Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Council May 1 1990WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL May 1, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Council Chairman Don Hansey. Present were: Absent Dan Warner Mary Vanderpol Marge Laidlaw Bob Imhof Emily Jackson Dennis Vander Yacht 1. APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Warner nominated Clare Fogelsong. Vanderpol nominated Bob Moore. Jackson asked how this was publicized. Hansey said it was a motion by Vanderpol that the Council nominate and appoint a member. Warner spoke on behalf of Fogelsong who is a tactful man who makes a great deal of sense. He spoke highly of Moore as well but said he is on several committees. and it would be good to get a. new person involved in this process. Imhof, Laidlaw and Jackson abstained; Hansey and Vanderpol voted for Moore and Warner and Vander Yacht voted for Fogelsong. Jackson said she would like to see both of them appointed to the committee. Moore does come on board with a great deal of knowledge but Fogelsong would make a good balance. She spoke against having the Director of Council of Governments (COG) sitting on this committee. Vanderpol said he would agree that Moore would bring a lot of knowledge to the committee. JACKSON MOVED WE ADD FOGELSONG AND MOORE TO THE COMMITTEE. Hansey said the motion was out of order because the resolution asked for only one. The resolution would have to reintroduced for another meeting. JACKSON MOVED RESOLUTION 90 -36 BE AMENDED TO ADD TWO MEMBERS INSTEAD OF ONE'TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. Motion failed with Vander Yacht and Jackson voting for it. Warner spoke against the abstentions; it thwarts the majority and is tacky. He said the members are abdicating their Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 2 responsibilities. Imhof said he abstained because he did not agree with any extra people being on the committee. He thought Warner's comments were tacky. He said the more people on this committee the less efficient it would be. Jackson responded she did not have to explain the abstention. One member of the Council should not have forced his own choices for the first twelve members. The public was not in the process from the beginning. Laidlaw said it was important to get to the process and she abstained because she did not want to vote against one individual or another. Vander Yacht said he thought it was important to pursue this and wanted someone from the environmental community added. He would hate to see this get sidetracked because of a power struggle and he wants to proceed so this will get done. Hansey said we passed a resolution at the last meeting to have the committee start the review of development standards. Warner said we passed an amended resolution so the resolution is not enacted. Hansey said the amended resolution does stand as it just stated "a member of the public to be added;" he said the committee should start its work whether the new person is on or not. Vander Yacht said he thinks the new person is important. JACKSON MOVED CLARE FOGELSON BE APPOINTED TO THE COMMITTEE. Motion failed with Warner, Vander Yacht and Jackson voting for the motion. Warner requested that Watts be asked if the committee could proceed. Vander Yacht was correct, we need to proceed, stated Warner. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 2. POINT ROBERTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION There was discussion on how to proceed. VANDERPOL MOVE WE ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION OF THE COMP PLAN MAP AND TEXT TO GO WITH IT. (He said as a follow up he has no thought this will pass as is.) Imhof said looking at the map, he has thoughts of preserving the area and still giving developers a chance to develop. All UR zoning to UR2 with the ability to go to UR6 by buying development rights. This gives prime development rights; people who do not wish to develop could retain one right and sell the rest. Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 3 Owners with 10 acres or more would be able to sell all their rights to the Whatcom Land Trust to be kept as a continuous green belt. Jackson said there is a difference whether we will use transfer rights or not. Hansey said that was a good issue. Imhof agreed this would need to be determined. Imhof said he would like UR2 with the ability to upzone. This would protect the land. Batchelor said UR requires a public sewage system of some sort. He also stated that most of the UR zoning is already developed and could not utilize the increased densities. Imhof said this was leading to the increased area above Lily Point. Batchelor explained the maps. Bob Anderson wanted the map he provided considered. He clarified one point on transfer development rights (TDRs) ; their initial creation is that the land use is treated equally. The proposal before the Council is a major change from 1979. Imhof said this is a different approach for this unique area. Jackson asked if the plan was reviewed by the legal department. Batchelor said both Cottingham and Carmichael looked at the plan and saw no problem with it. Jackson asked if TDRs are necessary to go forward with either plan? Batchelor said they were not, but the Planning Department thought it would be a good mechanism to make things equal. A property owner who does not wish to develop could find compensation in another manner. By selling their rights they could preserve their own property and concentrate development in appropriate areas. Batchelor said there would be more use of TDRs in Planning staff plan than in Planning Commission plan. He said Planning thought it would provide a potential to develop 400 percent over ten years. Build -out with Planning Commission recommendation would be much less; Planning Department would allow 7250 and Planning Commission would allow 6000. Vanderpol said if he owned a five or ten acre lot, he would be unhappy with a downzone. TDR bonuses would be compensation for keeping this in green space. Batchelor said when they required minimum size in Ag and other designations the owners did not receive compensation. Batchelor said TDRs are optional and people would be allowed to not sell their development rights. Warner said he understands Vanderpol to mean that people are being rooked by the Council and Warner said that may be people's Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 4 perception. Jackson asked if TDRs would be considered in other areas of the County such as the South Fork area. Batchelor said he can see the potential for TDRs in Point Roberts but South Fork is too rural. In the fringe area there may eventually be a spot for TDRs. Batchelor said he sees potential good that can come from TDRs and does not see any potential bad. Mary Kay Becker spoke for Stafford Smith who is working for some Point Roberts residents. She said her understanding is that you would be able to have it both ways by not developing your own and selling the rights to others. Batchelor said owners in R10 and R5 properties would be allowed one additional credit. This is not a totally innovative scheme as there was somewhat similar planning in the Sudden Valley area. Warner said we should vote on TDRs. Batchelor said that omitting TDRs would not affect either plan but it would affect the owners. Warner said on the commercial map there is a strip of land east of Tyee Drive that was allowed by staff and taken out by Planning Commission. WARNER MOVED TO REINSTATE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON E7, F7 INCLUDING THE BONSTEIN PROPERTY,(EAST SIDE OF TYEE). Motion carried 6 -1 with Jackson opposed. Laidlaw mentioned the upper NW corner that is not zoned. Batchelor said the Planning staff is staying away from ROS zoning where no private use is allowed; Lighthouse and Monument Park would be easier to zone ROS than that area. The firehouse and sewage treatment area is the only location that could be sold. LAIDLAW MOVED MONUMENT AND LIGHTHOUSE PARKS BE DESIGNATED AS ROS ZONING. Motion carried unanimously. Warner said at H4 there is a proposed change. WARNER MOVED THE RR1 BE DESIGNATED TO UR3 TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING AREA. Motion carried unanimously. WARNER MOVED THE AREA OF NORTH OF PELTIER ROAD (H 3 &4) BE CHANGED FROM RR1 TO UR3. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 5 Between I and J there is another proposed change. LAIDLAW MOVED TO CHANGE THE RR1 (FROM I DOWN TO K 2 &3) TO UR3. Motion carried unanimously. Warner referred to the SE corner and a proposed' change to R10A. Batchelor said the current project on Lily Point is under environment review now. If the project is approved under this application, it would not come under the new rules but a new application would come under the new zoning. The boundary on the upper side is the top of the bluff. Serka, attorney for the developer, did not answer how many units were in the major developments in Lily Point when asked. Batchelor said a substantial portion of uplands is reserved. There was more discussion about this issue. Serka said this area was