Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 10 1993WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT August 10, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1000 North Forest Street, 2nd Floor, by Dan Warner, Chair. Also present: Larry Harris Barbara Brenner Absent: 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 20.72.280 ALLOWING 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS AS RESORT - ORIENTED TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF AT LEAST 200 ACRES OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL OR URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATED LANDS WHERE 50 PERCENT OF LAND AREA REMAINS IN OPEN SPACE (RELATING TO LILY POINT) (AB93 -163A) Since this issue is a text amendment, one option is to decide to hold a hearing on this matter. The issue was then opened to the public. John Lesow, 317 Madrona Place, Point Roberts: He sent a letter to the Council Members re: this matter and urged having a public hearing held, especially in the evening in Point Roberts. He took time off from work to attend this meeting. Larry Martin, land use attorney from Bellevue, representing owners of the property upon which a development is proposed, the P.U.D., Resort at Lily Point. The proposed amendment would not change the number of units that could be permitted on the development; it would allow a different mix. Left a packet earlier for the Council Members' review. He showed four slides to illustrate the primary point of the Code amendment: a development can be brought forward that uses much less land than under the present Code provision. The present Code provision forces the applicant to minimize the number of allowable units that go into the hotel complex. We would like to increase that so that the mix could be 50150. Brenner asked him about size of the units and underneath parking, to which Mr. Martin replied that the units will be larger and therefore will comsume a larger amount of land. About 10 percent of land could remain undeveloped if 50 percent mix allowed, which will be about a 200 room hotel, which is a destination resort hotel, allowing national and international reservations. Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 1 One of the environmental impacts is traffic. If resort developments are built with amenities on site, traffic off the resort is minimized. Community members will be able to use the golf course, as well as the hotel meeting rooms. Transportation, etc., experts would be at the public hearing -- should there be one -- to answer specific questions to the community. There followed a discussion regarding the proposal and the alternative, a single family subdivision with or without the P.U.D. Warner mentioned the concern of the Lummi Tribe regarding the development and asked Mr. Martin about his involvement with them. He replied he has met with them for extensive discussions regarding various aspects of the development, although he has no agreement to present today. Harris asked for the names of the property owners. Elmer Stermache, 1728 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts: Three American and three Canadian owners are in the Joint Partnership: Mr. George Champion, CA; Mr. Ron Nielson, Pt. Roberts; Mr. Tom Bradbury, Pt. Roberts; Mr. Peter Butler and Mr. Joe Smith, Vancouver, B.C.; and Mr. Sid Welch, Vancouver, B.C.. As to the zoning of the property, Dan Taylor replied it is a combination of UR4 and R10. Harris questioned Mr. Martin on whether a market analysis had been done. Mr. Stermache answered it could not be done because of the lack of comparables having to do with the type of destination resort being proposed. Price Waterhouse was retained during the master plan process to best determine what would be most feasible for the site given all the available information. Executives from Semiahmoo were involved in discussions regarding the subdivision vs. the proposed development. Warner addressed Mr. Brickland, who had earlier sent a memo to the Council re: the "illegality" of this process, explaining that the Council is not the attorney for the county and that the Members work closely with their attorney and, in turn, the attorney alerts them to any possibility of any problems. Mr. Brickland differed with Warner, stating that much of the matter concerns land use regulation.... Warner interrupted, saying that procedure is the point he is trying to make. If Mr. Brickland wants to check with the attorney regarding the legality of the procedure, it is fine with him. Mr. Brickland can make a motion to stop the committee discussion and refer the matter to Council's legal counsel. Warner is willing to hear to the land use only. There followed a discussion between the two of them. Brenner stated she is willing to hear any new material. Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 2 BRICKLAND MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: IT HAS NOT PROPERLY FOLLOWED THE PATH OF A TEXT AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT LEGAL; THAT THE EIS SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE CONDUCTED FOR THE 1,500 ACRES THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IF IT WERE LEGAL AND THAT INDIRECTLY WOULD IMPACT THE ENTIRE LILY POINT, SO THAT THE EIS BEING DONE ONLY ON THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE; AND THE TRIBAL CULTURAL CONCERNS IN THE AREA HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN DUE PROCESS AND IT HAS NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THIS HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE STATE AS A CULTURAL PRESERVE. Brickland and Warner discussed the