Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial County Council May 17 1990WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 17, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Council Chairman Don Hansey in the Council Conference Room. Also present: Absent: Mary Vanderpol Marge Laidlaw Dan Warner Bob Imhof Emily Jackson Dennis Vander Yacht POINT ROBERTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS: Ordinance amending the ... zoning ordinance ... to revise existing procedures for transferring residential densities, provide density bonuses as an incentive for utilizing the cluster subdivision option in certain residential zones and place further restrictions on future subdivision of reserve tracts in cluster subdivisions; and to create a Point Roberts special district overlay zone (AB90 -73) Ordinance adopting the text and maps of the Point Roberts Subarea comprehensive plan and adopting the official ... zoning for the Point Roberts Subarea 1. CONSIDERATION OF POINT ROBERTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS WARNER MOVED THAT THE PARCEL DESIGNATED AS R10 BE DESIGNATED AS R5. Warner said the change would make it consistent with the rest of the area; the property was removed from open space and was no longer being given the benefit of a tax break for a larger area. The parcel was located in the south - western portion of the map. Planner Carl Batchelor commented. WARNER ALSO MOVED THAT THE OTHER PARCEL DESIGNATED NOW AS R10, BETWEEN THE R5 IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THE MAP TO BENSEN WOULD BE CHANGED TO R5. Hansey restated the motion. Jackson asked if there would be any comments taken from the public. Bob Anderson interjected that he wanted the staff comments Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 2 to be included in Warner's motions. Planning Director Dan Taylor commented. Batchelor said the property in question, one of them, formerly was "Point Roberts Estates." Discussion ensued. Taylor said this issue is addressed in the staff report dated May 16, under item six. Batchelor -took a moment to explain the maps posted, including one representing the action taken by the Council May 7. The Thorseson Trust property is one that should be rezoned as R5, he said. Jackson expressed concern about making the area in question R5, saying she favored a cluster develop- ment. There was extensive discussion between Jackson and Batchelor, with some comments by Vanderpol, Laidlaw and Taylor. Warner withdrew his motions. Discussion ensued. Imhof said he didn't think the Council could make decisio- ns on the issues raised by Jackson because it was new information and all the facts were not at hand. WARNER MOVED TO CHANGE THE PARCEL IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE MARINA DESIGNATED AS R5 to RC. The marina purchased the property after the staff plan was developed and has plans to use the property. Hansey restated the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Hansey asked that someone discuss the URM6 property immediately above the property just acted on. Taylor said the staff did not have strong feelings about the property's zoning, saying the URM6 would allow worker dormitories to be built for the resort. Hansey asked him some questions; Batchelor commented.. Imhof asked about the densities possible in URM6; it was noted that with TDRs the density could go to eight. Hansey asked for a motion to reinstate the URM6. Laidlaw said she is reluctant to make the motion because she was afraid it would create political basis for a precedent for making other changes requested by developers. Taylor said the RC change was in the public interest; this change also would be in the public interest, although not so much so. Laidlaw said if she supported the change, it would be because it is in the public interest. Imhof asked some questions about other things associated with the proposed change. Warner said the alternative would be to leave the land as R5, the consequence of which the developers would need to build their dormitories in the RC area. Anderson said he had an answer for Jackson's questions about the beach in the R10 area. Jackson had said it was a shame the property has come out of open space because the public won't get any benefit from it. Anderson said if the land is designated UR4, at 300 feet from the shore, leaving the remainder of R10 might help. Warner said an argument for more density could be made; however, the suggestion that it be UR3 or UR4 for the frontage ought to be argued on its own merits, not based on whether the owners leave the rest in open space; the County has no control over this. Jackson and Warner discussed the matter further. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 3 Vanderpol said the density would also give some control over the property's use. For example, zoning it R20 would definitely change the direction. Discussion ensued. VANDERPOL MOVED THAT THE AREA NORTH OF THE RC PROPER- TY NEAR THE MARINA BE MADE URM6. There was discussion. Warner said he would not support the motion. Jackson said she would. Motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Laidlaw and Warner opposed. Jackson brought -up fhe gas stations, saying she wanted to eat a little "humble pie." She was interrupted by Hansey, who suggested the Council should finish the map changes first. There was consensus. Vanderpol said the Council, in discussing the 100 acres, was thinking of changing it to R5, the Tom Bradbury parcel, number six of the staff report. The owners are willing to trade 20 acres along the coast within 300 -400 feet for a UR4 zone, keeping the rest of the property in an R20 zone, and Vanderpol said he would favor that. The specifics of that geographic line would have to be determined; perhaps limiting the 20 acres in a UR4 and no more than 500 feet within the shoreline. Hansey suggested that R10 be used instead of R20. Vanderpol agreed. VANDERPOL MOVED TO REZONE 20 ACRES ALONG THE SHORELI- NE OF THAT TRACT NOT TO EXCEED 500 FEET BACK FROM THE SHORE IN THAT AREA, AND THAT WOULD BE ZONED UR4 AND THE BALANCE OF THE TRACT WOULD BE KEPT IN R10. Imhof said if the Council put a 150 foot setback from the bluff, zoned the next 200 feet R4, that would give 350 feet off the bluff, put the rest into R10, that would give Bradbury 48 units in the 200 foot strip along the bluff with a 150 setback for protection. That would give the County the open space behind, while Bradbury can develop to the point he wants to, with 150 foot protection of the bluff. Discussion ensued. Taylor said that proposal would be a little awkward. Jackson asked the staff to give the Council better wording for the change. Taylor said the findings could say that the area is different, indicate the zoning desired, then include the density restrictions. This would be better than chopping up the zones. Vanderpol withdrew his motion, and suggested that Imhofs description be used to describe the Council's intent, with the staff preparing the language. Imhof com- mented. Vanderpol said the staff should work out the exact distance for setbacks, as well. Batchelor said Bradbury said he was assuming the 50 units would include a bonus for a planned unit development, which would bring it up to 70 units in 100 acres, minimum. Discussion ensued. Bradbury said the forested portion of the property is at a diagonal line through the back. Discussion continued. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 4 Taylor said if the Council wanted to take action on the entire Point Roberts plan, it could leave out this piece for action later. IMHOF MOVED THAT THIS PORTION BE SENT TO THE STAFF TO DEVELOP PROPOSALS, WITH HIGHER DENSITIES IN THE FRONT, LOWER DENSITIES IN THE BACK AND A BUFFER ZONE, TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ACTION. There was a small amouni of discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Jackson asked about the RC in the northwestern comer.. Taylor commented that there is a proposal to build a hotel in that area. Batchelor said it would be about 30 acres. Anderson said the property is supposedly vested; the application is for 26 acres, for about 388 units. Taylor and attorney Stafford Smith said whatever the owners have submitted is vested, if it is a complete application. Taylor noted that the proposal at least preliminarily is for a hotel. Jackson commented. JACKSON MOVED TO CHANGE THE COASTAL AREA IN THE NORT- HWEST CORNER, THE 30 ACRE PARCEL, TO . RC. Hansey restated the motion. Batchelor pointed out that two parcels immediately below the proposed hotel property also was recommended for RC by the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued. Hansey restated the motion. Laidlaw asked why RC is justified for the area, since the property was vested if the application was valid. Vander Yacht said it was a reflection of reality. Haney said years ago the land was originally zoned as resort commercial, so the motion in effect keeps it as it is today. Vanderpol clarified that the action took place after 1979 (in 1981, to be exact). Discussion continued. Warner said if the property owner is in fact vested, then there is no problem. However, if the deal falls through, the issue is should a resort be there if the one now proposed falls through. The Council is consuming the entire coast of, Point Roberts with development. Laidlaw said RC would allow for much denser and heavier use than if the land were left in UR3. Jackson commented. There was some discussion by Laidlaw and Jackson about nonconforming uses. Taylor said under current law the County would be better off, in this circumstance, with non - conforming use; however, that law may change within the next few years. Hansey commented. There was some discussion. Warner commented that some Council members had been using the term "highest and best use" incorrectly, noting that the term was created in the 1920s to indicate land should be zoned for the highest density possible in order to encourage growth. Motion carried 5 -2 with Laidlaw and Warner opposed. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 5 Haney asked Taylor about some property west of Tyee Drive, which the property owner wants zoned as GC. As indicated now, the owner's property is split between residential and GC. Taylor said the Gammons since have filed a binding site plan. LAIDLAW MOVED APPROVAL OF MAKING THE GAMMON PROPER- TY COMPLETELY GC, THE DESIGNATION ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYEE DRIVE. There was some discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Haney asked if the last sentence in item six of the staff report had been dealt with; he said he was referring to the R10 property in an inverted "L" shape, the Thorseson Family Trust. The property is in open space. Imhof read the letter from one of the family members, who requested that part of the land be zoned R5. Discussion ensued. Batchelor said the piece south of A.P.A. Road is in agricultural open space, while the rest of the property is in R10A. There was discussion of other open space properties, one of which was the Magnuson property. Imhof asked how the Magnusons could subdivide property while keeping it in open space. Batchelor said as soon as they sell the subdivided property the Magnuson would need to withdraw it from open space. Hansey asked about the variation of property from west to east of the Thor - seson property; to the west, south of A.P.A. Road, is UR4; then comes the R10A, then to the east is UR3. Hansey asked why this was done. Batchelor said when the property is in open space it is zoned appropriately. Haney asked Taylor to indicate a solution to the mixed zoning along that area south of A.P.A. Road; Taylor said he didn't know what to say. Imhof said it should be kept in R10 until it is removed from open space. There was consensus. Taylor said he had two more points that needed to be addressed: The UR3 just discussed, which Batchelor said was adopted at the last meeting; and Gulf Road, the addition of RC on the north side. Batchelor corrected himself, saying they UR3 just discussed was actually R5 at this time; it had not been voted on at the last meeting. There was discussion. JACKSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THAT CHANGE, MAKING THE HIGHLAND DRIVE SECTION UR3 RATHER THAN R5, ITEM FIVE IN THE STAFF REPORT. Motion carried unanimously. The Council started discussing the change to RC on the north side of Gulf Road. Taylor explained the rationale for the change, saying it makes some sense to either make none or all of the residential property in that area RC. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 6 JACKSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO RC, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE AREA CONSISTENT, AND CONVERTING THE GC TO THE SOUTH OF TYEE DRIVE TO RC. Discussion ensued, during which Council members asked why the RC zone wasn't made square instead of containing some "jogs." It was explained that the areas not slated for RC were residential. Taylor clarified that the motion contained the Planning Commission's recom- mendations and the Council's recommendations from last week. Motion carried unanimously. Hansey asked if there were any more map changes; there were none. The Council began making changes to the ,zoning text. The Council decided to take up the gas station issue. JACKSON MOVED TO DELETE 20.72.153, CHANGING 20.72.200 TO READ "SERVICE STATIONS IN ALL ZONES," WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT NEW GAS STATIONS. Jackson said her motion came from Dan Warner's memo to the Council dated May. 16. Jackson- said her discussion at the May 7 meeting about the importance of not prohibiting certain industries, was not something she supported now. With the safety concerns relating to the number of gas stations at Point Roberts, such as the limited availability of emergency response and the one entrance and exit to. the Point, a moratorium on new gas stations would be justified, she .said. Haney noted that the amendment would make . gas stations a prohibited use. Vanderpol said he would support the motion, saying the last thing Point Roberts needs is another gas station, for the safety factor alone. Motion carried unanimously. Warner said he would make the following motion, based on his memo of May 16: WARNER MOVED THAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BE AMENDED TO MODIFY SECTION .652 AS INDICATED: .652 A& tro#`izic Tree Retention Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 7 (1) THe applicant shall retain existing trees over twelve " inches in caliper... to the maximum extent feasible. The County may " require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree retention. (3) If any vegetation designated for retention is damaged, ... the applicant ... shall ?t .. ............................... Jackson asked that the meters be changed to feet. Warner said 100 meters would equate to about 320 -350 feet. He showed some photos of the cliff area at Lily Point, which is eroding into the bay. He noted also that the Lily Point area is of significance to the Native Americans. Hansey said he didn't know the significance of 330 feet from the cliffs. He asked about the effect on proposals that have major development permits at the present time. Discussion continued. Vander Yacht said section (7) should be taken under advisement, since a geologist's opinion would be helpful in. determining what setback would be safe. Laidlaw said the county does have that information, but that the setback varies. Discussion continued. Serka was asked to comment. Serka said to impose a blanket setback would not be appropriate. Discussion continued. Ross