period in which to file a final plat. The number and duration of extensions
are discretionary to the counties and cities. Currently, it specifies a five -year
subdivision approval with an automatic one -year extension. The TAC view is that it
makes no sense. They might as well grant them six years to start with. Extensions
should be subject to the then - current development standards. Technology is
rapidly changing. If there is a project that stretches over ten years, it could
become technologically outdated. The TAC recommends a five -year approval that
is consistent with state law, with three additional one -year approvals.
Crawford stated he didn't have a strong opinion on it.
Jones stated the current wording proposed was on consensus of the County
Council. The recommendation was to grant a five -year extension and any number
of one -year extensions, but the developer should comply with the then - current
development standards.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Isaacson referenced section (5)(a)(i) regarding completing the requirements
in good faith. He suggested alternate language, "...complete the requirements
and /or fulfill bonding necessary for submittal." The requirement could be met by
posting the appropriate bond.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
49
50
51
Jones stated subdivisions frequently are bonded before they are recorded. It
is kind of a moot point. One would not find himself or herself in the position of
failing to record the final plat because work wasn't done, but was bonded. One
could then just go file it. That situation wouldn't happen. One would just go file
the final plat. If the developer bonded the plan, the final plat will be signed and
recorded.
Isaacson stated that all plats are permanent and, assuming that logic, there
needs to be no extension. A savvy developer could submit a plat and get it
approved. If he bonded it and just paid his bonding fees, it is recorded and is
definite. Now, the plat is vested and can be held for twenty years and be built
under old standards.
Jones stated that is correct.
McShane stated the language says the Council "may," not "shall." Jones
stated it should say "may." The Council should retain the judgement and decision
to determine whether approval granted five years ago was a mistake in light of
today's facts. Five years is what the state designates. He believes eight years is
too short. It ought to be at the Council's discretion. This came about because of
the issue of extensions that was before the Council in connection with a phased
development program. Just because one has a preliminary plat approval, public
policy should recognize that for a finite period of time. It should not have an
automatic extension. If progress is being made and there have been no significant
changes in social and political reality, then one should get an extension. The
extension decision should continue to be discretionary.
Crawford agreed with the TAC recommendations.
Aamot stated section (5)(a) relates to a standard plat and section (5)(b)
relates to a phased plat. If they change one section to five years, they need to
change the other section. He suggested they make sections (5)(a) and (5)(b)
match. Section (5)(b) is the second paragraph on packet page 266. Another
suggestion for section (5)(a)(ii) is to add language, "...the Council may condition
the extension so as to require compliance with any such subsequently adopted
rules, development standards, regulations, and ordinances..." on packet page 266.
Jones agreed it could be more specific. It is covered, but it would be more
informative. He suggested "...the Council may condition the extension so as to
require compliance with any such subsequently adopted rules, regulations, arld
ordinances, or development standards, or portions thereof..."
Crawford questioned whether Mr. Jones suggested using that same language
in the previous sentence beginning "In granting each additional one -year
extension..."
McShane stated he would repeat the suggested language in the prior
sentence for consistency.
Jones agreed.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
51
Jones suggested a language change in section 21.05.030(5)(b) on the top of
packet page 266, "Each phase submitted after s+x five (65) years from the date..."
McShane moved to approve:
1. The changes suggested by TAC as discussed,
2. the language change in section 21.05.030(5)(b) on the top of packet
page 266, "Each phase submitted after s+x five (65) years from the
date... ", and
3. The changes in section 21.05.030(a)(ii) "...the Council may take into
considerations such changes in rules, regulations, af�d ordinances, and
development standards, or portions thereof that have occurred..." and
"...the Council may condition the extension so as to require compliance
with any such subsequently adopted rules, regulations, affd ordinances,
or development standards, or portions thereof...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford suggested language in the "Easement" section, 21.05.070(3), "The
owner shall specify the burdening of the easement for potential residential uses.
This is not intended to preclude potential future forestry or other commercial uses."
And then list the specific things that are stated rather than saying "such as."
Jones stated that drawing the easement and specifying the burden is a thing
that would be contemplated, considered, and stated. The grantor of the easement
has in mind what he has in mind. He would very likely include those kinds of
things. In drafting that easement, those are the appropriate things that would go
into the burdening. The notion is that they need to specify what the burdening is
that they have in mind. It could be an easement for a footpath and nothing else.
