HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1995-061WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 1995 -442
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office
Agenda Date
Assigned To:
Originator. County Council
11/06/95
11/14/95
Introduction
Division Head:
Dept. Head-
Prosecutor
Purchasing/Budget:
Executive:
SUBJECT.•
Amending Title 20 Regarding Plant Nurseries
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
SUMMARYSTATEMENT.• Please complete sections of box as appropriate & explain the item below.
Related County Contract #: I Should clerk schedule a hearing.' (YIN) N Requested Date:
This ordinance would allow plant nurseries in the Urban Residential (UR) zone as a conditional use. A prior Planning
Commission report recommened this change, but the UR zone was left out of the ordinance previously adopted by the
Council. SEPA and hearings were held on the original proposal and do not need to be duplicated.
CLERK'S RECOMMENDED MOTION (for final action):
I move to approve the ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN.•
1995."2-
11/14/95: Introduced
11/28/95: Adopted 7 -0
Related File Numbers.
Ordinance or Resolution Number (this item only):
Ord. 95 -061
Plant.ord 11/3/95 SPONSORED BY: BRENNER,
PROPOSED BY: BRENNER
INTRODUCTION DATE: 1 1/ 14 / 9 5
ORDINANCE NO. 95-061
2 AMENDING TITLE 20 REGARDING PLANT NURSERIES
3 WHEREAS, problems exist and future opportunities are needed in Title 20
4 regarding plant nurseries; and
5 WHEREAS, plant nurseries are one of the anomalies that are treated differently
6 in different zoning regulations; and
7 WHEREAS, at Council request, the Planning Commission considered amending
8 Title 20; and
9 WHEREAS, Determination of Non - Significance was issued by the Deputy SEPA
10 Official on July 27, 1994;
11 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the
12 Bellingham Herald on Saturday, July 16, 1994; and
i
13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 27, 1994_ and
14 considered all testimony; and
15 WHEREAS, the Council at a public meeting on September 27, 1994, reviewed the
16 Planning Commission recommendation and found the proposed amendments in the best
17 interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; and
18 WHEREAS, since that initial review it has been determined that there was
19 confusion as to whether or not Urban Residential zones were to be included in the
20 recommended areas for amendment to allow Plant Nurseries as a conditional use; and
21 WHEREAS, pursuant to information contained in a memo dated October 30,
22 1995 between Vickie Hardin Woods, Acting Planning Division Manager, and members of
23 the County Prosecutors Office, that a review of the record determined that the Planning
24 Commission had, in fact, recommended that the Urban Residential section of Title 20
25 should also be amended to allow Plant Nurseries as a conditional use and that the
26 ordinance previously brought before the Council did not include the Urban Residential
27 zone that had been included in the Planning Commission recommendation; and
Page 1
1 WHEREAS, it is now necessary for the County Council to take specific action to
�2 include Plant Nurseries as a conditional use in the Urban Residential zone; and
3 WHEREAS, the Council adopts the following Findings and Conclusions:
4 Finding:
5 The worthiness of this issue has been previously, and specifically, recommended by the
6 Planning Commission and further action by the County Council on this issue does not
7 require a re- hearing by the Planning Commission.
8 Conclusion:
9 Properly conditioned, nurseries could be allowed in most residential or Waal areas.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections,
clauses, or provisions of this Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid.
ADOPTED this _2s day of _November , 1995.
5
6 ATTEST:
• D_ D_
0
10
11
12
13
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dan Gibson
Civil Deputy Prosecutor
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
4v",XA -�AJJ -
Ro " ert A. Imhof, Council air
(✓Approved ( ) Denied
U
Shirley Van Za ten, Exe ive
Date: 11- \-- q5
Page 3
..u.y t/, /yy4
[c:f1\6] File Ref :21- 94ZTAR Page 1
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENCY REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING TITLE 20 REGARDING PLANT )
NURSERIES AND FOOD PROCESSING AND TITLE 21 ) FINDINGS, REASONS
REGARDING PLAT APPROVALS ) AND MOTIONS
)
WHEREAS, problems exist and future opportunities are needed in Title 20 regarding plant
nurseries and food processing, and in'Title 21 regarding plat approval time extentions; and
WHEREAS, plant nurseries are one of the anomalies that are treated differently in different zoning
regulations; and
WHEREAS, Title 20 specifies food processing in the General Manufacturing zone and the Heavy
Industrial zone, but does not allow it in the Light Industrial zone; and
WHEREAS, while the Light Impact Industrial zone does have a catch -all category to allow other
uses similar to uses listed for the zone, it is difficult for an administrator to allow something that is
specifically called out in two zones and yet not listed in the third industrial zone. In addition, the Light
Impact Industrial zone does have a conditional use related to food (20.66.153) which specfically
excludes processing activities; and
WHEREAS, the present time limit from preliminary to final' plat approval in Title 21 is three years
plus a one year extension which may be limiting to some developers in certain situations; and
WHEREAS, the present time limit does not provide for phasing which is a logical way to approach
some subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the concern in relaxing the time table from preliminary to final plat approval is not
to go too far into the future as development standards and zoning requirements evolve and premature
preliminary plats, which lock in final plats too long, could lead to obsolete land use patterns and
practices; and
WHEREAS, at Council request, the Planning Commission considered amending Title 20 and Title
21; and
WHEREAS, Determination of Non - Significance was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on July
27, 1994;
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the.
