HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works January 13 20041
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
January 13, 2004
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003-075B)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated he wrote three memos to the
councilmembers. The first memo is from October 13, 2003. The recommendations
in the memo have not been approved.
The first amendment is regarding State education facilities. Storage and
office space for these types of facilities should be allowed anywhere the zoning
allows other types of storage and office use.
Nelson moved to approve the language of amendment one in the October
13, 2003 memo as written regarding State education facilities.
Motion carried 2-0 with Crawford absent.
Aamot stated amendment two in the October 13, 2003 memo is regarding
corrections facilities in Point Roberts. He recommends a ten -bed limit, which is
consistent with the recommendation from the Essential Public Facility Advisory
Committee about allowing minor correction facilities in residential areas. The State
wanted them to raise the limit to 30 beds.
Brenner moved to approve the language of amendment two in the October
13 memo and stated she would vote against the motion. Don't allow even minor
corrections facilities in residential zones. There are plenty of other zones where
they can be located.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Aamot stated this amendment relates specifically to Point Roberts. There
are other provisions in the text that talk about corrections facilities in residential
zones throughout the county. That is a different section.
Motion carried 2-0 with Crawford absent.
Aamot stated amendment three in the October 13, 2003 memo is regarding
notification for rezones to establish a new airport in Whatcom County. There was a
Growth Management Hearings Board case in Lewis County in 2002 that said a
1,000 foot notification area is not enough. Staff recommends a 1,500-foot
notification area for airports. The amendment also sets procedures for notifying
people about other types of rezones.
Nelson asked if it's standard that the airport receives notification about
rezones near airports. Aamot stated the airport would receive notification if it is
within the 300-foot notification zone.
Nelson stated the County sometimes doesn't think about the airport facility
when approving rezones. He asked if it would behoove the County to notify the
airport of any use proposed within 1,500 feet. Aamot stated another committee is
working on accountability of land use around the airport. He would notify that
committee of the idea.
memo.
Nelson moved to approve amendment three in the October 13, 2003
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated amendment four is a technicality. The conditional use criteria
reference essential public facilities. The Growth Management Act created a new
definition of essential public facilities. The proposed amendment is a name change
from the old essential public facilities to necessary public facilities, so it doesn't
imply they're dealing with the same types of things.
memo.
Brenner moved to approve amendment four in the October 13, 2003
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated the second memo is dated November 25, 2003. The first
amendment in the November 25, 2003 memo is about changes to the solid waste
handling facilities. First, there is a new definition for drop boxes. The County
definition should be consistent with the State definition. In addition, remove
references to Types I, II, and III solid waste handling facilities and put all
composting in Type IV, including commercial and non-commercial.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if the Lakeway site is considered non-commercial. Aamot
stated it is.
Brenner asked what happens if they want to grow and sell things at the
Lakeway site to make up for their costs. Aamot stated he'd have to consult with
Mr. Olason. Staff is developing composting regulations for both commercial and
non-commercial uses. That site is in the city, and wouldn't apply to this.
Composting is a category in itself with regulations coming forward to the Planning
Commission soon.
Brenner stated don't include clean green in with the mushroom composting
regulations. Do regulations for composting according to what the facility does
rather than on whether or not it makes a profit. Aamot stated that's why the
composting regulations include commercial and non-commercial. They can remove
AN noncommercial" from the third bullet point in WCC 20.97.429(1). Clean green
should be allowed whether it is commercial or noncommercial. It doesn't matter
who operates the facility as long as it's clean.
Brenner moved to remove the word "noncommercial" in the recommended
amendment to WCC 20.97.429(1).
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated the remaining language in this proposed amendment defines
the different types of solid waste handling facilities. Take out the catchall phrases
from Types I and II, and leave it in Type III.
Brenner moved to approve amendment one in the November 25, 2003
memo, as amended.