They need to specify what the dominant estate is and what the burdening is to the
dominant estate. Then it is covered. If they are dealing with a road issue, then
whether the traffic is commercial, residential, or industrial is not important to the
community. The trip generation is more important. However, if the grantor of the
easement is so inclined, he could do it in a way that was restrictive. It is his land
and he should be able to do it however he sees fit, within the law. Having done
that, the subsequent purchasers should be able to rely on that.
Crawford stated he wanted to make sure the rural areas can continue to
utilize the resources. He is concerned that they put up legal roadblocks for
disgruntled neighbors to complain and enable the neighbors to find a way to
prohibit the use of the resources through a detail in the easement.
Grant stated the neighbors are not privy to the agreement with the folks who
created the easements. The neighbors can't usurp rights they don't have. The only
people who can usurp the rights of the easement are the dominant and subservient
estates. The neighbors can't enforce an easement.
Middleton stated the lawsuits he has been aware of regarding easement
issues tend to be about the road or drainage maintenance of the easements. These
are on easements that don't specify how the parties are to share the cost of
maintenance, regardless of how the road is used and by whom. Since there was no
establishment of the burden of easement when the short plat was done, the judge
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
51
is left with trying to make something fair and having nothing to go on. When
easements specify the use, it gives better direction. He believed Mr. Jones is trying
to establish for the future what the use will be, regardless of what that use is, with
the ability to renegotiate in the future. A person buying into the property should
have some fair warning of what they are in for. If it is a piece of ground that may
have to have logging trucks to travel on it, then the parties can do a subsequent
easement or monetary recompense afterwards. It doesn't have to be an
amendment to the plat or anything else.
Isaacson stated the neighbor becomes the person who can exercise the
rights because they live along the road. There are a thousand scenarios they can't
think of. They are moving into a zoning issue. They can prohibit the use of a
parcel with an easement.
Jones stated the owner of the piece of property that is granting the easement
has in mind the purposes for which he is granting the easement. Those purposes
may include ingress and egress, in the broadest sense of the word, which doesn't
limit use by logging trucks. That person may chose to specify residential, single -
family traffic only for 40 lots, for example. It is that person's land. That person
can grant whatever easement they want. The important thing is that they need to
set down what it is they have in mind so that the person who buys it knows what
he is getting, whatever it is.
Isaacson stated that if an owner may outline any particular use, they can do
that now, without any change in this language. A person can add or limit an
easement at any time he or she wants. If an owner is required to specify the use,
he or she can simply specify ingress and egress, and they've accomplished nothing.
Crawford stated he did not have a specific recommendation. He will have to
ponder the debate.
McShane moved to change the current language from "may" to "shall" for the
sake of consistency, in section 21.04.080(3) on packet page 258, "The owner may
shall specify the burdening of the easement...."
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
McShane moved to add language in section .050(2) on packet page 257,
"...prior to recording the short plat unless security is provided under WCC
21.04.140" as discussed earlier.
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones suggested a language change on packet page 270, the 22nd bullet point
from the top, "Contour lines of sufficient interval net exeeed ng five fcc} to show
the topography...." Contours are arbitrary. They may be overkill or underkill. Five -
foot contours on the face of Chuckanut Mountain are a waste of a client's money. A
five -foot contour on a 20 -acre piece, with three feet difference in elevation is
useless. He expects that the TAC will have recommendations in the development
standards. He also recommended that the topographic map should be certified by
a professional engineer (P.E.) or a land surveyor, as required by state law. Quite
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
often, he has seen preliminary plats showing five -foot contour maps, prepared by
non - professionals, which were derived from U.S. Geological Service (USGS) contour
maps that were interpolated. If a professional engineer or land surveyor did that,
he would lose his license to practice.
McShane concurred.
Jones stated the next recommendation is to amend language on the 24th
bullet point from the top of packet page 270, "...and drainage systems. (ineluding
The plans shall include system location and sizes ... and other major features and
shall be certified by a professional engineer, required under state law."
Grant stated that language delineates the items that are needed. If another
item is needed that isn't on that list, it wouldn't be included.
Jones stated that is why the term "and other major features" is included.
That covers it.
Grant agreed.
McShane moved to approve the language change on packet page 270, the
22nd bullet point from the top, "Contour lines of sufficient interval, net —emeeedi�
five feet, to show the topography...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked about the Planning Commission debate on requiring a
certified professional engineer. He believed this language was originally proposed,
and the Planning Commission removed the language.
Jones stated that is correct.
Grant stated there was some discussion that requirement was a "make work"
provision for land surveyors and professional engineers.
Isaacson agreed that was the rationale of the Planning Commission.
