HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 9 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
November 9, 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
OTHER BUSINESS
Absent:
None
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT REGARDING ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -412)
Sutter stated they need to bring this forward to the full Council this evening
because the emergency ordinance will expire prior to the next meeting.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the
intent is to locate the use near the urban services of urban growth areas. It will be
away from residential areas including daycares, schools, libraries, and other such
uses.
Brenner stated the committee just approved a daycare use in Light Impact
Industrial zoning. Knapp stated they did, but they have to be 1,000 feet away.
That is why they drew boundaries around the areas it would apply.
Brenner questioned whether they can require a buffer bigger than 1,000 feet.
Knapp stated they don't want totally wipe them off the map. They have looked
carefully at regulations by other jurisdictions. Typically, 1,000 -foot buffers have
not been challenged.
Sutter questioned the size of a city block. Knapp stated it can vary. The
average is 300 -500 feet.
Hoag stated 1,000 feet away from a daycare is too close. They do want to
wipe them out, but they can't. Knapp stated if the regulations are too strict, they
will make the use impossible to exist. The courts have ruled they cannot make it
impossible for them to exist. All of the amendments going forward have to be
considered concurrently. Staff considered this currently. The Council needs to
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
make a finding that they are considering this concurrently with the rest of the
amendments going forward.
Brenner stated she was not concerned about them being challenged. She
wanted to have the biggest buffer they can have and still allow them to exist at all.
Knapp stated 1,000 feet is it.
Hoag questioned whether they could do 1,500 feet. Knapp stated they want
to go on precedent. If they throw it into the arena of a new challenge, then they
end up with nothing.
Hoag questioned whether Knapp researched other jurisdictions to see if any
of them have 1,500 feet. Knapp stated he had, but not recently. He worked on
this in the City of Sea -Tac. At that time, there wasn't anything larger than 1,000
feet.
Sutter stated the language about approving this ordinance concurrent with
the other amendments is already in the ordinance. They don't need to include it in
the findings.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 277, in the "Purpose"
section, "...protect children from increased safety hazards created by adult
businesses." The findings talk about the hazards that are covered, but it is just not
safety hazards.
Brenner stated she liked the word in the language. It adds to it.
Hoag stated it narrows it.
Sutter agreed with Hoag.
The motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Hoag questioned whether it was only in the larger Light Impact Industrial
(LII) that they would be allowed. Knapp stated the map indicates that is correct.
Other LII areas are not big enough to accommodate the 1,000 -foot buffer.
Hoag questioned whether they are all within urban growth areas. Knapp
stated they are.
Hoag stated the Ferndale Urban Growth Area is very rural. Knapp stated
they excluded the County's urban growth areas because they are not close to police
protection.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Hoag questioned whether the ordinance specifically requires close police
protection. Knapp stated it does, because it focuses on city urban growth areas,
because of the capability to serve them with police protection.
Brenner questioned whether Ferndale feels as if they have enough police
coverage for this. Knapp stated there is a difference between city and county
coverage. Everywhere, city coverage is better than county coverage because there
are smaller geographic distances to cover.
Hoag questioned policy 2AAA -5 on packet page 278. Knapp stated that
pertains to businesses off the Guide Meridian. The non - conforming status is what
allows them to be terminated. They have an opportunity to extend that up to five
years, if there are financial issues related to relocation. When they phase out a
business or sign, they need to be given time if they need time.
Sutter stated language on packet page 286 defines financial expenditures as
being capital outlays made by the applicant to establish the business. They need to
amend language on packet page 278, policy 2AAA -5, "...if needed to recoup
estme financial expenditures made in the business." There is not a definition
of 'investments,' but there is a definition of 'financial expenditures.' When the
owner started that business, they had a certain amount of capital outlay. Knapp
stated recouping that amount is the intent of the policy.
Hoag suggested language, "...if needed to recoup invest en initial financial
expenditures made in the business."
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 278, policy 2AAA -5, "...if
needed to recoup investn9en financial expenditures made in the business."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked if all adult business that are not located within LII and within
UGA would eventually be gone after one year. She asked if they would all be
nonconforming if they are not within LII in a UGA. Knapp stated that would be
correct. They could all be gone within five years.