motion. Warner then talked about the proponents and the amount of "trashing" of the area. Is this going to become a major trash or a less major trash? The land will be disturbed; the difficulty is, which is more disturbing- -the proposal they are making and asking us to approve or the proposal they may very well proceed on without our approval? Brenner expressed the need of hearing from people instead of making a motion. Warner and Brickland had another discussion on the issue of legality of procedure. They then proceeded to discuss whether or not to withdraw the motion vs. voting on it. Mr. Brinkman said he would allow tabling the motion for audience discussion. Mr. Martin discussed the text of the Amendment is a trade -off. Decide how much is the County getting out of this deal? Is anything new being offered? You are getting a phantom offer. In 1991, staff recommended that this criteria be rewritten to eliminate reference to tidelands and bluffs, which was done. Now, however, the previously deleted language is back in, so it needs to be again deleted. Decide if the text Amendment is appropriate for all the parcels. Now is not the time for this project to go forward. Warner commented everyone needs to respect the other person's viewpoint in this matter and listen. Brenner asked Mr. Taylor about whether all of Pt. Roberts is affected, to which he commented about the map Gordon Rogers has. Renee Coe, 1986 Cedar Park Drive, Pt. Roberts: This is an emotional issue, as it will dramatically change our life style. She has questions regarding funds, road widening /maintenance crew, sidewalks, bike lanes, additional police /fire personnel, traffic lights.... Here Brenner interrupted to say this is a matter for P.U.D. and that it should have already been taken care of. Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 3 Ms. Coe also commented to the proximity of Vancouver, the Islands, etc., vs. staying within the confines of the resort. Stephannie Ross, 4940 Columbus Avenue, Bellingham: There has been no discussion with the Lummi Nation by the County. She also mentioned the burial grounds. Warner asked Gordon Rogers to present staff background. Gordon Rogers, Planning Department: He reminded everyone what the issue and request is: Increase the proportion of the densities currently allowed from 20 to 50 percent. The P.U.D. application could be submitted without this text Amendment. The issue is not density but 20 vs. 50 percent of the hotel rooms. (Clerk's Note. The remainder of Mr. Rogers' comments were unable to be distinguished due to overmodulation.) Kitty Carton, Aldrich Road: She commented about the size of the lots and the golf course. Whose money is this? (Clerk's Note. More overmodulation.) Elmer Schmecke, 1728 Edwards Drive, Project Manager for the Resort at Lily Point: The principal list (the owners) is accurate and truthful. He also mentioned the number of units, 221, averaging two bedrooms per unit, which range from 1,300 to 2,300 square feet. It is yet to be determined whether the condo units will be time shared or resident owned. Regarding the Lummi Nation, he is prepared to put together a historical file on the efforts being made to make contact and resolve issues. He requested a public hearing be held. Ms. Coe returned to the mike to specify the owner she is talking about, namely, the owner of the parcel on the EIS that is now before the Council, the Sea Cliff Property Estates, who is Mr. Sidwell. She apologized if there is any misstatement of this information. (Clerk's Note. Mr. Johnny spoke re. the tribal sacred areas but I was unable to understand the first part of his statement-- overmodulation.) There are skeletal remains "they" would like to give the tribe. It is unclear to whom he was referring, but the jist is that if this find is reported, then all work will cease on the project. The tribe and its concerns need to be considered. Warner asked what difference it makes to the cultural area whether the text Amendment is approved. He replied that underground parking would have an effect in that most of the ancient remains are underground. The acreage does not matter; the concern needs to be addressed. The impact-is still the same whether a condo or a single residence is involved. Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 4 Todd S. Gadham (sp ?), cultural specialist for Lummi Tribe: He is concerned about his ancestors. He talked about speaking in Olympia for SB 5807, which makes it a felony to disturb a known archeological site. He thinks this matter should not have gotten as far as it has. Warner asked what difference it makes to him whether the text Amendment is approved. To which he replied it will have an effect whether the Amendment is approved or not. The right hand does not seem to know what the left hand is doing. He again spoke to his ancestors being disturbed. Bill James, Lummi Reservation: He handles the remains of his ancestors and also works with the youth. He spoke to the psychological effect of the disturbance of his ancestors. BRENNER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TABLING THIS MATTER UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING SO EVERYONE MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS. Mr. Brickland then reminded the Council Members of his motion. Brenner withdrew her motion. BRICKLAND MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT AS STATED IN HIS EARLIER MOTION. Brenner said she felt everyone should have an opportunity to speak, and voting on this motion should not take place until this has been done. Warner explained why he would support the motion. Brenner is also not pleased with the