Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 15 19981 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Services Committee September 15, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. A kn PrPePnt- L. Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner Present: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169E) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that the proposed regulations are the same version as the previous. Council was reluctant to adopt final regulations until the Superior Court rulings. The draft is not complete. The court decision findings would be available on September 25th. There was discussion regarding whether it would need further public review. If the ordinance were taken off of the table, it would not need another public hearing. The old ordinance lapses September 181h Nelson moved to recommend approval. Brenner stated that she would not support it. In the future, there should be a discussion about the problems with the agricultural protection overlay zone. It is a de facto rezone. They need to either rezone property to agriculture or not do the overlay. It is causing problems for people developing and selling property. The public process was not done in a way to require the notification of individual property owners. Sutter stated that she personally mailed information to everyone in the area. They need to be told to be at the Council meeting on September 29th Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Brenner stated that she did not support the agricultural overlay or mineral resources sections. She requested Goodwin make a report. Goodwin stated the agricultural overlay zone is a key element of the Comprehensive Plan. Nelson stated that it would be a significant process to remove agricultural overlay. They would have to modify the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Regulations. Brenner stated that she liked the agricultural overlay as an option, if incentives are given. She couldn't support it as a requirement. future. Sutter stated that, process -wise, the County has to have development regulations in place. Brown stated that it is important that it gets into the Comprehensive Plan process in the Motion carried 2 — 1 with Brenner opposed. 2. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING ZONING OVERLAY MAPS TO IMPLEMENT THE SHORT TERM PLANNING AREAS DESIGNATED IN THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -170E) Sutter stated this was the same situation as the Development Regulations. Nelson moved to recommend approval. Sutter questioned whether they are ready to come forward on the 29th with a permanent ordinance. Goodwin stated that all of the urban growth areas have been validated, so it is appropriate. Brown stated that he heard there are more decisions coming forward. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, responded that there is an appeal process, but the likelihood that they would win is slim. It was referred back to the Growth Management Act (GMA) Hearings Board to do findings. The Western Washington Hearings Board was not consistent with the GMA. The court stated that one cannot shotgun the Plan. If someone was not a part of the process, then they can't appeal. They must have taken part in Planning Commission and Council meetings. Brenner stated that once the decision is made, it puts anyone who is going to appeal on the defense. It is legal unless overturned. Knapp stated that the County is given the presumption of validity. Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE RURAL DISTRICT (AB98 - 318) Brenner moved to recommend approval. Sutter questioned whether there needed to be a text change to section 20.3 1, in order to add a sentence to the ordinance. Goodwin stated that it is a typo. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MDP89- 0001 /A, YAMATO DEVELOPMENT CANADA, INC. FOR COMPLETION OF THE POINT ROBERTS GOLF & COUNTY CLUB (AB98 -320) Sutter stated that they are requesting a one -year extension. Circumstances are that they have been tied up in litigation. Progress has been made in the last few months. Nelson moved approval to accept recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to approve the extension. Motion carried unanimously. 5. RESOLUTION INITIATING ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS ESTABLISHING SMALL TOWN COMMERCIAL AND CROSSROAD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (AB98 -333) Sutter stated that this was waiting on the court decision. It is necessary in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Brenner moved to recommend approval. Goodwin stated that there are other ways to do this. Most of the small towns have already have some general commercial zoning or other neighborhood zoning in the middle, surrounded by some rural zoning that isn't commercial. They could wait until each case, when an applicant owning the property came forward with an application, and do it case by case. Or, they could do it all at once. Sutter stated that she preferred to get it initiated. Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Goodwin also requested direction about priority. She questioned whether this was a higher priority than the zoning amendments. Sutter questioned how it could be done outside of the docket. Goodwin stated it would go on the Planning Commission now because it is an emergency. Sutter stated that it should be given to the Planning Commission behind the current docketed items. Brenner questioned whether it is a priority over other things already on the Planning Commission agenda. Goodwin stated that there are some people in Kendall and a few other places that are anxious, but in terms of other items on the agenda, there are many important items. Sutter suggested interjecting the item in the list of priority where it belongs. Brown commented that there have been some building transactions that have been waiting. Motion to recommend approval of the resolution carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS DISCUSSION REGARDING SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (SURFACE WATER RUN -OFF POLICY) (AB98 -321) Nelson stated that this is regarding a concern about development run -off that affects neighbors. There is nothing on the books to deal with enforcement. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that there is enforcement but it excludes single family. The only recourse is through civil action. Sutter stated that single families are exempt from the clearing ordinance that does not allow off -site impacts. Knapp stated that there are thresholds which make it impossible to work well with families, unless there is a collective subdivision. Knapp stated that would be appropriately addressed in the stormwater management chapter or a request of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review, then it would go to the Planning Commission for review, then to County Council. This is a common complaint. Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Nelson stated if it is a common complaint, they need to know about it so they can take action. Knapp stated that there has been so much work the past two winters on the Comprehensive Plan that everything else was shuffled off. Knapp stated that he would recommend the TAC review the issue. Brenner requested this be a high priority and also retroactive. Mr. Lang, 4371 Sweet Road, stated that there was a stop order. Jack Quist, 4389 Sweet Road, stated that he's talked with County Executive since 1996 and gotten nowhere. Knapp stated that this was brought forward when County was inundated with the Comprehensive Plan. Lang stated that someone filed a permit to build a mobile home and a shed. The shed was for agricultural purposes, with the intent to live in the house. The shed is not used for farming equipment. It is used for helicopter parts. He is running a business. Knapp questioned whether anyone filed a complaint. Lang responded that Quist filed a complaint. Quist stated that they filed a complaint because he is running a business, it is not used for the agricultural industry, and he doesn't live in the house. Sutter stated that the surface water runoff issue would go to TAC. Regarding the permit violation, code enforcement staff, not the Planning Committee, should handle it. Knapp stated that they give two warnings, then forward the complaint to the Prosecuting Attorney. Knapp outlined the procedure. Lang stated that the neighbor has been hauling in dirt and is not complying with regulations. Knapp stated that he would probably be charged with a criminal offense. Quist stated that he had been dealing with the County since 1996 and has been getting the run around. Sutter stated that there are two letters from the Planning Department that are notices of violation. After that, it is turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney. She told Quist to wait for Knapp to look into where the situation is in the process. Knapp stated that there is only one enforcement person for the County. Nelson stated that he believed there was a problem with the law. They cannot administer the law. There are issues of impacts of water runoff and continuing practice without ramifications. The Council may have to look at service impacts of County laws. Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Sutter stated that there isn't anything that the Committee can do. Brown stated that he is not against enforcement of rules and regulations. Erma Quist, 4389 Sweet Road, stated that there were 2 %2 feet of standing water on the property that was killing the trees. Video was shot of the situation over the two years. There are pipes running underground to drain the water onto their property. Mr. Quist questioned whether the County has to comply with State law. Sutter stated that the County has to comply, but not enforce. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Mrs. Quist stated that the neighbor is not American, he is Canadian. Sutter stated that he still has to comply with U.S. laws. Lang questioned what could be done if he was found in violation. Knapp responded that is for the court to decide and depends on the violation. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it goes to the Prosecuting Attorney. They would only get notice if there have been two separate infractions, not two correction notices. Knapp introduced Roger McCarthy, Public Works Engineer, who wrote the stormwater runoff chapter and is a member of the TAC committee. Nelson questioned whether agriculture is exempt. McCarthy stated that it is exempt. Sutter stated that the committee would like the TAC to take a look at the issue of preventing off - property damage and impacts, and it also should be sent to the Planning Commission. The TAC should review the current exemptions. McCarthy read from page 36 of the stormwater management regulations. Sutter stated that they want the committee to look at something similar to the clearing ordinance, which states that one can't cause off -site impacts. They should also look at development actions that cause runoff. It is a good philosophy, but not an enforceable regulation. Brown stated that there is a State law that requires that a downstream property owner can't be blocked off, it has to be allowed to come through in some matter. Knapp stated that the difference is that it is a state requirement, but the County has to include in their ordinance in order to enforce the regulation. Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, 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 Sutter stated that people shouldn't have to go to court to keep other people from damaging their property. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Sutter, Council Member Planning and Development Committee, 9/15/98, Page 7