Sutter asked about packet page 283, section .157, and what would happen if
it were not enclosed in a building. Knapp stated it is prohibited.
Motion to forward to Council as amended carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLANT AND
FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AB99 -427)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter stated the ordinance regarding Capital Facilities would be moved to
Finance Committee.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
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 UGA
(AB99 -435)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated there is not much change from the earlier version of the ordinance. They
added a section regarding stormwater special districts that would designate the
area as such. They left the map as it was. In order to draw up a Local
Improvement District (LID), they have to look at things such as gravity and
engineering. There is latitude in final approval of the boundaries. The process of
that should be through the LID process.
Sutter stated they need to add a provision in the lot consolidation ordinance.
Goodwin stated that has been made. In the lot consolidation ordinance on packet
page 251, they added a provision that substandard lots in an urban growth area
(UGA) within the Drayton Harbor watershed would be consolidated.
Sutter stated that concern came up when they realized there were a lot of
small platted lots. They didn't want to exempt them from lot consolidation because
they shouldn't all be developed. Also, there have been two more people who want
a reasonably priced or no cost sewer. Harbor Shores requested to be included.
Hoag asked about lot consolidation. A portion within UGA, Drayton Harbor
was added, but Drayton Harbor was not added outside of a UGA. She questioned
whether that was because they will be in a UGA if they are made a provisional short
term planning area. Goodwin stated that section would be in a UGA.
Hoag asked what would happen if they don't follow through with the
provisional portion. Goodwin stated if they don't, it will come up before the Council
if they don't follow up with getting sewer or are not able to finance sewer. They are
in long term UGA now.
Sutter asked about packet page 173, section two, regarding the short term
planning area (STPA) boundary being established by the LID or sewer service
boundary. That tells her they must set the boundary either with the service area
boundary or the LID service area. They can't do that because they don't have the
LID. Goodwin stated they set the provisional boundary. The final boundary is done
when the LID is formed.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter stated they should insert the language, "The final STPA boundary...."
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated they ought to consider, when establishing the boundary, things
like property owners who want to be included, build out, and impacts to Drayton
Harbor and water quality. Goodwin stated those issues should be considered before
setting the provisional boundary. Once the citizens spend money studying the area
and designing the system, the Council should not decide they don't want to do it for
those reasons.
Sutter stated they are being considered now, but they should also be
considered for the final boundaries. Goodwin stated that if the Council doesn't
intend to go forward, they should think about it now so the citizens and the district
don't spend a lot of time studying it.
Sutter proposed language, "The final STPA boundary will be established by
the service area boundary or sewer service area, which has taken into
consideration..." and then list the items of concern.
Brenner stated once in a provisional boundary, the people should understand
that is what is going to happen. They shouldn't use a provision to back off in any
way.
Sutter stated the district would consider those concerns when establishing
the LID or the sewer service area.
Hoag stated they are saying two things. One is that it is just provisional and
that it is only going to go in if enough people will agree to the sewer, but they are
also saying they won't make it too provisional because people that want to have
this done should know it is going to happen. They can't have it both ways.
Sutter stated she wanted the build -out and potential impacts to be
considered when setting the final boundary.
Brenner stated that wasn't the district's job.
Sutter stated they are going to bring the boundaries to the Council for
approval.
Roger Brown, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District General Manager, stated he
agreed with Brenner. The LID boundaries are not brought to the Council for
approval.
Sutter stated the Council has to approve the final STPA boundary. It is
determined by the service area boundary of the LID or sewer service area. That is
what determines the final STPA boundary. They are setting the service area
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
boundary. If the Council does not like that boundary, they will not approve the
final STPA.
Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated the
theory was that the County would make this provisional with the condition that the
County would accept the concept of this final area being based on the LID. The
Council is giving provisional approval through a resolution. They are granted that
approval if they meet those conditions.
Sutter stated that her language would be one of the conditions.
Brenner stated they have to consider their own conditions. It is the Council's
job to set provisional boundaries. The district would have to operate within those
boundaries and make them small, but the district could not make them larger. The
Council establishes the largest area the boundary could encompass.
