HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 11 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 11, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER =S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY
JONATHAN SITKIN FOR LOOMIS TRAIL, INC. (PUD 94 -0002, PLS94 -0004,
SHS94 -0013) (AB97 -093)
Those speaking included:
Jon Sitkin, representing Loomis Trail
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
John Hindman
Terry Ellison
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there was an issue
of easements and noted there are several clarifications.
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, explained why this item is before
committee, stating it comes from the Hearing Examiner to Council whether or not to accept his
recommendations for approval of the shoreline substantial development permit, the preliminary
long subdivision, as well as the PUD. He inquired if committee wished to open this issue for
further hearing. Further, according to the Hearing Examiner, appropriate notice had been sent.
Starkenburg inquired if it were appropriate for committee to deal with this issue. Gibson noted
the easement should be reflected on the final plat. He was in agreement with Chair the matter is
to be determined on the title.
John Hindman and Terry Ellison, representing Gary Johnson, spoke to easement
jurisdiction.
Jon Sitkin, 1616 Cornwall #209, representing Loomis Trail, spoke to conditions applying
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 1
to the PUD. He stated the condition is acceptable.
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) (AB96 -401A) were discussed.
Those speaking included:
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Counsel
Phil Serka, Attorney
Frank Smeltzer, Attorney
Starkenburg noted the record on this item is now closed.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, noted unincorporated
items were not easily incorporated. However, most items were easy to insert.
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, discussed instream flow. Knapp suggested
deleting this particular term for now, as further discussion on this was needed.
Sutter moved to recommend deletion of Ainstream flow- until a later time.
Motion carried unanimously.
Starkenburg noted a response has been submitted by the Department of Community
Trade and Economic Development (CTED). Further, their work has not been included in
tonight =s packet. He reviewed the process of bringing up this item at tonight =s meeting.
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, discussed Custer in relation to the Comp
Plan. He stated the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be approved; Council
should not accept this until seven days after approval of the final EIS has occurred.
He noted the concern is the identification of an urban area without the prerequisites of adequate
public services, etc. He counseled committee against not acting on the issue of urban
designation in advance of environmental documentation being complete and not putting it in the
County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP). He suggested Chair announce this issue has been
raised and
state that it is the preference of Council to gather all information and defer this matter to final
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 2
action in the Comp Plan. Then it could be inserted in the CWPP at the completion of the public
hearing process, assuming Council wished to do that; the Comp Plan could be amended or left as
is.
Sutter inquired if a public hearing had to be held if the Comp Plan were amended as
above. Mackie commented on the upcoming public hearing and noted Council will have
sufficient information to make a decision. He continued by stating sufficient information is
available for the public (the EIS, both draft and final) and spoke to the public hearing process.
Starkenburg suggested committee will receive this as information and will move it forward
through the hearing on the CWPP to be held on March 18; no action will be taken today, as the
final EIS has not been distributed to Council and the public. Further, Council will hold this item
seven days until after the final EIS has been approved. There was consensus on this. Phil Serka,
attorney, clarified that this was submitted in the public hearing on the CWPP.
Sutter requested adding language on Section B, Urban vs Rural Distinctions:
ACounty to work with citizens to define the variety of types of rural areas based
on the characteristics, historical patterns of development,....
Gibson cautioned sensitivity regarding this language.
Another suggestion by Sutter was on Section B regarding Aintensive development =.
Discussion followed.
(Clerks Note: Tape 1, side B)
Brenner pointed out the North Bellingham suburban enclave is not the historical
boundary of the entire North Bellingham area; it is the historical boundary of that RR1 area.
Sutter requested adding language on Section C -1:
AUrban growth shall be met by a combination of infill within cities and by
growth within designated municipal and non - municipal urban growth areas,
suburban enclaves, small towns, crossroads, commercial and ag teway
industrials.-
Discussion followed on the appropriateness of such added language. No action was
taken.
Sutter then brought forward a suggestion from the city of Bellingham regarding
Section C -4:
AThe market factor ... urban growth areas should also be evaluated to determine
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 3
whether the land supply is adequate to meet the needs of the k-et community.=
Knapp commented on this suggestion.
Further, Sutter noted on the above that it states the urban growth areas should be
evaluated at least every ten years, and she suggested changing it to every five years. Discussion
followed. Topics discussed included: the annual amendment process; ten -year review; and five -
year review. No action was taken.
