HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 27 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
July 27, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AUTHORIZING PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM
PLANNING AREA STATUS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT SHORT
TERM PLANNING AREA STATUS FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR AREA OF
THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB99 -265)
Sutter stated they passed an emergency ordinance on this a while back.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated this was initiated by the County Council with an emergency ordinance. It
went back to the Planning Commission, and originally staff recommended denial of
a short -term planning area because there were policies in the Comprehensive Plan
that would not be consistent with making this a short -term planning area at this
time. Planning Commission didn't agree with staff, and wanted it to be considered
at least as a provisional short -term planning area to allow residents time to get the
sewer funded. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan policies address the need
for sewer in the area to solve a potential health problem. With the revised policies,
the area met the criteria. They are on Council packet page 129. Staff
recommended it be a short term planning area for two years. If they have made
progress toward making it a local improvement district (LID), then the area would
remain a short -term planning area. If not, the Council could do a re- evaluation of
their progress and allow up to two 1 -year extensions.
Hoag moved the following amendment: On page 125 of the packet, under
exhibit 1, policy 2R -3, to add new bullet point at the end to read "Where inclusion
in a short term planning area will not increase densities, thereby increasing
potential environmental impacts to adjacent critical areas."
Sutter stated the underlying zoning is UR -4, which allows it to develop at
urban levels of density, once services are provided and it is in a short -term
planning area. There are a lot of wetlands which would keep the density overall
below UR -4. Gooddwin stated that was correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether there was a way to put a proviso that there won't
be any conversion of wetlands for development. There is a catch -22. If they put
the sewer in, then they allow the density to go to a higher level. A higher density is
going to have an impact on Drayton Harbor. She wanted to figure out how to get
the people the sewer that will benefit Drayton Harbor, as long as it doesn't develop
at a higher density. She questioned how the County can get the sewer in without
increasing the density.
Goodwin explained there is some mid -point between UR -4 and one unit per
five acres. She would not recommend saying no to impacting all wetlands. There
are wetland rules for those situations and would require mitigation for any impacts.
Because the wetlands aren't all on one parcel, there is going to have to be some
conversion of wetlands and then off -site or on -site mitigation.
Sutter asked how the impacts of increased urban levels of development could
be off -set and still get the sewer in. Goodwin explained it would be difficult to
develop at a density much lower than one or two parcels per acre because they
have to have a lot of parcels connecting to the sewer to make the cost feasible.
Hoag's amendment at holding development at one per five would prevent sewer.
They couldn't feasibly fund sewer at one or two per acre. It is a decision about
wanting the sewer and the density that goes with it to support the sewer, or retain
it as a septic tank area with a lower density. There possibly may be a middle
ground.
Brenner stated there will still be prime wetlands that will not be allowed to
convert. It is going to be a natural selection and some lots will be able to develop
at the density and some won't.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that was
correct. To change density, they need to down -zone or design a solution to
recognize specific wetlands, while still allowing certain parcels to develop at UR -4.
Hoag stated a statement from the Health Department indicated the septic
systems could be repaired. She about funds that are available for funding the
failing sewer systems, and whether the money can be applied to funding the sewer
system. Goodwin stated that they couldn't. They already got that grant and spent
it to repair most of the failing septic systems.
Hoag questioned whether they can use Clean Water Funds used to fund a
sewer line for those systems that have not failed and may fail in the future.
Chris Chesson, Health Department Environmental Health Supervisor, stated
they are not eligible for funding for another project to address the same water
quality issues. He is exploring some different funding options for public sewer lines.
Sutter would like to know more information before making a decision. She
wanted to determine how many acres of the wetland properties are in that area and
how many cannot be developed.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Manager,
stated they can come up with a basic assessment of wetland in the areas. There
are no criteria, however, for determining if an area is developable. Now, a wetland
is based on the function system and a site evaluation.
Brenner stated they need to figure out where the problems in Drayton Harbor
are coming from before they make any decision. She wanted to see the number of
developable lots at the UR -4 density level.
Sutter stated one option is to have specific development standards for that
area. Goodwin stated that, even with the wetlands that are there, they could still
build at four units per acre without impacting the wetlands other than through the
roads. By working around the wetlands, and developing on the uplands, one could
still feasibly build four per acre. They looked at the possibility of the transfer of
development rights, but it would be difficult to get all the property owners together
to do a Public Utility District (PUD).