Sutter stated they need to consider the wishes of the property owners,
potential build out, and impacts to Drayton Harbor and the watershed anyway.
Brenner stated it was the Council's job to consider that information before
setting the provisional boundaries. It was not the district's job to do that.
Brown stated it would become clearer when he gives his overview of the LID
process. They take the zoning within an area and consider a proposal as long as it
complies with land use regulations. The LID process is a means of financing and is
governed by statute. He presented a presentation on the LID process (handout on
file). The district is not a proponent or opponent of the project. They only facilitate
the process with information.
Hoag stated the people signing the petition will be automatically assessed.
She questioned whether the people that don't sign would be assessed. Brown
stated the petition only starts the process. Some of the people who sign the
petition may end up being opponents of the project.
Hoag asked if someone has to be a part of the LID if they don't want to be.
Brown stated commonly some people are included that don't want to be included.
Hoag questioned whether people who don't want to be in the LID and who
aren't included in the provisional boundary would be included in the LID. Brown
stated they wouldn't be included.
Brown continued his presentation. At the point in the process when the
board creates a resolution and forms the LID, it may chose not to proceed with the
process, even if most of the people want the LID. The board has full discretion at
this point. The board has to consider the amount and nature of the protest from
opponents. They also have to assess the financial risks of the project. There are
two kids of financial risk. One is the public risk. For this project, they estimate
there will be improvements that will be necessary outside of the project area that
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
will cost over $1 million. Those are the public risks, and they may be reimbursed
from connection fees, but that is a business decision. They also have to look at
private risks. That is the board's assessment of whether the property owners can
really afford to pay the assessments. If they can't, the district will have to
foreclose on the property.
Brenner stated the Council understood the district would look at creative
financial ways to do this so it would be cost effective. Brown stated there are grant
possibilities that have been mentioned, but the district hadn't intended to proceed.
It is something that could be done. There are a variety of things to consider.
Hoag asked if people would be able to say no to an LID if they decide they
can't afford it. Brown stated they can protest, but they can't opt out.
Hoag asked if there is anyway to know what the approximate cost will be
prior to committing to the process. Brown stated they wouldn't know. There are
some risks in the process. The board doesn't want to be in the position of coercing
people into the LID. The people will have the preliminary assessment role, but that
can change.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brown continued to state that the assessment change usually comes after
they let the contract and see what the bids are going to be like. That is after the
LID has been formed and filed.
Goodwin stated there had already been some preliminary cost estimates
done by the district that were made available to the residents. Until the
engineering is done, there wouldn't be firm figures.
Brown stated they are careful not to describe those as firm figures. They are
preliminary numbers that were prepared for an LID that is within this area, but is
apparently much smaller than the area contemplated now.
Hoag questioned whether the people who would be signing the petition would
have access to those preliminary estimates. Brown stated he already gave that
information to Muriel Terry months ago. The estimates were $170 to $206 per
front foot, plus the connection fees. There is another problem due to the passage
of Initiative 695. These assessments represent a charge by government. Some
kind of voter approval may be required. That is contrary to the entire philosophy
behind this process, which is between property owners and the municipality.
Sutter asked about number five of the handout regarding the resolution of
intention to order the improvements. She asked about the third bullet point and
the criteria used to determine the construction route. Brown stated they would
meet with the proponents and determine what everyone wants to do. They would
create a preliminary estimate of the most logical way to serve.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter stated that would take into consideration the property owners' wishes.
She questioned whether they would have to consider where the wetlands are when
making the route. Brown stated they would.
Sutter stated it sounded as if most of her concerns would be addressed.
Brown stated they would have to go through a State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) process when they begin construction.
Hoag questioned whether this is something they can require and if the
Council can adjust the boundaries on the final map.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the LID doesn't come to
the Council for approval.
Hoag asked if properties left out of the provisional would not be considered
for the LID. Frakes stated that was correct.
Hoag stated she didn't want to include properties that don't want to be
included.
