HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 28 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
September 28, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 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 WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83,
REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION (AB99 -328)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the public hearing was scheduled for October 26.
Sutter asked to hold that in committee, since the public hearing is too far
away. It will be on the next committee agenda.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,TITLE 20.44,
RECREATIONAL USES (AB99 -297)
Sylvia Goodwin stated this is a follow -up item that was tied with the
ordinance that dealt with the public uses at the Smith and Northwest complex. The
committee recommended they bring forward an ordinance and the language has
already been approved by the committee.
Brenner moved to recommend to full council.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag out of the room.
OTHER BUSINESS
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.42,
REGARDING HARVEST ACTIVITY IN RF /CF AND CONFLICTS WITH
LANDOWNERS (AB99 -329)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated there was a brief discussion during the last meeting. There was a question
about section 20.61.709 regarding plat language for proposed subdivisions, and
why they would want the deed restriction to be removed by the Hearing Examiner.
That language is in all other sections of the code. They couldn't find out it's
purpose; it has been in the code since before 1981. No one knows why it is in
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
there. The Hearing Examiner would have to take a look at the case and determine
whether the property owners within the subdivision are adjacent to a forest and
whether it would not hurt the forester to allow the property owners to sue him.
There aren't too many instances in which that would happen. Staff concluded that
language should be deleted from all portions of the Code.
Hoag asked how that would affect the other sections.
Sutter stated they should just strike it from the forestry sections. Goodwin
stated it is in all of the sections regarding the residential zoning next to the forestry
zoning.
Sutter asked if it refers to anything besides forestry. Goodwin stated it
pertains only to forestry.
Sutter stated that as long as it refers to forestry, she would want to take it
out. Goodwin agreed.
Hoag moved to remove the language in section 20.61.709, beginning, '...i�
cevenant er deed restriction bay be Feme .." to the end of the section. It should
also be removed from any other location in the code, as it refers to forestry.
Goodwin stated this would be a substantive change and should be scheduled
for public hearing on October 26, 1999. There probably will not be a lot of public
testimony on this.
The committee concurred.
Hoag asked the reason for the identical language in paragraphs 1 and 2 on
packet page 65. Goodwin responded that the first paragraph already exists, but
must be amended, in each of sections listed. It doesn't appear in 20.61, which is
rural residential island.
Hoag asked about word changes in section 20.80.283(2) regarding
commercial forestry protection. Goodwin stated the previous language might have
been "forest production." The concern was the requirement had to have forest
production, not just the potential for forest production. The language used to say,
"...being cultivated for the production of food or fiber. "Since this is supposed to be
a forestry district, a hay grower would not be required to have a 100 -foot setback.
Hoag asked if this was only a change in the forestry district. Goodwin stated
that was correct.
Brenner asked if the only reason for the buffer was to prevent the potential
of falling trees being a danger. Goodwin stated it was also to reduce noise impacts.
Dawson asked if this was only for commercially zoned forestland. Goodwin
stated it is for the forestry district. It should say commercial or rural forestry
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
district. Someone may want to build a shed on his or her property. Goodwin
stated the setback might allow for a storage shed.
Sutter stated other considerations are that one might want to have a cleared
area between the building and the forest for fire protection reasons.
Brenner stated there is no mention of commercial forestry in the ordinance.
It says forestry zones. She asked if they have to change the wording. Goodwin
stated she didn't think they would have to change the language. Setbacks are in
section 20.80.293, which she read into the record. One could put a barn or storage
shed in the rear yard setback up to eight feet.
Brenner questioned whether they want to remove "commercial" from page
66, section 20.80.283(2), and just say "forestry production."
Sutter wanted to know why "commercial" was included in the first place.
Goodwin stated someone next to a residence in a rural or commercial forestry zone
may be growing trees and be intent on logging them.
Sutter stated commercial forestry has to be a minimum of forty acres, not
twenty acres. Goodwin stated it does not mean commercial forestry zoning, it
means commercial forestry protection. If one was adjacent to a piece of land that
the Land Trust owned and they were keeping it as a conservation area, then it
wouldn't matter because it would not be cultivated for commercial forestry
production. It would just be growing trees for wildlife habitat. In that case, one
wouldn't have to have a buffer.
Brenner moved to remove the word "commercial" from 20.80.283(2)
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.34,
REGARDING LUMMI ISLAND RR -1 AMENDMENTS (AB99 -330)
Hoag asked about section 20.34.150(1) on page 70 and if there was anything
below a minor collector road. Goodwin stated this only applies on Lummi Island
and there is not a collector or arterial on the island.
Hoag asked about section 20.34.150(9) on page 71 that is being deleted.
Sutter stated they are replacing it with the new number 8.