Crawford questioned whether the suggestion was viewed in a negative
connotation or whether there was a positive benefit to not having that requirement,
other than just saving money for the property owner who didn't want a "make
work" proposal.
Grant stated the perspective was that it wasn't something that was
necessarily required under state law.
Jones stated it is required.
Grant stated the Planning Commission felt that they didn't want to impose
that on people.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Isaacson stated there was a concern that some sites may be applicable to
use existing data or maps, without generating a new one. They were concerned
that a map not stamped by an engineer or surveyor would not be valid. They
questioned whether it was necessary to have something that current, or if the
existing data would be acceptable in some cases. The County staff could
determine, at the time of submittal and depending on what they are trying to do, if
it would be necessary and /or appropriate.
Jones stated the preparation of a topographic map, under state law, is
limited to a licensed land surveyor or a professional engineer. Even the
professional engineer is constrained. He or she can only prepare it in connection
with his or her own project. One cannot prepare a topographic map to sell
generally as a topographic map. That is a fact. That is stated in RCW 18.43. The
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is very clear on that. More fundamental to
the legal issue is that a preliminary plat is the single one and only document that
creates the right to subdivide the land. It is the only time that the public has an
involvement. It is important in making the judgements in connection with the
subdivision of land that the people making the analysis and doing the reviews have
a full deck of cards. A piece of junk map pulled off of a USGS quad sheet by
someone who is trying to run up the value of a piece of real estate for purposes of
marketing with a preliminary plat approval does not serve the public. They can't
make honest decisions with garbage maps. If they don't have a good, reliable map,
then they are making the decisions on likely defective facts and concepts. The
language doesn't say that the map has to be current. It can be 30 years old if the
land hasn't changed. It isn't a "make work" program for engineers and surveyors.
They have enough work to do as it is. This item is fundamental. They are talking
about drainage issues and steep slopes. This is very important.
Middleton stated there are two issues. He is involved with the legislation for
professional geologists in the State of Washington. The same limitations that is on
there for engineers will likely be there for geologists as well. The primary reason is
the establishment of datum, and the establishment of the benchmark is really up to
the land surveyor. They can start with anything and can put in some decent
contour lines, even good enough for a plat submittal. There are certain areas for
which they definitely want the map off of the datum. If they require it for all of
them, it's fine. From staff's standpoint, some of the contours they get in are
garbage. They have to go around and around with the applicant. He didn't care if
the map came from a land surveyor, geologist, engineer, or even a certified
cartographer as long as a professional does the plat. That will take care of a lot of
the weak work they get in today. He asked for the authority to get something in
that is worth looking at.
Isaacson agreed with Middleton in letting staff determine whether the plat is
acceptable.
McShane stated striking the language regarding five -foot contour lines may
leave the County hanging. They may need to add language. He suggested
language such as, "Contour lines of sufficient interval acceptable to the County
engineer to show the topography..."
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
50
51
Middleton stated that is true. In some areas where a critical areas geologist
would determine is not suitable, then it would be different than the County
engineer.
McShane suggested "Contour lines of sufficient interval acceptable to the
County engineer and /or the Director of Planning and Development Services or
his /her designee, to show the topography..."
Crawford questioned whether this was only for long subdivisions.
McShane stated he can see when they would need to use the Geodetic
Survey datum. He questioned whether that would be a determination the County
engineer, Director of Planning (or his /her designee) could make. There may be
times they don't need that information, either.
Middleton stated they need the low and the high, and how it gets there.
McShane stated there could be instances when knowing the true high could
be critical. Middleton stated that would be most important in coastal areas.
Jones stated it is most fundamental that it be prepared and certified by a
professional as required by the State of Washington. That is important because the
certification of a topographic map, prepared by a professional, will contain the
datum, the methods utilized for the development of the map so it can be evaluated,
and it will also contain a statement saying it complies with federal and state
mapping standards. One could create a very nice, professional looking map that is
totally wrong.
Isaacson stated the bottom line on this issue is regarding WCC section
21.01.020(3) relating to facilitation of efficient and cost - effective land division. The
Planning Commission doesn't want to see things that are not needed in projects.
On issues like this, they need to give staff the professional authority and the due
course for whatever the action is.
McShane moved to add language to the 22nd bullet point on packet page 270,
"Contour lines of sufficient interval acceptable to the County engineer and /or the
Director of Planning and Development Services or his /her designee, to show the
topography..."