Sutter moved an amendment on page 173, section 20.80.634 regarding
special stormwater districts. They need to add "Lake Whatcom." Goodwin stated
Lake Whatcom was to be included but will be added when the Council adopts the
Lake Whatcom regulations. Since this is a Drayton Harbor issue, it shouldn't be
added in this ordinance.
Sutter withdrew her amendment regarding adding language.
Sutter stated the committee needed to propose boundaries for the STPA.
(Clerk's Note: The committee established boundaries on the map.)
Brenner stated they couldn't add the property that asked to be included at
the last minute because it wasn't contiguous.
The committee agreed.
Sutter asked if they want to include the areas in sections 13 and 18 that
requested to be included.
Goodwin stated one area was already in a short -term planning area and in
the City of Blaine's UGA, and it is a matter of whether there are enough citizens in
that area to instigate an LID.
Hoag asked about including someone who wanted to join that was left out.
Goodwin stated adding them to the STPA could be done as another Comprehensive
Plan amendment. They can send sewer outside of an SPTA to solve an existing
health problem. If that citizen had a failing septic tank and was not in an STPA, he
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
could get sewer, but could not subdivide the land to a density smaller than one unit
per five acres.
Brenner asked about doing a latecomer's agreement for properties on the
boundary. Brown stated it looks odd and could be difficult. It involves the district
fronting the funds.
Sutter questioned whether they can run the sewer through an area that is
not in the STPA, if no one connects to it. Goodwin stated they could. There is a
policy in the Comprehensive Plan about that.
Hoag questioned whether there is a problem creating an STPA with
boundaries that are not completely regular.
Sutter stated this is more than an irregular boundary. Knapp stated the
boundaries need to be reasonable.
Goodwin stated they are talking about creating an area on the waterfront,
along Drayton Harbor Road, that would be in a UGA. The Boundary Review Board
may decide that is an abnormally irregular boundary. A STPA is an area that is
likely to annex in the future.
Brenner suggested spreading the cost to the property owners, and then, if a
latecomer joins, the property owners who carried the cost could benefit. Brown
stated it would require a series of contracts. Assessments are based on an
extraordinary increase in value. They would be concerned about raising the
assessments to the point that someone would have an incentive to take them to
court.
Brenner questioned what they do about hardships. Brown stated they would
be concerned about that. There are some statutes that speak to some form of
relief. They would look at that as they get into the process.
Olason stated the Planning Commission recommendation was to address the
emergency health nature of the proposal. A person can either afford it or not. If
they start picking and choosing the boundary based on issues other than the health
problems, they will have a harder time justifying the initial request that was put
forward, which was to allow it to happen to resolve the health issues.
Brenner stated the district would go ahead with a plan whether a person can
afford it or not. Olason stated they would consider their financial ability because
the district doesn't want to foreclose property.
Hoag stated there are people who have testified that they do not want to be
in the plan. It is wrong to force them in the plan.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter agreed with that on a philosophical basis, but as a practical matter it
is just like an annexation. If the majority of the property owners want it, it will go
through.
Brenner stated there is a difference between that and an annexation. One
doesn't pay through the nose for an annexation. They know the LID will be
expensive.
Sutter stated property values goes up and there is a higher tax when
property is annexed into a city.
Hoag stated the landowners who have testified are not sitting in the middle
of this. It is easy to exclude the people who are not in the middle of the area.
They should include the people who want to be in it.
Jan Hanson, Blaine, commented on the consideration of the impervious
surfaces. This is an area that has been recommended as an area of special
concern, which hasn't been done. She urged that those regulations be applied to
this area.
Sutter stated they would be designating a stormwater special district, which
imposes more regulation on the development.
Dawson questioned whether properties with a wetland have to pay the
assessment. Brown stated the Board makes that determination. They consider
whether there is an extraordinary increase in value as a result of the sewer. If the
property can't be developed, the owner can bring that argument to the board.
Hoag moved to recommend approval of the provisional STPA as marked on
the map, which would exclude the properties along the bottom that have requested
to be left out.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated they would schedule a committee work session before the next
regular meeting.
Knapp stated excluding the areas along the shoreline is irrational and could
easily be challenged.