said the slide in the photograph was on the east facing bluff, not on the south bluff on the point as indicated by Serka. Serka said the Council must consider the public's health, safety and welfare in making such restrictions; he commented further, saying that geologists will not make inap- propriate recommendations in terms of safety. Jackson said the Council has some responsibility because sometimes developers sell property that is unstable and people who buy the property don't know about it. Imhof said he favored setbacks, but that Warner's figure was drawn out of the air. The setbacks should be decided on a development by development basis. Vanderpol agreed with Imhof, saying that Warner's 300 foot setback should not be approved, but dealt with at a later time as Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 8 plats are proposed. Jackson asked if Warner would compromise with a 200 foot buffer. Warner said that would be acceptable, and added the Council should not parcel out real estate based on economics. The Indians lived in the area for 30,000 years without significantly impacting the environment. In the past 80 years, other people have just about ruined it, he said. This area is of spiritual importance to the Indians. He said if the Arabs wanted to built a condominium on or near Christ's tomb, there would be an outcry. Parsing it out and analyzing it in terms of how many units can be developed is not appropriate. Vander Yacht asked for clarifica- tion. Warner said the intent would be to save the spiritual atmosphere of importance to the Native American people. Imhof said he agreed the space is significant, but said it should not be determined today what the setback would be. Vander Yacht said a geologist would not put a number on a spiritual concern. Safety is one issue, the spiritual issue is separate. Warner said the Lummis asked for 100 meters. Discussion continued. Laidlaw asked if it would be appropriate to change section seven so that buffering would be required to take into consideration safety, spiritual and archeological issues. Warner said geologists and economists will make different decisions on the setbacks, therefore, it is up to the Council to determine them. Laidlaw said the county's development standards do not require buffering. Discussion continued. Vander Yacht said the issue should be taken up with the County's development standards. Jackson said she supports what Warner is doing, and that the reason a specific number is needed is because as in Sudden Valley lots were sold that weren't suitable for building. She said there is nothing wrong with picking a number to suit a vision for that area; therefore the Council needs to pick a number that is not necessarily geologically based. Vander Yacht said he disagreed about arbitrarily picking a number, even though he agrees with Dan's intent. Vander - pol said he didn't see the need for a number. VANDERPOL MOVED THAT WARNER'S MOTION BE AMENDED TO DELETE THAT SECTION (SECTION 7). Imhof said he would like to hear what Laidlaw has in mind in regards to this issue. Stafford Smith said a geologic figure would be hard to determine because erosion is episodic. There is no easy geologic answer. Laidlaw said buffering which recognizes the safety and unique features of Lily Point would be acceptable. Jackson said she liked that idea. There was general agreement. LAIDLAW MOVED TO AMEND WARNER'S MOTION SO THAT HER PROPOSED LANGUAGE ( "BUFFERING WHICH RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR SAFETY AND THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF LILY POINT SHALL BE REQUIRED ON THE POINT AND IN SUCH AREAS NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL TAKE PLACE. ") WOULD REPLACE THAT IN SECTION 7. Vanderpol withdrew his motion. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 9 Motion to amend Warner's motion carried unanimously. Warner's motion came before the Council as amended. Vander Yacht asked some question and discussion ensued. Logging operations are not prohibited by this language, Warner said. Discussion continued. Hansey asked about the eight inch and 12 inch references in terms of tree size. Taylor said the staff favored eight, the Planning Commission said 12 would be better, although it would mean fewer trees would be saved. Laidlaw called for the question. The amended motion carried unanimously. Hansey suggested that Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) be taken up. Imhof said without a character plan, the TDRs are something that should be pulled from the document and held until the character plan is finished. IMHOF MOVED TO DELETE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AT THIS TIME, WITH THE IDEA OF RECONSIDERING THE CONCEPT WHEN A CHARACTER PLAN IS ADOPTED. Motion carried unanimously. WARNER MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THE STAFF AT ITS CONVENIENCE TO WORK ON THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. WHAT IS NEEDED IS A CLEARER DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT'S BASED, HOW RIGHTS ARE ASSIGNED. Warner said a motion maybe isn't needed, that he was sure this would be done. Hansey said by not including TDRs in this plan some changes in density would be needed