Hoag asked if this language applies to other zones and if it would eliminate
the chemical -free requirement in Lake Whatcom. Goodwin stated this section is
only for Lummi Island. This language is in every single code section. Changing this
language in this section only changes it for Lummi Island.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
Sutter asked about the reference to the Lummi Island Comprehensive Plan
on page 71, section 20.34.656(3). It should say Lummi Island Subarea Plan.
Hoag moved to recommend to the full council for approval at the next council
meeting. They introduced the ordinance during the last meeting.
The committee concurred.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB99 -331)
Sutter stated this was scheduled for a public hearing on October 12. It will
be held in committee until October 12.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RESPONSE
TO COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR RE- EVALUATION OF DRAYTON
HARBOR'S SHORT TERM PLANNING AREAS (AB99 -367)
Sutter asked how many septics in the area were checked during the survey.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated there were two
different surveys. One was in 1996 -1997 and the other was in 1997 -1998. Every
system in this area has been surveyed over that period of time. There was a 21
percent failure rate, which is about 50+ systems. They were successful in getting a
grant that allowed all but one home to be corrected.
Sutter asked if they could suspect more to fail due to the age of the systems
in the area. Benjamin stated they could expect that in any area of the county. He
would have a higher suspect in this area because of the high groundwater table and
the soil conditions.
Sutter stated the concerns were regarding the potential degradation if the
area were built out to four units per acre. Unless it is built out to that density, the
property owners cannot afford to pay for the sewer, and they will end up having to
constantly replace septic systems. It is a tough problem. They sent it back to the
Planning Commission hoping they would come up with specific development
regulations for the area. They sent it back to the council. She wondered if this
could be made into a special management district.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated she was going to suggest the same thing. It is already a special
management area for land clearing, but not for stormwater. They will want to take
a look at the regulations for stormwater. A lot of the items they are proposing for
Lake Whatcom will only apply to Lake Whatcom. They will want to make sure that
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
it applies to both areas. Or, they may need different regulations to deal with
different issues.
Sutter asked if the committee agreed it was worthwhile to address that issue.
That would give them the mechanism to deal with the issues that would come up in
that area.
Brenner questioned whether they were talking about doing a short term
planning area and a special stormwater management district.
Sutter stated that was correct.
Hoag stated the committee previously sent it back to the Planning
Commission because of legal issues that were not addressed. Their reply does not
address those legal issues. Some of the Planning Commission members told her
that was not brought up before the Planning Commission. The only legal issue they
discussed was whether or not Blaine wanted them in their urban growth area.
Other legal issues include RCW 36.70A.110(4) regarding rural densities. They are
talking about changing this to an urban density. Goodwin stated that doesn't apply
in an urban growth area. It would apply if one of the solutions they were
considering was to exclude the area from the Blaine urban growth area, but allow it
to be a lower density that would allow sewer, but wouldn't become urban. That
would be contrary to the Growth Management Act, which says they have to have
urban services in an urban growth area, with an urban density. They are restricted
from designating it one or two acre rural.
Hoag stated it is not in an urban growth area. Goodwin stated it is in an
urban growth area and always has been. It is a long -term urban growth area.
Blaine requested that this be taken out of the urban growth area. That is what they
are discussing. The Planning Commission looked at it and decided that it should be
urban.
Sutter stated they are in a long -term urban growth area now. They are
asking to be designated a short -term urban growth area so they can receive
services.
Brenner stated the area is in a holding pattern. The underlying zoning was
UR -4. It was planned to be an urban level of zoning.
Goodwin stated the main thing the staff brought up in the staff report was
that they couldn't make this area a short -term planning area because it would go
against Comprehensive Plan policies. The criteria were written specifically about a
standard urban growth area that has a city that expands once in -fill occurs. There
is a new policy 2R -3 that deals specifically with areas such as Drayton Harbor that
are dealing with environmental issues. If that is adopted, then making the area a
short -term planning area would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This
was docketed by the council as an emergency, so it does not have to go through
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
the annual process. It can move forward at whatever speed is necessary. The
Planning Commission and County Council have had a hearing on this amendment.
Brenner asked if they would want to include Sutter's policy that it also be a
stormwater management district. Goodwin stated they could do that as a related
development regulation to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated she wanted to see the legal issues addressed. They include land
within an urban growth area, outside of a short -term planning area, retaining its
current zoning until a new joint plan is identified. Also, they must meet goal 2R
and its respective policies to convert to a short -term planning area.
Sutter stated this proposed amendment would rectify the legal issues.
Hoag stated the proposed amendment does not answer any of the legal
questions. She asked how the legal issues are addressed.
Goodwin stated it is new criteria.
Sutter stated they would not be subject to criterion 2R -1, they would be
subject to the new criterion 2R -3.
Hoag asked if any of the current criteria would apply. Goodwin stated they
would not because the new rules and criteria would apply instead.