Sutter stated this was a recommendation to the full Council. They would
decide.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.82,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (PLANNING NO. 50- 98:ZT) (AB99 -377)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Hoag moved to amend section 20.82.030(8) on packet page 235. All the
uses are listed together in the existing code. That language was stricken, and she
wanted it to refer to all the items that were in the language before.
Olason stated they require a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). The
code doesn't reference SEPA as a requirement. The requirement is located in the
SEPA ordinance. It would be redundant.
Hoag stated items permitted outright would not require a conditional use
permit. Olason stated that a SEPA process has be authorized by the SEPA
ordinance.
Goodwin stated staff went through the threshold determination. A sewer or
water line less than eight inches in diameter is automatically exempt from SEPA.
So is any transmission line less than 55 kilovolts. They drew the determinations on
what requires a conditional use permit and they are consistent with the SEPA
threshold determinations. If it is categorically exempt, it doesn't get SEPA review
anyway.
Hoag stated the language in item (3) specifies pipes greater than eight
inches in diameter that don't require a conditional use permit. Goodwin stated they
would require SEPA review anyway, whether or not they are conditional. That is in
the SEPA ordinance.
Brenner stated they should put the language in, even if it is redundant.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
Hoag asked about section (1) regarding petroleum transmission lines. She
wanted to make sure they would be kept away from residences. This allows them
in Heavy Impact Industrial (HII), Light Impact Industrial (LII), and General
Manufacturing (GM) zones. Those zones can border on residential areas. They
could run the line right next to houses. She moved to add language, "...general
manufacturing, or within [insert distance] feet of a residential zone."
Goodwin stated all setbacks are determined by regulations the fire marshall
uses. It is determined by State regulations. She suggested eliminating LII and
General Manufacturing, and just go with HII, which doesn't border residential. The
main place they needed it was in Cherry Point, to go between Arco and someplace
else.
Sutter asked what happens to those transmission lines in LII and General
manufacturing. Goodwin stated they would need a conditional use and setbacks
would apply.
Hoag asked about running the lines through LII in Cherry Point. Goodwin
stated there is LII on the north side of Grandview and there is HII on the south side
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
of Grandview. Most of the oil and gas manufacturing plants are on the south side.
They could probably get by, if they had to do a conditional use permit for the LII
areas. The lines are permitted inside these zones.
Hoag amended her amendment to instead remove LII and GM from section
20.82.030(1).
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked if there was cleaner language for section 20.82.030(2) regarding
distribution lines. They didn't want to exclude distribution lines, but they wanted to
make sure the transmission lines were a conditional use. The language as it is is
muddy. They could end up with a transmission line being considered a part of the
network, if the pipe comes off it, to serve customers.
Sutter suggested language, "...utilities and transportation commission and
which are distribution lines owned by the utility that provide
natural gas service directly to county citizens and businesses shall not be regional
transmission lines."
Hoag so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned item (3)(b), which allows them to be permitted outright.
They are losing control over where they run the lines. If they go through a
conditional use permit (CUP) process, they can condition it. Olason stated it would
have to have SEPA review.
Hoag stated her faith in SEPA is small because she has seen it fail miserably.
She moved to delete section 20.82.030(3)(b).
Brenner asked about the effect of deleting that section. Olason stated that if
they delete (3)(b), there would be real problems. Staff reviews and approves water
and sewer comprehensive plans based on compliance of the County Comprehensive
Plan.
Hoag stated that is already covered under section (3)(a). Section (3)(b) is
about private people running a sewer line to a new development. Olason stated
they are also looking at the fact that this is an approved development proposal that
was reviewed through a public process or was reviewed administratively and is to
be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner questioned whether this section means the proponent can run the
lines outside the development or only within the project.
Sutter stated they still have to get a permit.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Goodwin stated that section means they could run the lines to the
development. It would be in the right -of -way and people would not be impacted.
Olason stated part of the plat review is to evaluate where the water source
is. They have to verify with a will -serve letter. If the County gets a will -serve
letter, staff makes a decision based on a will -serve letter to approve a plat, and
then require an additional review for the approval of the conveyance letter.