Aamot continued to state that staff wanted to allow the Nooksack Valley
Disposal to have smaller buffers. However, the Health Department classifies that
type of facility as a Type I disposal facility. Amendment one would delete transfer
stations from Type II and leave them in Type III so they are subject to larger
buffers. Under Type III, make the language conform to the Washington
Administrative Code (WACs). Under Type IV, take out commercial to allow both
commercial and non-commercial composting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated amendment two in the November 25, 2003 memo regards
composting in the airport operations zone.
Brenner moved to approve amendment two in the November 25, 2003
memo as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Aamot stated the last memo is dated January 12, 2004. Issue one regards
water treatment plants. The concern is setting back new water treatment plants
from natural gas pipelines. Staff recommends making that a Comprehensive Plan
policy. The fire marshal approves of the recommendation. It's difficult to make a
setback to address every situation.
Crawford asked if there is a geographic information system (GIS) layer for
pipelines over 250 psi. Aamot stated he would have to check.
Crawford moved to approve the amendment suggested in issue #1 of the
January 12, 2004 memo as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated issue #2 in the January 12, 2004 memo regards the definition
of mental health/substance abuse crisis care facilities.
Brenner moved to approve the amendment suggested in issue #2 of the
January 12, 2004 memo as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated issue #3 regards methadone clinics. The State Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) provided statutes from the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) showing that methadone clinics qualify as essential public
facilities.
Crawford asked where they're going with this. There isn't a proposed
amendment to the language. Get rid of the term methadone clinic and use the
term opiate substitution facility. There is a new drug that may be better than
methadone. Now, if there is a treatment provider that wants to move to Whatcom
County, it is not up to the County to permit it. Permitting is done by the State.
The Substance Abuse Advisory Board suggested that if the County already has
regulations about where the facilities could go, the State must consider those local
regulations in place at the time someone applies to the State. Aamot stated they
should specify where those facilities could be located in this amendment.
Crawford stated that if such a facility were to locate in Whatcom County, it
would probably locate in the city of Bellingham, and the City's rules would kick in.
However, it would be prudent for the County to adopt regulations in case a facility
wants to locate in the county.
Brenner moved to include language that they will only be allowed in heavy
impact industrial zones in urban growth areas (UGA's) where they will be closer to
emergency services, hospital services, and transit. It should be as far from
residential zones as possible.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated the Lake Whatcom Psychiatric and Treatment Center would
not be able to do that treatment program because of the motion. Aamot stated
there are other types of substance abuse treatment facilities allowed in various
zones.
Brenner stated they could include language that specifies the potential
facility as a stand-alone methadone treatment facility.
Crawford stated a treatment facility has a crowd of people that gather every
morning. They are all heroin addicts. The neighbors don't like it because many of
those folks are homeless or are frequently jailed. It's not like treatment in an
office complex that is all spread out. A large group of folks go there in the morning
and hang out there.
Brenner stated the Lake Whatcom Center would still be able to provide that
treatment if they specify that stand-alone treatment facilities must be in the
industrial zones in the UGA's. If a facility is providing more comprehensive
treatments and services, it can include that type of treatment in its array of
services.
Nelson asked if they want to prohibit pharmacies. He dispenses the
treatment.
Crawford stated they need more education on this issue.
Brenner agreed. She asked for a presentation.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Jane Relin, Whatcom Counseling and Psychiatric Center, stated the
methadone treatments are housed in centers that do other kinds of treatment.
Brenner stated they could have a presentation on that issue in two weeks.
Nelson suggested including broad language in the Comprehensive Plan, and
more specific language in the County code.
Aamot stated issue $4 in the January 12, 2004 memo relates to airport
siting. The State said they must address height hazards, safety, and noise. Staff
originally cited a 1999 study from the State Department of Transportation (DOT).
However, that's not the most current information. Replace the 1999 study with a
2002 study from California that sets up zones around an airport and appropriate
land uses. The County should compare an airport operation zone proposal with the
crash zones in the study. He explained the study.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked staff to get a comment on the study from the Port of
Bellingham.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner asked staff to also get a comment on the study from the Airport
Advisory Committee.
Aamot stated a Port of Bellingham representative is on the Essential Public
Facilities Advisory Committee. The proposed zones are similar to the California
study. The concept is not new or different. They are just referencing the updated
study.