Sutter--s next suggestion was changing Aagriculture land- to Aagricultural land -, a
scrivener error on Section 7. Discussion followed on her comment regarding everything in the
County within a watershed, perhaps specifying only Lake Whatcom Watershed. Starkenburg
suggested dropping Awatersheds- as it is known they are covered in other parts of the document.
There was consensus.
Sutter suggested changing language on Section D -5:
AAll cities should grow in an efficient manner while maintaining their character
and where reasonablyg possible shall provide for adequate open space between
cities to prevent the strip eity development concept ... =.
Discussion followed. There was consensus for the changes.
Next, Section E, Non -city Urban Growth Areas, Sutter noted Bellingham and Blaine
requested on numbers 1, 2 and 4 Aand facilities= be added after Aservices= in each of those
sections so that they would all read Aservices and facilities =. The was consensus.
On Section E -4, Sutter suggested a language change:
AThe County shall assure that there are plans to provide appropriate levels of
urban services within non -city urban growth areas. These plans should be
developed by special purpose districts, water associations, and private service
providers within non eity ,,,-ba ,.,.^,„ each of these areas.=
Committee agreed to the change.
Continuing to Section F -2, AContiguous and orderly development planning urban growth
areas, #2, Sutter questioned the following:
AIn ... interlocal agreements, the County and the city shall establish a process to
incorporate citizen input into interlocal agreements negetiatiells and encourage
appropriate districts to participate.=
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 4
She stated she was met with resistance when she suggested citizen input (when she was a
participant in the interlocal agreements). Further, there was never a process established to
incorporate citizen input into interlocal agreement negotiations. Discussion followed regarding
citizen input. Dawson suggested leaving out Anegotiations =. Committee was in agreement for
the change.
Sutter--s next suggestion was on Section F -6:
ACities and other municipal corporations and other public and private utilities
shall not extend urban levels of water service to serve urban uses outside urban
growth areas.=
She inquired about suburban enclaves, small towns, crossroads, and commercial gateway
industrial. Discussion followed.
Sutter was unsure of the meaning of the following:
AThe availability of pipeline capacity required to meet local needs and/or
supplies shall not be used to justify development counter to the County -wide
development patterns.=
Discussion followed regarding the terminology of Adevelopment patterns =. She
suggested perhaps Acounter to the County Comprehensive Plan =. There was further discussion;
no action was taken.
There was a scrivener error regarding Aprovisions
Sutter noted there was a direct conflict between Interlocal Agreement #8 regarding
current development in UR zones and the planning policy; consistency is necessary.
Starkenburg requested Gibson deal with this issue. Discussion followed.
Dawson inquired of language in G -5 regarding Acommunity = -- change to ACounty to
city -? Discussion followed. There was consensus to change that language.
Sutter--s next suggestion followed:
AThe County and city shall work with the private sector or the public and
non -profit agencies, citizens groups and trade representatives to assure adeqUate
supply of sites for affordable housing and to encourage housing... .=—
There was consensus for the change.
On I -2, Economic Development and Employment, Sutter noted the length of a sentence:
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 5
AIndustrial land designation must be sufficient to permit the concentration of
industry in appropriate locations beyond twenty years. This is necessary in order
to avoid... .—=
This was considered a scrivener error.
Sutter noted the second part of the above sentence does not make any sense:
AIndustrial designations must not only include land suitable for development but
also land suitable... .—=
Sutter requested clarification for the Economic Development Administration under I -5
(the Economic Development Council). This was also considered a scrivener error.
Sutter noted on J -3:
AThe... alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, suggestions to ... communities
and higher densities shall be encouraged within cities, urban ....=
Discussion followed.
Sutter stated the following change on J -4 was made everywhere else regarding Aimpact
and/or mitigation fees- but was missed at this point and questioned the term Aproject impact
mitigation contributions =. Knapp responded, as did Mackie. Starkenburg requested Gibson and
Mackie deal with consistency regarding this language. After further brief discussion, it was
determined the language change could be made in order for consistency.
A scrivener error was noted on J -4 and K -4, which staff will correct.
change:
The next area of Sutter --s concern was L -3, and she suggested the following language
AThe County should coordinate with each city to
standardize formulas for the assessment and collection of impact and/or
mitigation fees.=
Discussion followed regarding the standardization issue. The suggested change was
agreeable to committee.