project. WARNER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DELETE THE REASONS AND ADD TO THE REASONS THAT THE INCREASE IN HOTEL USES IS AN INAPPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE POINT. Warner asked Mr. Brickland if he would accept this as a friendly amendment, and he said no. Warner said Brickland's motion would be to recommend to the full Council. Brenner spoke to the motion and gave her reasons why she will vote against it. Warner restated the motion to deny the code for the text Amendment. The motion carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE USE OF AIRCRAFT LANDING AREAS TO ALLOW OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT FOR PERSONAL USE IN THE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL ZONES AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND TO Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 5 ADD SECTIONS ALLOWING AIRCRAFT LANDING AREAS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RURAL FORESTRY AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES AND AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB93 -213) (ON 7/27 COUNCIL REFERRED THIS TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR FURTHER REVIEW FOLLOWING THE HEARING) Speakers: Warner; Dan Taylor, Planning; Larry Harris; Brenner; Dick Olson, Department of Natural Resources. Topics discussed: This could be the start of a major land use question with long- term significance that has not yet been examined. Possibility of loss of agricultural land; chemical application in an Agricultural Zone; who is the regulatory authority -- Sheriff, Buildings & Code ?; commercial tourism not addressed; hours of operation; noise; types of aircraft; size of landing strip; flood plains; send back to Planning for further work. Warner read suggested language received from Diane Monsen. Then followed a discussion between Brenner and Warner re: wording. WARNER MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY MS. MONSEN, ADDING LIMIT TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO, SINGLE ENGINE PLANE, THE FIXED WING, FIXED PROPS, .... Harris asked for a motion to return the matter to the Planning Department for further work re: noise, etc. Dan Taylor discussed some of the Members' concerns. (Clerk's Note. All of Mr. Taylor's conversation could not be understood due to overmodulation.) WARNER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THE LANGUAGE AS HERE INDICATED BY DIANE MONSEN'S NOTE WITH THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THAT THE RUNWAY NOT BE LONGER THAN 2,500 FEET; THAT IT BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO AIRPLANCES WITH FIXED WINGS, FIXED PROPS WHEN THE PLANES ARE IN THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THE PROPERTY OWNER; THAT ANY CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF FAA REGULATIONS MAY BE CAUSE FOR SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT PENDING COUNTY INVESTIGATION. Brenner commented. Warner asked Doug Sandy to step to the mike for a discussion of two planes in the same ownership as the property owner (to prevent fly -in meets, etc.) Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 6 (Clerk's Note. Doug's comments were not understandable due to overmodulation.) Brenner commented. Further discussion took place. Mr. Olson spoke to the language. He is confused by it and recommended at least the forestry portion of this matter. This Ordinance will be held in committee. Lee Anderson, Van Wyck: One of a group of people who came to find out what this meeting was all about. They have been patiently waiting and are thoroughly disgusted with the process. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ONE PRIVATE, NON - COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL VEHICLE OR MOBILE HOME PER LOT WITHIN PRE - EXISTING RECREATIONAL SUBDIVISIONS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL RURAL DISTRICTS IN THAT SUBAREA, AS WELL AS AMENDING THE FOLLOWING WHATCOM COUNTY SECTIONS RELATING TO THIS CHANGE: TITLE 20.94 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES AND TITLE 20.97 REGARDING DEFINMONS (AB93 -310) Speakers: Dan Taylor, Planning; Karen Frakes, Prosecuting Attorney; Warner. Staff recommended 2 and 3, a conditional use. Topics discussed: Possibility of a separate hearing for enforcement, which impacts every zoning violation in the county; infractions, criminal offenses and injunctions are the only issues left; to solve these problems, it is suggested a system that provides that after two infractions a person should be subject to criminal sanctions. HARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVING THE BASIC CONCEPT WHICH SAYS THAT RVS WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA... One gentleman rose to the mike to say there are some who would like to speak on this. Another seconded that. The motion was withdawn and will be rescheduled for further committee work. 4. DISCUSSION /DIRECTION ON PROPOSED REVISION TO TITLE 20, AMENDING THE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURE TO Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 7 ALLOW THE COUNTY COUNCIL ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS (AB93 -291) 5. DISCUSSION OF ANNEXATION PROPOSALS, POSSIBLE RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL POLICY (AB93 -181A) 6. BOUNDARY BAY BIOSPHERE RESERVE DISCUSSION (AB93 -320) 7. OTHER BUSINESS As there was no time left, Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ATTEST: Ramona Reeves, Clerk of the Council WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan Warner, Council Member Planning Minutes, 8/10/93, Page 8