Nelson asked that the airport also be asked to comment on the study.
Aamot stated another issue is secure sex offender facilities in rural
residential areas and jails in residential areas.
Brenner stated they could bring it up in two weeks.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DEVELOPER RE-IMBURSEMENT APPLICATION FOR MISSION ROAD
(AB2003-369)
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic/Development, stated he is
available for questions.
Brenner stated they were given the option of having it the way it was or
eliminating more properties. She asked if they could put everyone on the
agreement. She asked if the properties that are exempted must remain exempted.
Donahue stated the Council's choice is not wide open, but the councilmembers have
some leverage.
Brenner stated she understood that people who already built their homes
are not a part of this. Donahue stated he didn't think that is entirely correct.
Mary White, Engineering Technician III, stated they can put latecomers
agreements on all lots, but it's likely the developer won't receive reimbursement for
those lots that are already developed. Reimbursement is triggered when a
property owner on the improved road applies for a permit.
Brenner asked if they could take that provision out of the code. They should
be able to include anyone on the latecomer's agreement if there is an obvious
improvement to the road that benefits the property. White stated they could
change the ordinance.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated someone might be happy with his or her existing gravel
road and not want the road improvement.
Brenner stated the person still receives the benefit of the road being
upgraded. The most complaints she gets are from people who want the County to
convert their gravel roads to asphalt. The benefit translates to immediate
increased value if the property is sold. If a person buys property in an area and
knows that the zoning will at some point allow the road to be upgraded, the person
should be aware of that.
Nelson stated the lot is already developed. There's no way to collect on it.
Brenner stated the road developer could put a lien on the owner's property.
They could put something on the title that says the property is in a zone that allows
a certain amount of houses on a road, which could be upgraded. When there is an
immediate and measurable benefit to the property, the cost should be spread out
to those who benefit.
Crawford stated the difference is that the existing homeowner didn't ask for
the benefit. They bought and paid for a house with an existing gravel road. If
developers knew that they could immediately get compensation from all property
owners when they propose a road, there will be a boom in road construction.
That's not the will of the majority of people. If they were already willing to pay,
they would be doing that, but they're not.
Brenner asked why one person who wants to develop just that person's lot
should be responsible for paying for road development of an entire road.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the intent of the latecomer's
agreement is to provide a means for the developer to recover a share of the cost of
the upgraded road from property owners who benefit and who would have been
required to make similar improvements before developing their own property. The
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.72 authorizes and establishes the road
improvement reimbursement procedure. It makes sure the first person in doesn't
bear all the development costs for people who come in and develop later.
Brenner asked if State law says that it's for people who would have had to
do the improvement themselves. Rutan stated it's to make sure the first person in
doesn't have to pay to meet everyone else's requirements. If someone doesn't do
anything to trigger the assessment, the person won't have to pay it.
Staff is prepared to modify the ordinance about what type of permit triggers
the assessment. Right now, a permit for a deck would trigger the assessment. The
question is whether a current resident would have to develop the road if he or she
developed the property. A trigger should be a subdivision of property, a major
remodel, or a new development.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, Page 7
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Tony Freeland, Project Engineer, showed a map of the proposed affected
properties. His proposal was to only collect one assessment from ten -acre parcels
with one house if that owner develops a second house on the ten -acre lot.
Currently, the cost per five -acre lot is $4,015. If the Yancy's aren't included, the
cost per assessment would go up to about $4,250.
White stated the Yancy's argument was that they weren't notified when they
purchased their property.
Lesa Starkenburg-Kroontje, Yancy attorney, stated the issue is the length of
time between the construction of the road and the assessment role that was sent to
the property owners. The road was constructed over two years ago. To anyone
who looked at properties since then, they saw an improved County road. The
developer elected to not file an assessment notice. There was no notice that the
title company picked up. There was nothing filed with the County to be disclosed.
There's no method for people to find out that this assessment could be collected.