Jones stated he was going on the record to say he frequents the County's
Public Works and Planning offices. For every map he sees showing topographic
maps prepared by anyone who doesn't have a Professional Engineer (P.E.) or
Professional Land Surveyor (P.L.S.) designation, he will file a complaint with the
State Board of Registration. As an engineer, he is obligated by the State Board to
do that. Under state law, they are required to have those certifications on a
topographic map.
McShane requested a response from Mr. Grant.
Grant stated he didn't believe there are requirements in state law delineating
what Whatcom County, as a county, wants to specify or enumerate as those
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
49
50
conditions by which it considers an application complete for further processing.
That is what they are talking about. They are not talking about the final product.
If they were talking about the final plat map to be filed, he would agree with Mr.
Jones. He disagrees with Mr. Jones on this particular issue.
Jones stated the final plat map doesn't show topographic features.
McShane repeated his motion, "Contour lines of sufficient interval acceptable
to the County engineer and /or the Director of Planning and Development Services
or his /her designee, to show the topography...." The County engineer will come in
when it comes to issues of flood levels or various drainage issues. They will require
a professional engineer at that point.
(Clerk's Notes: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane stated it says "other datum acceptable to the County engineer."
Middleton stated at that point, one still has to be a P.E. or P.L.S. To establish
datum, one has to be a P.E. or P.L.S. to go off of a datum. If he is in the middle of
raspberry fields, and he knows the fall is 10 feet over 40 acres, he can draw out
five -foot contouring tools, given a basic line with uphill and downhill, and not
establish to any datum. However, it gives the Hearing Examiner something with
which to know the direction that the water flows and that sort of thing. If he is
anywhere near the coast, it had better be established to a datum, and a P.L.S. or a
P.E had better do it. If they are going to require that it be referenced to a datum,
then it doesn't matter of they put P.E. or P.L.S. in there because it will be a P.E. or
a P.L.S anyway. The real question is the level of detail necessary before they take
in the application. In some cases, the map had better be done by a P.L.S. and
show a one -foot contour. In other cases, a 20 -foot contour map, or no topographic
map at all, may be necessary. However, there is not a lot of flat, rectangular
ground left to be subdivided. There are certain areas in which the staff will be
using this. Until one completes everything on the list, it is not a complete
application. If it is not necessary, they are going to require it anyway. The
question is how to make it discretionary.
Crawford suggested language, "Contour lines of sufficient interval acceptable
to the County engineer and /or the Director of Planning and Development Services
or his /her designee, to show the topography of the land to be subdivided;. At the
County Engineer's discretion, certification may be required by professional engineer
or professional land surveyor in referenced to either the United States Coast and
Geodetic...."
Jones urged the committee not to use the term "at his discretion" because
they are now urging the County engineer to violate state law. They are better off
to keep it silent. Don't put the County engineer in a position where he or she has
to make a decision whether or not to comply with the law every time it comes
around.
Middleton agreed with Mr. Jones.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
49
50
Crawford questioned how they determine the difference between a case that
needs professional assistance and a case that doesn't need professional assistance.
Jones stated they want that to be a decision made by a qualified, knowledgeable
professional. Each case is a separate, distinct issue. They need to have the
experience and professional judgement to make the decision. The problem with
just having the map is that there is no way that a staff member can ascertain
whether or not it is competent.
Middleton suggested that they remove contour lines out of the map data that
is required and put it into additional information for a preliminary long subdivision.
Along with the additional reports, boundary survey, and other information, include
the contour map if required by the County Engineer or the Director of Planning and
Development Services or his /her designee. They don't need the traffic study for
the application. They know they are going to need it later. One of the reasons it is
additional information is because they don't know if they are going to need a
preliminary traffic study or a real in -depth traffic study. Likewise, with the contour
map, they may not even need it. If they do need it, it should be done
appropriately. He suggested they pull it out of the application. As soon as the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) looks at the area, they are going to require a
contour map to continue processing.
Jones stated he likes Middleton's suggestion because it will result in good
topographic maps. However, he questioned how to evaluate a preliminary plat
absent a topographical map. Just because a site is flat doesn't mean it is not a
problem.
Middleton stated his suggestion is to put it in the same place with the
stormwater design and geologic report.
Jones stated he preferred that to the other language.
McShane agreed. He preferred Middleton's suggestion.
Jones suggested they call it a topographic map instead of contour lines. He
suggested, "GenteuF lin Topographic map of sufficient contour interval, t-e
showing the topography of the land to be subdivided...." The TAC came up with the
concept and promoted it to minimize the application level of effort, allow early
vesting, then require appropriate supplemental information as the project got
moving.