Hoag stated the analysis of the proposed amendment that begins on packet
page 134 brings up points that aren't addressed by the revised policy and don't
allow them to take this action. The first one is RCW 36.70A.110(4). It is not
financially supportable at rural densities. Goodwin stated this is not a rural area. It
is zoned at UR -4. If this area were kept as a rural area, they couldn't put sewer in.
If it is an urban growth area, then it is an urban area. UR -4 in a long -term
planning area is kept at one unit per five acres. It is still an urban growth area.
Sutter stated the difference is the zoning.
Hoag questioned whether this applies because it has an underlying zoning of
UR -4. Goodwin stated it does not apply because it is in an urban growth area. If it
is kept in Blaine's urban growth area, then it can develop at urban densities. The
issue regarding the long -term planning area vs the short -term planning area was
the County's way of dealing with the fact that there are urban growth areas larger
than what the County needs for projected population, and the utilities weren't there
at this time. This was kept in a long -term planning area until sewer and water
issues could be resolved. The original idea was to keep density low until Birch Bay
and Blaine in- filled. It's always been in an urban growth area. Through the
emergency ordinance, they moved it from a long -term to a short -term planning are
to get sewer and to look at any Comprehensive Plan policies that needed to support
that. The City of Blaine has removed it from their urban growth area in their city
Comprehensive Plan. They don't want to expend any more legal fees fighting this.
It was more of a financial issue.
Sutter stated the options are to approve this proposal and put it in the short -
term planning area as a provisional, with all the conditions; deny it; or send it back
to the drawing board for other options such as specific development regulations for
that area or change the underlying density zoning. There are different options they
may need to look at before they make a decision.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Brenner stated they should be keeping the promises the County made. She
understood the extenuating environmental circumstances and wanted them to treat
the Drayton Harbor uniquely. She wanted more ideas on how to do that.
Sutter stated they could also docket it for the Planning Commission.
Brenner stated they could. She didn't want to just down -zone it. The septic
systems are failing, and the sewer is the best solution. A lot of that property will
not be developed because of natural selection.
Hoag stated all the septic systems have been repaired except one. Chesson
stated that was correct.
Sutter stated another question is the number that have not failed but are old.
There is a potential for failure in the future.
Hoag stated the Comprehensive Plan intends for areas within long -term
planning areas to remain rural until such time as they satisfy the criteria outlined in
goal 2R and policy 2R -1. The proposal fails to meet the criteria for transition from
long -term planning area to short -term area and is, therefore, treated as a rural
land use. Goodwin stated that was correct. However, the amendment they are
considering would change the criteria for moving to short -term planning area. With
that revised policy, this area would meet the criteria.
Sutter had a problem with that. Every time a problem came up in an area,
they would end up changing the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated she would like someone to go through the issues raised in the
report and determine how the issues are being answered. The County is wide open
for court challenge.
Sutter moved that they recommend returning this to the Planning
Commission to draft specific development regulations for this area that will address
the concerns raised of putting in sewer and allowing increased density that may
have a negative impact. She questioned whether they need to continue with the
emergency ordinance. Goodwin stated they could extend the emergency
ordinance. Her concern was that the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time
on it already. Staff recommended against it due to the issues the committee is
raising. There may not be a balance the Council is looking for to allow sewer and
low density.
Sutter stated density could be between one unit per five acres and four units
per acre, and would create a balance. Land owners need to be able to afford the
sewer and the impacts to the harbor needed to be offset.
Brenner wanted added to the Planning Commission's direction that they will
take into consideration Drayton Harbor's unique environmental characteristics.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag stated she would support that motion.
Knapp concurred on sending it back to the Planning Commission, but they
may have difficulty in moving through it the way the Committee has asked.
They've already spent a huge amount of time coming up with a recommendation.
Brenner stated they did not ask for development standards before.
Sutter suggested they use as a model the Lake Whatcom Development
Regulations. The second part of her motion is to extend the emergency ordinance
they adopted to October.
Hoag was concerned about using Lake Whatcom as a model because it deals
with different issues. She requested the distinction be made. Also, if the Planning
Commission is not willing to look at it again, then the Council can hash it out.
Knapp stated it was worth it to go to the Hearings Board because the County
now has a Comprehensive Plan that has been upheld in court.