already planned as a public service; if the Council changes this to R10A the whole plan would be changed. WARNER MOVED TO CHANGE THIS AREA FROM UR4 TO R10A. Serka said if this is changed to R10A the developer would have no incentive to change the development planning. Jackson said the major development review will protect the sensitive areas. Vanderpol said both staff and commission suggested it be left at UR3 and he agrees. Hansey said he agrees with Vanderpol. Motion failed with Warner and Laidlaw voting for this change. JACKSON MOVED TO DELETE THE TDR ON TOTAL PLAN. Imhof said he feels TDRs should not be dismissed at this point as they may be a good mechanism down the road. Motion failed with Hansey and Jackson voting for this issue. WARNER MOVED THE RR1 AROUND THE HERON ROOKERY BE REZONED TO R10A. Jackson said she hopes the Council can come up with a proper buffer around the Heron Rookery. Jackson said the golf course developer has been very cooperative about redesigning some holes to accommodate the larger buffer. It was determined that the development had been applied for prior to this change. Batchelor said the condos would then be non - conforming. Jackson said the developer would not be allowed to replace the condominiums if they Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 6 were burned. Vander Yacht asked the proponents to make a case for R10A. Warner said the currently planned developments would be fine as this would still preserve a greenbelt across the Point. However, if the developer built out his entire holdings it would make a significant impact on the area. Jackson wanted the area that would be used for the golf courses and condos be taken out of the R10A zone. Serka said Jackson is correct about the cooperative owners who changed their plans to allow a 200 meter buffer from the rookery. R10A is not recognizing the concession already made in the process and financing would be in jeopardy if the area was changed to R10A. This project was started in 1985. Vander Yacht asked the purpose of this motion and Vanderpol said it was to keep the area around the golf course from being built up. Motion failed with Warner, Laidlaw and Vander Yacht voting for it. Referring to C12, a little speck of RR1. WARNER MOVED TO MAKE THE SMALL AREA OF RR1 (AT C12), CONSISTENT WITH UR4. Motion carried unanimously. LAIDLAW MOVED RR1 IN MIDDLE OF R2A (G9) BE CHANGED TO URM6. Motion carried unanimously. VANDERPOL MOVED THE HISLOP ESTATE (AT 8 1/2 D) NEXT TO MILL ROAD BE CHANGED TO RR2 FROM R2A. The Hislops shared in cost of putting water in for their 10 acres. They are asking for an RR2 so they can take advantage of James road and the water they helped put in. Batchelor said this is two to the acre on individual septic tanks. Jackson asked if the engineering department had checked on this road. Vanderpol withdrew his motion. VANDERPOL MOVED TO HAVE THE HISLOP ESTATE (AT 8 1/2 D) IN UR4. Motion carried unanimously. WARNER MOVED R2A SURROUNDING HISLOP'S 10 ACRES BE CHANGED TO R5A FROM BENSON ROAD TO ROOSEVELT ROAD (A to F 7 to 9). Vanderpol said he would like the R5A concept if the owners Minutes, 5/1/90, Page 7 were given a bonus; it is now either three to four to the acre. Motion carried 6 -1 with Vanderpol opposed. REFERRING TO 13/14/15/16 B/C SOUTH TO JOHNSON ROAD LAIDLAW MOVED THE RR1 BE CHANGED TO UR3 . Motion carried with Jackson opposed. Hansey asked that Batchelor bring certain items to the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Ba bara Maher, erk ld G VIJAnsey, ^� L._.- r.`. -. .111 /Y COLYY.1.- M.0• - - --.- Lil-C rw F .R! !� UR I i 10A • 3 i •R' ; i I i I / / A R4 I 1 y �o r I 1R2A 0 ; ; {!'2A �/ 10A ' RR1 I '• lii ' �' 1 � 1 1 I qq ,; RR1 r` RR,1- r a L ' I 4. UR3 R y i 1 r �1 A R3— 1Z�jK' 11 I RC RR 1 UI i i RR1 - - - -. .. --UR I i UR r- — — I J F � R2A _...._� r R URM f L n• 1 -1 'ra � -- RC $J J t R OA � / _ I RC .t....... Y PR4 t IJR3 ;i ..... ol :t 45A�1 � * RC �FA1. rJ R10A `� I I n t 1 —... - -... ..0 R r UR3 L RC F. ' I' O NT R B R S �UEIARE i f 12 13 /Y ff, A ._._. ,� Lr..rrr e■1 LY COLYY•la� MaOa _ —_ -------- _ .. .. .. ..... —_. ... —..._ ;!RR1 -- ,� �� / i 1 RC -` F UR4 A. v ll Y f/` 1 10A lu i. 1 I RR 1 i�� � � t C F i {t R4 i I ol 2A ICA G¢ ( i I RR 1 RRI I I 1 1 RR 1 RR;L ��.ne y R UR3 I 1 v � i V � ....._J....._ ... _..-. - -'• - - -` -- ---. • ......_ .. _... . - .... , . - � � - UR4 ` .. . -.. t A R R 1 i UR Z I I R VI 1112A Rf� URM I I I L 1 c R OA / RC RC I7 WR3 I! I �IR4 1 O i Y R10A r j( I 4SA:! �* RC wAAt ` f R UR3 I y soY ea.a ` _ RC i O • NT ROB R S U ARE M 3 $ 9 t PLUM