McShane amended his motion. The motion is to:
1. remove the bullet item beginning with "Contour lines of sufficient..." on
packet page 270, and
2. add language recommended by the TAC to the bottom of section
21.05.130 regarding additional information, "Additional reports, as
required, prepared by qualified professionals may include the following:
Traffic Study, Stormwater Design Report, Soils and /or Geological Report,
Wetlands Delineation and /or Report"
3. add language to the bottom of 21.05.130, "Genie F lin Topographic
map of sufficient contour interval, acceptable to the County Engineer or
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Director of Planning and Development Services, or his /her designee, to
show the topography of the land to be subdivided..."
Jones stated they don't need to say the rest of that language if they specify
certification by a P.E. or P.L.S. because the Public Works Department and Planning
Department directors are obligated.
Crawford stated they also require a geological report prepared by a qualified
professional.
McShane stated that is correct. In Whatcom County, a geological survey has
to be done by an engineer.
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones discussed the general plans of proposed water distribution systems,
sewage disposal systems, and drainage systems, on packet page 270, the 24th
bullet point. He suggested alternate language, "...and drainage systems. fThe
plans shall include system including location and sizes, source of water supply,
location and size of storage reservoirs, location of drainage outlet, and other major
features and shall be certified by a Professional Engineer." Such a plan is required
under the law to be certified by a P.E. Absent the professional input at the concept
level, they are apt to have a disaster. Typically, blunders and major planning
concept errors occur at the early stages. They get locked in iron, and then
someone grinds out details to make them work. The most important analysis
occurs at this preliminary subdivision time.
Middleton stated he agreed with Mr. Jones on this one. It is something they
need up front. It is difficult to retrofit design systems after they have already been
worked into where they are going to put the houses.
McShane moved approval of the suggested language on packet page 270,
the 24th bullet point, "...and drainage systems. fThe plans shall include system
�g location and sizes, source of water supply, location and size of storage
reservoirs, location of drainage outlet, and other major features and shall be
certified by a Professional Engineer."
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones referenced section 21.06.020(7) on packet page 273. The TAC
recommends that the subdivision immediately be filed by the P.L.S. of record. That
is important. It can save days of an interest carry on a $1 million loan. It is the
land surveyor's personal property until it is recorded.
Middleton stated staff would recommend that as well. They are usually the
ones in the middle of that fight, and would like to not be in the middle of that.
McShane moved approval of the TAC language suggestion in section
21.06.020(7) on packet page 273, "...shall immediately be filed by a professional
land surveyor of record with the County Auditor."
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones referenced section 21.06.050(2) regarding changes to the final plat
map. The bullet item "Date of drawing with any revision dates" is totally
redundant. The date of a plat is the date of recordation. They never show
revisions on the final plat.
McShane moved to strike the bullet point in section 21.06.050(2), "Date -ef
dFawing with any Fevisien date-s."
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones suggested adding language "Land Surveyor's Note." They are
currently shown on all plats. It is an important element and parts of it are required
under state law. That is where the surveyor sets forth the instrumentation used.
Middleton stated it is required, but it would be nice to have it on the
checklist.
McShane moved to add a bullet item to the checklist in section 21.06.050(2),
"Land Surveyor's Notes."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford questioned the bullet item "Acknowledgement block." Jones
suggested they make the word "block" plural. There is more than one. They
frequently have two or three signatures with different notaries. It wouldn't hurt to
call it "Notary acknowledgement blocks" so people know what that is.
Middleton stated that is fine as long as the Auditor knows that certain
countries in the world don't use notaries, but they have certain other
acknowledgements of the signatures. That is why they call it an acknowledgement.
They once had a plat that had to go to six different countries, and they had no idea
what a notary is.
Jones stated that is a good point. An attorney is a de facto notary, but one
wouldn't think of an attorney as a notary. Sometimes attorneys notarize the plats.
McShane moved to amend language to section 21.06.050(2),
"Acknowledgement blocks."
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones stated packet pages 275 through 288 deal with preliminary binding site
plans. The things they recommended or he recommended in the preceding
chapters are repeated in the next 13 pages. They could not draw a distinction
between binding site plans and long plats.
McShane moved to make all the changes in section 21.07 that were made in
section 21.06 so they are consistent with the long plats.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 16
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
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane thanked Mr. Jones for his input. These changes are minor enough
that they won't need a public hearing.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Acting Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 17