Sutter stated they would have to get a will serve letter from an approved
sewer. They can't get that unless there is an approved sewer. Olason stated there
may be additional lines that are extended within the service area, or they would
have to do an annexation to take in more service area.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add language to item (3)(a), "... in conformance with a state
approved sewer and /or water comprehensive plan, and consistent with the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan."
Olason stated that was a good suggestion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 235, section (7) to reinstate
the strikeout. The location of sewer outfalls has an impact on shellfish beds. Those
should have a conditional use permit.
Olason stated staff determined it is required to have a shoreline permit to
address impacts to shoreline. Typically, the sewer treatment plant would include
the outfall as part of the original sewer treatment plant permit. If it was an
upgrade just to the outfall pipe, it wouldn't be a decision on whether they would
allow the treatment plant to do that. It would be a decision on whether or not the
extension would mitigate any shoreline impacts. Staff felt that language is
redundant.
Hoag stated this comes up in Drayton Harbor. Under the current regulations
that are supposedly supposed to protect everything, they allowed the sewer outfall
to be right where the current takes it into the harbor. That should be covered
under the conditional use permit to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
Sutter questioned whether sanitary outfalls are conditional uses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Olason stated they couldn't have a sewer plant without one. They would
have to have that in the initial plan. Any updates to that plan have to have an
updated conditional use permit. With those outfalls, aside from the shoreline
permit, they also have an National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
permit, which is administered by the State Department of Ecology. They are going
to make some thorough analysis.
Hoag stated those are all the same people that approved the one they've got.
She questioned what would happen if an existing sewer treatment plant moved
their outfall. Under this, they would have to get a conditional use permit. Goodwin
stated they would have to get a shoreline permit that would go to the same Hearing
Examiner.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to Council.
Goodwin brought up the committee's concern regarding private water tanks
for fire flow purposes, on packet page 236, section 20.82.023. She suggested
language, "Water storage tanks owned and operated by a public water utility or
water association for the sole purpose of...." The big community tanks would still
require a conditional use permit, but if an individual needs something to protect a
barn, for example, it could be done.
Hoag stated Goodwin's suggested language wouldn't work. They need to talk
about a privately owned water storage tank to make sure this is an individual, not a
development.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner left the meeting at 4 :40 p.m.)
Sutter moved to amend, "Water storage tanks owned and operated by a
public water utility or water association for the sole purpose of...."
Motion failed 1 -1 with Sutter in favor.
Hoag moved to amend the language of section 20.82.023, "...A privately
owned water storage tank constructed to provide fire flow for a singular use or
property..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated she did not want to recommend approval to the full Council
without the other changes.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND
STORMWATER REGULATIONS (PLANNING NO. 61- 98:ZT) (A699 -286)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
This item was held in committee.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.80,
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, BUFFERS AND BUILDING
SETBACKS (PLANNING NO. 48- 98:ZT) (AB99 -376)
This item was held in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.89,
DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURES (PLANNING NO. 70- 98:ZT) (AB99 -
386)
This item was held in committee.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC HEARING
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (PLANNING NO. 69- 98:ZT) (AB99 -331)
This item was held in committee.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
This item was held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS
CHARACTER PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT RELATING TO
POINT ROBERTS (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -411)
This item was held in committee.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN REGARDING CAPITAL FACILITIES (PLANNING COMMISSION
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -407)
This item was held in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (PLANNING
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -410)
This item was held in committee.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL
UGA (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON
FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -409)
This item was held in committee.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -406)
This item was held in committee.
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN AND
THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM UR3 TO
LII FOR 10.74 ACRES (BELLINGHAM UGA /MARINE DRIVE REZONE)
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -405)
This item was held in committee.
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONE MAP
REGARDING RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 5.84
ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (WARNICK AMENDMENT)
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -408)
This item was held in committee.
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, LII
AND HII ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FRINGE PLAN
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -404)
This item was held in committee.
10. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TEXT
REGARDING THE CHERRY POINT PIER DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -403)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/99, 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
26
27
28
This item was held in committee.
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL (AB99 -436)
This item was held in committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 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, 11/9/99, Page 17