Brenner questioned how optimistic Chesson was on getting funding for the
sewer. Chesson stated they will be ineligible as a County for the funds. However,
the facility could be eligible for other funds, which is what he is working on now.
Brenner didn't understand how the Planning Commission can say no to the
remand. Goodwin stated they won't say no, but they have a heavy workload. The
issue is where the priorities are.
Sutter restated the motion to remand to Planning Commission for specific
development regulations and to extend the emergency ordinance. Goodwin stated
the emergency ordinance is still in effect. They don't have to do anything with that.
Brenner stated she would like to see this item be a high priority.
Sutter stated the Council of Government (COG) is going to look at whether
there is anything they can do to help fund.
Motion to recommend a remand carried unanimously.
Muriel Terry, Drayton Harbor, stated that immediately after the Planning
Commission recommended putting this area in a short -term planning area, the
Trillium Company and David Syre wanted to purchase the property in that area.
The property owners want a sewer and are willing to put all the money they can in
the sewer. In the last two weeks, Syre had purchased property in the area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Terry continued to state the owners are getting so discouraged they will sell.
If Trillium gets the property, they'll develop it.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Sutter stated they couldn't develop the property without sewer. There are
other considerations the Council has to consider. There are problems with runoff in
the harbor.
Hoag questioned the concern about Syre buying up the land. Terry stated
they have waited so long to develop their land and people are getting discouraged.
Sutter asked what the property owners would do if they had sewer currently.
Terry stated they would develop just enough to pay for the sewer.
Sutter stated they can't depend on what the people say. Those property
owners aren't always going to be there. She's heard the property owners will
subdivide to pay for the sewer. Terry stated they don't intend to sell off all of the
acreage they have.
Sutter stated she sympathized, but there are other things the County has to
consider, to make sure everyone is treated as equally as possible. The Council is
charged with seeing the Drayton Harbor area doesn't turn into one giant sewer.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN FRINGE
SUBAREA PLAN REGARDING THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF
MAP 6 AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 20.65, GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL ZONING (AB99 -268)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated there are two issues that include further amendments to Gateway zoning
and an urban fringe Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Hoag stated it corrects the change made at the last meeting.
Goodwin stated there is no map change. Exhibit one includes
Comprehensive Plan text changes that clarify the wording in the Comprehensive
Plan. Exhibit two includes the Gateway Industrial amendments the Council adopted
at the last meeting. There are three further amendments that include the height
limits. The Planning Commission recommended 75 feet, not knowing that was a
concern of the Birchwood folks. This would put that area in the urban fringe back
to 45 feet and leave it at 75 feet in Birch Bay. There was also another new policy,
WCC 20.65.450, regarding site design. This was not adequately addressed in the
Gateway zoning and is an addition. Regarding the buffer area, WCC 20.65.550, the
regulations the Council adopted said "for major commercial or industrial projects,"
but a major or commercial or industrial project was never defined. This section
defines it as a project that exceeds 5,000 square feet of floor area in one building
or complex, or generates more than 50 vehicle trips per day. Those are the only
three additional zoning changes. Also, there is a section two that re- adopts the
regulations that they've already adopted. They did some amendments to the urban
fringe plan to make it clear that the regulations adopted last week are being
adopted to implement this plan.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag stated a lot of the changes are good. She didn't agree that some of the
language changes were just clarification. There are changes in meaning. It no
longer puts the emphasis to Light Industrial. She questioned what the City and
Neighborhood Association had to say about that. Goodwin stated the City and the
Neighborhood Association recommended the Urban Fringe Plan stay the way it is,
however, the Urban Fringe Plan says commercial uses are allowed. It is clarifying,
if they look at the other page. It isn't new wording. It is moved from another
page. The City did not support these as written. They suggested alternate
language. The Neighborhood Association had a response. There was a lot of public
testimony. It is all in the Planning Commission minutes. She would provide that
information.
Hoag stated she wanted more time to read their responses and moved to
hold the item in committee pending more information.
The committee concurred.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter reported there are four items ready to go before Council for a public
hearing. They include Resort Commercial, Point Roberts, the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) Amendments, and the Code Scrub Amendments. There are two
scheduled for public hearing at the evening meeting that include the Public Facilities
and the Freeman rezone. Lot Consolidation and Lake Whatcom should be
scheduled for the next Council meeting.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated she brought a memo that includes the most recent changes to the Lake
Whatcom area.