The concept that the Yancys should have been notified by the seller or someone
isn't correct in this instance. The way the County code is written indicates that any
property described in the recorded application summary shall be subject to the
assessment after it's been approved by the County. A seller could hide behind the
fact that there is no assessment because nothing has been approved by the
County. The purchaser is not given any notice because the developer elected to
not file the pre -assessment notice, which the title companies would pick up in the
process of due diligence. The property owner did everything to find out the true
costs of the property on a road that has existed for two years. The more developed
properties that are removed from the assessment, even though they can have
accessory dwellings, raises the cost for everyone else. As other people are granted
exemption from the assessment, the Yancys bear a higher cost when the developer
did not file the preliminary assessment. For that reason, the Yancys should be
excluded from this latecomer's agreement.
Brenner stated that if a developed property owner did apply for an accessory
dwelling, he or she would have to pay the assessment. Starkenburg-Kroontje
stated that's correct. However, Mr. Freeland is proposing to take out half of those
lots out voluntarily.
Nelson stated the Council should put them all in the assessment area, the
same as the Yancys. Rutan stated the Council can modify, accept, or reject the
proposal.
Brenner stated it would be fairer to everyone to include them all in the
assessment. It wouldn't be as fair for the Yancys because they didn't know. On
the other hand, she doesn't want to say they should dump the costs on everyone
else. The Yancys shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else in the
assessment area.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, Page 8
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated they should amend the ordinance to change the project
scale for triggering the assessment. Also, require a developer to file the pre -
assessment notice.
Brenner stated that if anyone does major construction or an accessory
dwelling, they should be subject to paying the fee also.
Starkenburg-Kroontje stated that if the developer wants to exclude five of
the ten -acre properties, than the Yancys should be excluded.
Brenner asked if the developer is interested in excluding the Yancy's
property. Freeland stated the developer followed the statute. The Yancys do
benefit from the road construction and should pay a fair and equitable share of the
construction.
Brenner asked if the Yancys would have been responsible for upgrading the
road because the threshold had already been reached. Starkenburg-Kroontje
stated the Yancy's property was part of a short plat done before the road
requirements. Whatcom County requires road improvements at the time of the
plat. Their property was part of the original plat. The only thing left to do is build
the house. If the road had never been built, they would not have had to pave the
road.
Nelson stated the fair thing is to include all properties if there is going to be
major development. That's the key definition they don't have.
Freeland stated that if he included the existing homes, the fee would be
$3,285 per lot.
Rutan stated they can include the existing homes, but the chances of
collecting those fees is unlikely.
Brenner asked if the developer would approve of putting every lot in the
service area to reduce the cost of the assessment. Freeland stated he would not.
It's not fair and reasonable to Mr. Hodges to assess a property that they reasonably
know will never trigger the reimbursement.
Crawford asked if there is something in the current code that led Mr. Hodges
to believe he could develop a chopped up proposal for reimbursement. Freeland
stated the code allowed Mr. Hodges to come forward with any reasonable proposal.
The code says they can include people who would also have had to make the
improvements. They did include existing developments because the only
permitting activity they would make would be home improvements or a deck that
should not have triggered the reconstruction of Mission Road.
Brenner moved to include all the lots as part of the service area. White
stated that the Council could determine when the assessment would be triggered.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, Page 9
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
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Rutan stated this assessment could be triggered by a major development.
Brenner amended her motion to include all the lots as part of the service
area, and reimbursement would be triggered when there is permit for major
development.
Crawford stated he would like to include the properties and let the current
code stand. They can't decide the assessment trigger on the fly. If they amend
the code, the applicant will benefit. He asked why the proposal comes forward two
years after the fact. He also asked why the developer wouldn't negotiate the
latecomer agreement before the road is developed. Rutan stated that's the way
the code is written.
Crawford stated they should look at that when they develop the latecomer's
agreement.
Brenner amended her motion her motion to recommend to the full
Council to include all the lots as part of the service area.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE DRAFTING OF
A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING
AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE 2004 JOINT LAKE MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS (AB2004-064)
This item will be held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, Page 10
1
2
3
4
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/13/2004, Page 11