to meet minimal goals. Taylor said they would not be needed, but they could be considered if the Council wished. Laidlaw said perhaps not changing anything would spur the development of a character plan. Warner suggested that the administration be requested to hire an urban planner, in order to work on the character plan. Warner said it would be a good idea to have one on staff. The first task of that person would be to immerse themselves in the mysteries of Point Roberts. Laidlaw and Jackson discussed the matter. Jackson said the administration should be asked to bring back recommendations on the character plan, whether that be by citizen committee, and how it might be implemented. JACKSON MOVED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION BE REQUESTED TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW A CHARACTER PLAN MIGHT BE IMPLEMENTED. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 10 Laidlaw said on page 3 of the proposed changes to Title 20, item .202, uses prohibited at Maple Beach: She suggested banks and professional offices be excluded from the prohibited uses. LAIDLAW SO MOVED. Discussion ensued. Hansey restated the motion. WARNER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE WORD "COMMERCIAL' PRIOR TO GARAGES IN THAT SECTION. Laidlaw consented to the amendment to her motion. The amended motion carried unanimously. Warner said there was another issue on clustering, page two of his memo. Throughout the zoning text there are several schedules for clustering. Taylor wanted the Council to look at the numbers, which would apply to the whole County, not just to Point Roberts. Batchelor said there are two alternatives, a high density and low density alternative. Depending on the parcel size in various zones, if someone chooses to cluster his development, he can get more dwelling units. Two different bonus schedules were prepared. The Planning Commission chose .the high density schedule; which was not the one favored by the Planning Staff. He went over the two schedules, explaining the differences. LAIDLAW MOVED TO ADOPT THE LOWER DENSITY CLUSTER SCHEDULE. Discussion ensued. Hansey spoke against the motion, citing the need for affordable housing as a reason. He said the Council should be thinking about having 5,000 square foot lots, rather than looking for large lots to keep down growth. Laidlaw said she agreed, but didn't want to go too far. Motion carried with Vanderpol and Hansey opposed. Anderson talked to the Council about cluster subdivisions, and a conversation he had with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts. He said by taking the action it had taken, the Council was making a change in the official control, and this matter was not advertised prior to the Planning Commission's hearing; therefore the Council could not take such action without further advertising the matter for hearing. Batchelor and Anderson discussed the matter. Batchelor said the public hearing that took place before the Council April 19 would have provided adequate notice for this matter. WARNER MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE MAP AND THE Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 11 TEXT WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE EXHIBITS BY THE COUN- CIL; THAT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ... ZONING ORDINANCE ... TO REVISE EXISTING PROCEDURES FOR TRANSFERRING RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, PROVIDE DENSITY BONUSES AS AN INCENTIVE FOR UTILIZ- ING THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OPTION IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND PLACE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF RESERVE TRACTS IN CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS; AND TO CREATE A POINT ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE (AB90 -73) BE ADOPT- ED. Imhof asked some questions. There was some discussion. t Vanderpol referred to the Planning Staff letter of May 16, which related to the urban residential. There was discussion. Hansey said Vanderpol was asking for the public water and sewer text, where it was addressed. Taylor said it is in Title 20, and affects the whole county. Vanderpol said he didn't want to leave that issue un- resolved, in terms of Point Roberts. Warner said the issue being discussed was not included in the ordinance under consideration. Vanderpol asked if Taylor would go over the alternatives on page 2 of the staff memo. Taylor did so, and discussed some implications of each. Some discussion took place. Vanderpol said he was concerned with the development being controlled by the water district at Point Roberts, and the effect of the zoning currently under considera- tion. on the assessments for property owners. Discussion continued. Batchelor distributed copies of an article from the All Point Bulletin, which accurately indicated the impact on water assessments (on file). Batchelor said the zoning was not tied into the assessments, that it would be the same per square foot for properties no matter where they are located. VANDERPOL MOVED TO AMEND DAN'S MOTION SO THE URBAN RESERVE TEXT, THE REQUIREMENT THAT SEWER SERVICE BE ONLY PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SEWER, TO