Sutter stated the Drayton Harbor area would be subject to the new criteria
instead of the current criteria. Goodwin stated the staff report looked at changing
the area to a short -term planning area under the existing Comprehensive Plan
policies. They determined that, to change the area designation, they need a
Comprehensive Plan amendment with new policies. Those legal issues have been
addressed. She explained at the last meeting there were not any legal issues
because of the new policy. All of the issues dealing with rural areas don't apply,
and neither does policy 2R -1, because of the new policy.
Hoag stated there needed to be language that specifies areas meeting the
criteria of the new policy 2R -3 are not subject to policy 2R -1. Goodwin stated they
could do an amendment to policy 2R -1 to make that more clear.
Sutter asked if the area has been designated as an Area of Special Concern.
Goodwin stated that is the recommendation.
Sutter stated she would also like to get the stormwater special district in
there. Goodwin stated the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee was working toward making that recommendation. It is a Health
Department issue.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
Benjamin stated this was discussed at the last Board of Health meeting.
They were talking about two different regulations. Just because another regulation
determines an area to be an Area of Special Concern does not imply that Area of
Special Concern is also applicable to the public health unless Public Health
determines it is an Area of Special Concern. It is environmental public concern vs.
health public concern.
Sutter stated they may need to reference the RCW that applies. There is an
RCW that specifies the details of the Area of Special Concern.
Margaret Kardell, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee, stated they asked that the area be designated an Area of Special
Concern, which never happened.
Hoag asked if that is a health code. Goodwin stated it is.
Hoag asked if it would be designated by the Health Department. Benjamin
stated it would be designated by the Board of Health. During the Board of Health
meeting, there was discussion about the powers and responsibilities of the Health
Office, once that Area of Special Concern is designated. They would have to come
forward and request the area be designated as an Area of Special Concern with the
special conditions predetermined by the Health Department, to be considered by
the Board of Health.
Sutter stated they have some work to do, including on an amendment to
policy 2R -1. The other work is to add a provision that it has to be in a stormwater
special management area so they can use some of the land use regulations as
special conditions for stormwater on development. The designation is made by the
Board of Health. They need to make the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
have Mr. Benjamin initiate an Area of Special Concern, and the Planning
Department should draft specific regulations for a stormwater district so they can
declare it a stormwater district. The Drayton Harbor folks need to create a local
improvement district (LID). Goodwin stated the recommendation is that, if an LID
is not formed within two years, then it would revert back. The Planning
Commission recommendation was to establish the policies and also to designate the
area a short -term planning area.
Hoag read from page three of the ordinance, which says provision status will
be granted subject to conditions. One of the conditions specifies the two -year
period.
Benjamin stated WCC 24.05.230(A)(9) says areas identified and delineated
by the local Board of Health, in consultation with the Department, will address
public health threat from on -site systems.
Hoag stated they have had mixed testimony on this. Some people want this
change and some people don't want the change. There have also been concerns
about the impact of additional development in this area on the harbor. They
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
discussed finding another source of funding to fix the septic tank problems without
putting additional development in the area.
Sutter asked if Birch Bay Water and Sewer district was looking for additional
money. Benjamin stated the Health Department would supply consultation to
Blaine in obtaining grant money.
Brenner stated the only complaint she received was that the cost for the
sewer would be prohibitive.
Hoag stated there was public testimony that people didn't want to see it
develop at those densities.
Brenner stated they need to figure out a way to make the sewer available.
Muriel Terry, Blaine, stated the testimony against the development was from
Geoff Menzies and the City of Blaine. There is one owner, a radio station, who
opposed the designation, and a woman named Martin, who stated she did not want
any sewer or development. Those were the only two people who were opposed.
There were people who said they could not afford the sewer.
Sutter asked about the grant. Terry stated the Council of Government (COG)
agreed to help obtain grant money. The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District
received a packet of application material from someone for a grant. They can't act
on them until the area is in a short term planning area. When that happens, they
will act on the grant application.
Sutter asked about the requirement to establish a local improvement district.
Terry stated they can't do it until they are put into the right kind of area.
Terry stated there are 63 homes in the area. Not all of those 63 homes were
checked by the Health Department. All of the homes were all checked in different
ways. No one came to her home. She received a letter saying her system failed.
Benjamin stated all the homes in this area have been checked. He would
look into Mrs. Terry's system.
Terry stated there are 63 homes. Five have been vacated, four have holding
tanks that are pumped weekly or monthly, and 57 have septic tanks that were
installed before 1985. None are guaranteed.
John Burke, Lincoln Road, stated the Council is not aware that over half of
the area being considered is rural land. There is no one living on this land. Those
people in that area would like to opt out of the area because there are no structures
for which to provide services.
Sutter asked if the sewer would be put into each parcel in the area. Goodwin
stated those areas that want to participate can and the other areas could opt out.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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
There are large parcels where it wouldn't make sense to install sewer. There are
probably some logical areas to remove.