On N -1, Sutter pointed out the language was missing from what the February 4 Planning
and Development Committee instructed staff to insert.
AThe cities and the County in cooperation with other municipal incorporations
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 6
and tribal government shall establish ongoing mechanisms... .=—
Discussion followed. There was consensus for the change, which encompasses M -1 also.
Nelson commented regarding the watershed discussion (N -2) to create Adesignated
watershed areas= for consistency. Discussion followed. Sutter suggested the following
language change:
AThe cities and the County in cooperation with other municipal incorporations
and tribal government shall adopt zoning regulations and development standards
to protect water resources.--
Gibson counseled discussion in general terms regarding water resource protection areas.
There was consensus on the language change.
Nelson suggested using on N -3 Adesignated watersheds =. Discussion followed. Gibson
pointed out the emphasis in the document was on those watersheds and marine bodies which
cross jurisdictional boundaries. The topic was the cooperation to protect those which cross
boundaries.
Sutter requested to add a sentence to the end of N -4:
AAII jurisdictions should participate in the process to establish a County -wide
water resources management body.-
Nelson suggested making N -4 #5, which would be a separate Finding. Number 5 would
be moved to #6. Staff will make the change.
Sutter--s next comment was regarding O -1:
AAn economic analysis of changes in revenue caused by the Growth
Management Act shall be provided by the County to the extent resources are
provided by the state.-
She wondered who would be responsible for providing said analysis. Discussion followed.
Sutter commented this should not be in place if there is no intent of follow - through. Mackie
stated it was not inappropriate to put in a qualifier stating that Council =s ability and willingness
to carry out that function is dependent on state resources.
There was consensus to change O -1 as above.
Regarding 0-2, a scrivener error was noted.
Sutter commented on P -1 that committee had agreed to put AlocaL before Astate and
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 7
federal. Gibson stated the only caveat was local protection of private property rights regarding
growth management must be consistent with stated requirements for County planning under
growth management. Starkenburg directed staff insert Alocal= as noted above.
Sutter suggested adding language to a sentence at the end of P -2:
AAs required by the Whatcom County Home Rule Charter, Section 1011.... The
cities should be encouraged to participate in this effort within their jurisdiction.=
Gibson pointed out it should read:
AThe Coun . , as required by the Home Rule Charter, Section 1011 and cities
should establish....=
Staff was instructed to work on this language change.
Sutter next spoke to the Glossary, requesting clarification on infill in rural settlements.
Knapp pointed out there is a different level of infill for urban and non - urban. Gibson clarified it
was infill consistent with the surrounding area. Mackie stated it was better to use infill for what
is being attempted to be accomplished inside the urban growth boundaries. Sutter suggested a
possible change:
AThe practice of using developable land close to available services rather than
passing...._
Gibson disagreed. Further discussion took place. Starkenburg directed both attorneys
examine Sutter--s proposal.
Sutter next inquired of the definition of Amitigation fee -.
Sutter then stated critical areas are not necessarily natural resource lands (geologically
hazardous areas). Staff will strike Acritical areas =.
Sutter--s next comment regarded the urban fringe plan pertaining to that portion of
Whatcom County rather than is that portion. This was noted as a scrivener error.
Dawson moved to the Natural Resource Lands and inquired if Council should add Aand
certain critical areas -.
Committee than discussed Brenner--s suggestions, which were read by Sutter.
On B -1, add Arenewable =:
AWhatcom County shall primarily become a ... of rural areas and land use matters
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 8
directed toward agriculture, forestry, and other natural renewable resources.=
Committee did not accept the suggested change.
On F6, add AWater may be extended for existing health and safety reasons.= Committee
did not accept the suggested change.
On I -2, end the sentence after: A ... location beyond twenty years.= Sutter noted she had
earlier suggested breaking this long sentence into two sentences (approved by committee).
Committee agreed to leave that sentence as amended by Sutter.
On I -9, add Arenewable- resource lands. Committee did not accept the suggested
change.
Also on I -9, Brenner suggested a language change:
AAs part of a broad -based economy, productive timber, agriculture and fishing
industries should be maintaine encouraged in a sustainable manner.-
(Clerks Note: The final minutes -- approximately ten - -were not recorded due to tape
malfunction)
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:10 p.m.
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 3/11/97, Page 9