READ WITHIN THE PT. ROBTS. SPE- CIAL DISTRICT THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SEWER... SHALL INCLUDE... MUNICIPALITIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND ASSOCIATIONS ... OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS AS APPROVED BY A LICENSED DESIGNER AS APPROVED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT... Warner said that might be a good idea, but he wasn't sure. of the impact. Batchelor said he talked to Health Officer Dr. Frank James, who said he does not have an objection, but he does not have any regulations in place with which to do this. The Health Department would have to expand its authority and its staff to do this. Hansey said there are state regulations in place. Batchelor said the Council would be in the sewer business. All it does now is approve designs and make sure they are in the proper place. Jackson said she is not ready to do this yet, and the proposal should be reviewed by the Health Board Advisory Committee. The long term staffing ramifica- tions need to be studied. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 12 WARNER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND BY SAYING THAT MARV'S MOTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE HBAC. Warner said such a referral would be more appropriate than an amendment at this time. Warner asked if this item could be put on the HBAC agenda for May 25, or the next one if that is not possible. Anderson commented. Discussion continued. Motion to amend the motion to amend the ordinance carried with Vanderpol and Hansey opposed. The action nullified Vanderpol's motion to amend. The motion to adopt the ordinance came forward. Vanderpol asked if Plann- ing staff felt comfortable with implementing the ordinance as it stands. Discussion ensued. Vanderpol asked if Watts had ample time to review the matter. Warner said Watts is aware of what has been before the Council, and he's had his chance. The motion carried 5 -2 with Vanderpol and Hansey opposed. LAIDLAW MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TEXT AND MAPS OF THE POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL ... ZONING FOR THE POINT ROBER- TS SUBAREA Hansey asked if the reference to transferring residential densities in the title should. be removed. There was discussion. Batchelor said there still is a mechanism for transfer development rights ' in Whatcom County, regardless of Point Roberts. The title of the ordinance does allow for revisions to the procedure; therefore the title is not inconsistent. After some discussion: The motion carried 5 -2 with Vanderpol and Hansey opposed. The meeting was adjourned at about 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: ON R ona Reeves, Coun ' Clerk WHAT�OUNTY COUNCIL WHA OUNTY, WASHINGT- G. Minutes, 5/17/90, Page 13 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING VOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE LIST May 17, 1990 Name Organization or Address Stafford Smith, attorney Pt. Roberts Heron Committee Stephanie Ross, attorney Representing herself Joel Gordon, attorney Point Roberts Marina Tom Bradbury Point Roberts Golf Course, 297 Boundary Bay Road Ed Fisk( ?) Welsh Dev. Inc. Andrea Bryant Westside Record - Journal Marie Burns 2055 A.P.A. Road, Point Roberts Andy Norstadt . Bellingham Herald Glynnis Christie All Point Bulletin Vic Allen ( ?) 5339 9th Avenue, Delta Pamela Poirier ( ?) 1950 Holiday Lane, Point Roberts Dan Zender 322 N. Commercial (Gammon Int'1) Bob Anderson 203 W. Holly No. 19, Bellingham Remo To: Council Members Fr: Dan Warner Da: May 16, 1990 Re: Pt. Roberts plan Following meeting with staff and discussion with Council members, I offer the following as a starting point for discussion should it prove useful. A. Map changes. 1. Change R -10 to R -5 in south east corner. This parcel was removed from open space after the staff plan was developed, and is not appropriate for R -10. 2. Change R -10 to R -5 in parcel directly south of the presently- existing R -5 in east - central part (north of Benson). Same reason as above. 3. Change R -5 to RC for parcel innediately east of the marina (ie, adopt Planning Commission's proposal for this piece). The marina bought this land after the staff plan was developed. Several other changes have been promoted or offered. Personally I am not inclined to get into heavy tinkering with the map. Projects now permitted have vested rights, and even if the proposed use becomes nonconforming, our ordinances on non-conforming uses are so generous that even if a non- conforming use were completely destroyed, it could be rebuilt, Some further flexibility may be afforded by development of the TDR concept. B. Text changes. 1. Gas stations. Delete 20.72.153 entirely, and change 20.72.200 to read: ".201. Service stations in all zones." This would prohibit new gas stations. We discussed this last week, but I am not sure the point was clearly enough expressed to give CMS an adequate understanding of the problem. There was only one issue about which almost all residents at the Point agreed: no more gas stations. Here's why: (a) they create terrible traffic congestion at the border and on Tyee drive; (b) they are a potential fire hazard given they line the only exit from the point; (c) they are very difficult to fit into any 'character plan' for the Point, and can not be considered an aesthetic asset; (d) when U.S. gas prices rise to near that of gas in Canada (which seems inevitable, considering that U.S. prices are the lowest.in the industrial world) gas stations in excess of those needed for local service will probably fail, leaving derelict buildings and huge potentially dangerous, leaky, underground tanks. 