Burke stated the Birch Bay Water and Sewer Association has drawn a map of
the area that should be included and excludes these rural undeveloped areas. He
suggested they establish the boundaries from that map.
Sutter stated services don't go to vacant properties, only to development.
Hoag stated this calls for the formation of a local improvement district.
When that is formed, there are fees required by the people within that district. She
asked if Mr. Burke would be forced to be a part of that district. Goodwin stated
there are instances where individuals are forced into an LID, if the majority of
property owners surrounding him approve. Hopefully they can exclude the owners
that don't want to be a part of the LID. The people forming the LID have to collect
the signatures from over 50 percent of the property owners. If there is an entire
area of undeveloped land or property owners that aren't interested, then they
would just draw the LID boundaries to exclude those people. There are different
ways of setting up the LID funding. Sometimes fees are based on front footage or
connection. Someone has to pay for it. The Water District said that if they were
involved, they wouldn't carry the LID and then let people connect in ten years,
when they are ready. There would have to be a commitment of the landowners
that they would pay.
Hoag asked if the majority of the owners are the number of owners or the
number of acreage. Goodwin stated she believed it might be the owners of the
majority of the property.
Burke stated that would have serious repercussions for him. The majority of
the people there could vote him into paying for the sewer system. He owns 52
acres.
Hoag stated they need to consider the impacts on all the citizens in the area.
She asked how long Burke had lived there. Burke stated he's owned land in the
area since 1950.
Brenner asked if they could include stipulations about an LID and install
protective measures, if they designate the area as a short -term planning area.
Goodwin stated they could, but they should not do that on the fly.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they are restricted to
procedure set out in state law. She guessed it would be the majority of the land,
but she would have to look at the provision.
Nelson asked why they just couldn't exclude Burke's property. Goodwin
stated it depends on the area in which the land is located.
Terry showed a map of the properties in the area.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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 stated staff needs to draft those amendments to the amendment.
They need to start looking at what areas should be included and get an accurate
map. These folks need to begin the LID process and pursue funding.
Hoag moved that the Committee remove Mr. Burke's property from the
provisional short -term planning area and that staff check through the testimony to
see if there are others that have requested to be and could be excluded. Then it
could be brought to the Council for a provisional short -term planning area.
Sutter stated she was not comfortable excluding Burke's property without
looking at the surrounding area. They also need to make sure the areas excluded
should have sewer.
Hoag stated the more they can iron out now with the citizens, the less time it
would take in the future. She asked how removing the Burke property would affect
those that are surrounded by his property.
Burke stated they would have no objection to running the sewer line in front
of his property. Having worked on the two septic tanks, he knows how far they are
from the proposed sewer. He had no objection to running the line down Lincoln
Road.
Hoag suggested that might obligate him to be a part of the LID.
Nelson stated it only fronts a part of his property. It does not cross his
property. Burke stated that if they don't have to pay for it, then they have no
objection to where they put it.
Pete Steblin, Shintaffer Road, supported the efforts to deal with this issue.
He suggested they change the focus of the comments to alternate visions of the
future. Some day, there will be in -fill development into the area. As long as there
are long -term residents in the area, then there will be a variety of developments
that will lead to a more integrated, well - balanced community. If not, then the
property owners will sell out to the large corporation that is buying up land in that
area. There will be extensions of the gated communities. Gated communities don't
lead to the best integrated society.
Hoag asked how long he's owned property in the area. Steblin stated he's
owned property in the area for five years.
Sutter stated it would be helpful if the Drayton Harbor people could
determine who wants to be in and be out of the area, and provide a map. That will
provide a basis from where to begin drawing the boundary lines.
Terry stated they don't know how many people can afford it, if they want out
or want in.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/28/99, 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 asked about how the stormwater concerns would be addressed.
Sutter stated the area would become a stormwater district and asked staff to
make conditions based on the regulations they've already done for Lake Whatcom.
Goodwin stated they could add to an ordinance that will create it a
stormwater special district, modeled after Lake Whatcom.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter stated they could introduce trunk utility lines ( #50- 98:ZT), personal
storage units ( #51- 98:ZT), front yard setbacks ( #56- 98:ZT), disabled parking
( #57- 98:ZT), adult family homes ( #63- 98:ZT), and the definition of aquaculture
( #68- 98:ZT) at the next council meeting.
Goodwin asked about transfer of development rights.
Sutter stated they can work on the transfer of development rights in
committee at the next meeting, before it is introduced.
OTHER BUSINESS
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1999 ZONING DOCKET (AB99 -326)
This item was not discussed.
7. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY, TITLE
20, TO ADD CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
OVERLAY ZONE AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND
CLEARING AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS (AB99 -286)
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 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, 9/28/99, Page 11