Sutter stated another issue is the Code scrub. Goodwin stated the second
page of the June 14 memo talks about the changes to the Title 16. It is a
housekeeping item to take out the 1970 goals and reference the 1990 goals.
Hoag stated they asked this to be held because there are a number of items
that weren't included in the Comprehensive Plan, but they were scrubbing it
anyway. Goodwin stated the committee members said they would look at the items
that were not included.
Hoag read from the subarea goal statements. Goodwin stated they are
trying to amend all the subarea plans and are cross - referencing between the
existing subarea plans and the Comprehensive Plan. All of the goals are out of the
subarea plan, but are also in the Code.
Sutter asked if everything had been transferred correctly. Goodwin stated
the Comprehensive Plan has a multitude of policies that deal with the issues, but
uses different verbage.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag asked if the items they propose to remove are moved elsewhere or
covered by the Comprehensive Plan goals that are listed. Goodwin stated they are
covered by the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated various subarea goals are not covered by Comprehensive Plan
goals. She didn't want to scrub the subarea goals unless there are amendments to
replace them in the Comprehensive Plan.
Sutter stated there is a question about whether they are still appropriate in
the Comprehensive Plan, since they are goals from the 1970's.
Hoag stated these issues have not gone away.
Goodwin stated those goals are still in the subarea plans. The subarea plans
are retained to the extent they cover issues, and don't duplicate, with the
Comprehensive Plan. When they first wrote the document Hoag referenced, it was
an analysis of the subarea plans and not written for the Council.
Sutter asked what they are scrubbing. Goodwin stated the ordinance takes
out the policies in the Whatcom County Code chapter 16.04 that are duplicated in
the subarea plans or replaced by policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The language
changes would no longer reference the old goals. Instead, it would reference the
Comprehensive Plan, which becomes the goals for the County. Otherwise, there
will be a new Comprehensive Plan dated 1997 and old 1970 goals all still in the
Code, with no reference to the new Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag asked what happens to the subarea goal statements from the Code.
Goodwin stated they remain in the subarea plans, but are taken out of the County
Code. In the Comprehensive Plan, they retained the subarea plans as development
regulations, to the extent that they don't conflict with the existing Comprehensive
Plan.
Goodwin stated there is no hurry to adopt this, if they wanted to hold the
item for more information.
Sutter stated that would give Hoag an opportunity to go through the
documents and ensure that the goals are covered.
Goodwin stated that the staff already feels that they are adequately covered.
They are only eliminating the duplication, not the goals themselves. They are
eliminating them from the Code, but retaining them in the subarea plans.
The committee concurred to move those four items forward.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, 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
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES (AB99 -272)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there
have been increasing problems in getting the information to various entities
regarding location of historic and archeological sites associated with the Tribes. He
called the State Office for Preservation and found out that certain jurisdictions can
take on the role of reviewing the archeological resources. It is a simple process,
but they would have to keep confidentiality. Instead of taking two to four weeks to
get the information back and forth, the information would be maintained at the
County and the file can be pulled. This process would be much quicker.
Sutter questioned what the confidentiality referred to. Knapp stated the
confidentiality is regarding the Tribes' records, which tell where the designated sites
are located.
Sutter stated she had a problem with a person not knowing about a
designated archeological site on a piece of property he or she planned to purchase.
Knapp stated it is a federal law. The Tribes don't want desecration of their
archeological resources. One person would be designated in the County to know
the location of the sites.
Sutter questioned whether the confidentiality extends to the property owner.
Knapp stated they are trying to reduce the lengthy process to make those
determinations.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Knapp stated the current choice is between sending out the request, and
waiting several weeks for a response, or signing the agreement and having the
information more readily available.
Sutter questioned under what circumstances the County would be making
that inquiry. Knapp stated they always send it to the Lummi Nation anytime
someone requests a building permit. They are trying to reduce the time delay.
Sutter questioned what happens if there is a designated site associated with
a piece of property. Knapp stated they tell the property owner he or she needs to
get an archeologist to delineate the remains.
Brenner questioned what it would cost the County. Knapp stated it would
not cost anything. They will have to have more review, but compared to the time it
takes to request the information, it doesn't add anything.
Hoag questioned why they would have to delete the confidential information
upon termination of the agreement. Knapp stated they would no longer have an
agreement, but would still have to maintain the secrecy of the sites.
Hoag moved to recommend approval of the memorandum
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/99, Page 10