2. Development standards. a. .652 Areas of Special Significance; Tree retention Section Preamble. Point Roberts contains a unique forest habitat which supports a number of unusual or rare animal species. Lily Point at Point Roberts is recognized as a significant Native American burial ground and a place of special natural, 1 spiritual, cultural, and archeological significance; the cliffs at Lily Point are dangerously unstable. Permitted development at Point Roberts should take into account its unique forest habitat, and permitted development at Lily Point shoilLbe consistent with its special significance..... (1) The applicant shall retain existing trees over twelve -- eight inches in caliper... to the maximum extent feasible. The County itay shall require min site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree retention. (3) If any vegetation designated for retention is damaged, ...the applicant... shall con5ideratien restore the site pursuant to a restoration plan approved by the County. (5) Any primary development permits, clearing permits, conversion plans, or logging operations shall require. as part of the permit, an approved logging plan designed to preserve as reasonably feasible the area's woodland charac- ter. Standards for such permits may be approved by Council resolution. (6) For 180 days after the effective date of this ordi- nance, no tree removal shall be permitted within the heron rookery proper nor within a buffer located 200 meters from L its outer perimeter. (7) No development at Lily Point shall be permitted closer than 100 meters from the cliff edge. 3. Clustering. The Planning Commission's proposal for clustering bonuses was innovative and valuable. It was perhaps imprudently generous; staff has a somewhat less generous proposal. 4. Transfer of development rights and character plan. It might be a good idea to hold back adoption of Section 20.72.800 (TDRs) for a while, perhaps until the character plan is adopted. Both of these excellent ideas need to be developed and all residents at the Point need to have specific input and to be fully educated on how the systems will work. Insofar as the Council may wish to adopt either or both of these concepts on a wider County- wide basis, the citizens in general should have time to provide suggestions and input on development and implementation. N WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 401 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Hansey, Chair Council Me ers. FROM: Dan Taylor, lector DATE: May 16, 1990 ::I:) ON 2061398 -1310 / 676 -6756 Fax. 676 -7727 /Scan: 769 -6756 Land Use & Economic Planning RE: Point Roberts Comprehensive Plan.and Zoning In addition to issues individual Council members may still have, staff feels the following issues should be considered prior to final action: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps It was necessary to pick a starting place from which to begin a modification process. Council chose the staff proposal versus the Planning Commission's proposal, or the original 1979 plan. Each approach had its problems. The problem with starting with the staff proposal is that the issues have evolved since it was originally prepared, often with consensus among staff, Planning Commission, developers,.and the public. There is also the move from R -10A to R- 5A wherever properties were pulled out of open space (which Carl mentioned). The latter may have been incorporated implicitly. To address the former, I would suggest comparing the Planning Commission version of the zoning map to the staff's version in terms of commercial, including at a minimum the following: 1. Changes along the north side of Gulf Road. If Councilwoman Jackson's proposal is to be included, I suggest it would also make sense to add the Planning Commission changes. All of this area will not be needed for commercial, but, as Resort Commercial, it would also be available for residential uses. 2. Marina area. Some additional Resort Commercial and multi- family area (URM6) was added to what existed before. This was not because it was felt that this developer should be entitled to more benefit, but simply because it seemed to make sense from the long term economic benefit of the Point to allow a place for low intensity marina uses across the road and higher uses to occur on the existing property where boats are presently stored and repaired. The multi - family zone was intended to provide employee housing. 3. Northern boundary of the commercial property on the west side of Tyee Gammon Property). The staff proposal was based on the premise of keeping jo \I \ptrobpla.mem \05-09 -90 \05 -16-90 Page 1 commercial as far south as possible. However, this does split property boundaries and based on a binding site plan application, the Commission's line is more reflective of the current situation. 4. Resort Commercial in Northwest Corner Buildings and Code has received an application for an hotel on this site. The zoning could be changed to Resor to reflect this as a reality or the hotel could be allowed to succee or fail on its own merits. For now it is vested. 5.j Highland Drive One non- commercial issue is the property along Highland Drive. It is already platted. Staff originally ignored it as an island in the middle of rural. However, the Commission converted it to UR 3 and extended the zone to the beach.. This would allow the potential for up to eight additional upland lots which would allow the people who have summer cottages on the beach to relocate upland. 6. R -2A Requests We have also received two requests for R -2A. One is from the Thorstenson Trust. However, their land is in open space, which is why we had it designated R -10. The other was from Tom Bradb�y, speaking for several owners who recently purchased a roximate p pp cres .of land just west of the SeacTiff and Claire Lane-area. The pro grty was purchased under the assumption it wouTd_be R_-2_ n except for a small f i nger o_ _thgi Thors­t_enson _property,h i t i s a -on y coas a area— zoned "at -lower densities. Transportation Plan Map. Engineering has requested some modifications to the map on page 50 of the plan, basically to expand the border study area to allow more flexibility in finding solutions. Urban Residential Sewer Requirements Councilman Vanderpol has suggested using the special district to modify the requirement for public sewer in the UR zone. This may be appropriate, particularly if there is a concern that the water district will not cooperate in managing sewer systems and inhibit development. However, this should not be so broad as to allow more than one unit per acre on individual septic systems. The big developers will have no problem with sewer. The Marina is already served by Water District 4, and it is my understanding that Seacliff also has a formal arrangement. It is the accumulation of individual systems at fairly high densities with no central management that should be avoided. Staff proposed the UR zone to try and encourage sewer. If that is not Council's desire then one of the RR zones would be more appropriate. One possibility would be to leave UR on the golf course and Seacliff area and change the rest of the vacant parcels to an RR zone. If Council does want to substitute the Health Department for the Water District, , it would work. However, the Department needs to be given the regulatory jo \I\ptrobpla.mem \05 -09-90 \05-16.90 Page 2 authority and the necessary staffing and would need to develop a set of standards. Relationship Between Land Uses and Water Assessment Rates We will dig through back issues of the All Point Bulletin to get some additional information on this. However, Council may wish to call in somebody from the District that can speak with authority. We do not see the connection with zoning per se. Cluster Bonus The Planning. Commission came up with a very innovative concept for cluster bonuses. Carl developed the methodology for them. This will effect not only Point Roberts but all of Whatcom County. Our only concern is that there were two alternatives and the Commission picked the one yielding the most density. This needs to be carefully reviewed by Council in view of the fact that it effects the entire.county. Character Plan The major way Council could assist in promoting the character plan would be to help fund an urban designer to work with the community. We can give-them some theoretical material and some examples., but it will really take an urban designer to translate a community vision to workable guidelines. The community as a whole probably still does not understand that implementation of a character plan implies an additional review step, presumably by a local committee, that will have to be integrated into the development process. Dan Jenkins, the originator of the idea, has given me a ballpark figure of up to $50,000 including extensive work with the community, but holding his profit down as his contribution to the cause. He feels major developers would help fund it. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) Staff still believes TDRs will work as written. We tried to develop 'a simple system that .did not include extensive governmental involvement. That may not be the way King County or someplace else with a large government would handle.it. What we developed was also intended for broader county application. This included improving the method we now have in place in Sudden Valley which was an early system that could use some refinement. If Council does wish to delete the TDRs you may want to review the density limits in the URM and RC zones established by the special district which were set a little lower assuming the TDRs. Gas Stations The proposed language regulating gas stations would theoretically allow 21 new stations. The market of course will limit that. The question is whether even one new one, or expansion of existing ones, which is likely to happen is acceptable. jo \I \ptrobpla.mem \05.09 -90 \05 -16-90 Page 3