Saturday, July 16, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 27, 19!
testimony.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION
1. A quorum of Commission members was present during the hearing.
2. The statutory requirement was met regarding legal notice..
-July 17, 1994
101%] File Ref.21- 94ZT.AR Page 2
3. The Planning Commission concurred with the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS presented in the
Staff Report, dated July 20, 1994. The RECOMMENDATION, however, was modified and the
request was approved.
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
David K. Simpson, Chairman Daniel W. Ta o , Secretary
Date:
Commissioners present at July 27, 1994 hearing:
Dave Simpson, Leslie Hamilton, Phil Urso, Dave Ernst, Elaine McRory, Clare Fogelsong, and Jerry
Landcastle .
Vote: Unanimous Ayes
Prepared by. Dan Taylor
vv.� �. V� • VVY
FILE REF: #21 -942T Page 1
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT: Whatcom County Planning
REQUEST
The request is 1) to amend -Title 20, the official Whatcom County Zoning Code, to allow
nurseries as a conditional use in residential zones and to allow food processing as an
outright permitted use in the Light Impact Industrial zone; and 2) to amend Title 21., the
Whatcom County Subdivision Regulations to extend the time period between preliminary
plat approval and final plat approval.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on
Saturday, July 16, 1994, and a public. hearing will be held on July 27, 1994. A SEPA
Determination is pending.
REGULATORY EFFECTS OF THE REQUEST
Nurseries, including some retail sales, would be allowed in residential zones subject to
conditions. Food processing operations would be allowed in Light Industry zones as they
are presently allowed in the General Manufacturing and Heavy Impact Industrial zones.
The change to the subdivision regulations would allow developers additional time between
preliminary plat approval and final approval beyond the three years, and one year
extension presently allowed. A proposal submitted to Council and staff by Chet Lackey
would allow up to ten years, total, if there were conditions beyond the applicant's control
or if the plat were developed in phases.
BACKGROUND
Each of these proposed changes results from one or more problems that have arisen
lately. At Council request, these- are being considered to possibly correct existing
problems and to provide future opportunity.
ANALYSIS
Nurseries
Plant nurseries are one of the anomalies that-are treated differently in different zoning
regulations. Many communities recognize them as providing open space - relief in-
otherwise conventional residential neighborhoods._ Other communities focus on -their
I�1
FILE REF: #21 -94:ZT Page 2
commercial aspect and deem them inappropriate in residential areas. Both views have
validity. Nurseries by their nature, generally, have a high rate of outdoor growing or plant
storage area relative to indoor sales area or parking lots. They are, however, commercial
uses which generate vehicular trips. They also have the potential to utilize fertilizers,
herbicides, and pesticides at a scale that may not be in keeping with surrounding
residential use. On the other hand, to the extent chemicals are utilized, they are applied
by licensed applicators and, therefore, may be more controlled than might be the case
with casual residential use.
By allowing nurseries as conditional uses and setting requirements on their locations and
the size of their covered retail sales, their positive attributes can contribute to residential
neighborhoods while the potential for negative impacts can be diminished.
Food Processing in Light Impact Industrial
Food processing includes a broad spectrum of uses with a wide range of impacts with the
only commonality being an end product that is some type of food. The zoning code
specifies food processing in the General Manufacturing zone and the Heavy Industrial
zone, but does not allow it in the Light Industrial zone. While the Light Impact Industrial
zone does have a catch -all category to allow other uses similar to uses listed for the zone,
it is difficult for an administrator to allow something that is specifically called out in two
zones and yet not listed in the third industrial zone. In addition, the Light Impact
Industrial zone does have a conditional use related to food (20.66.153) which specfically
excludes processing activities.
In trying to understand the legislative intent, in not allowing food processing in the LII
zone, one has to conclude that food processing in the past conjured the image of intense
industrial uses. Canneries, packing plants, and other historical industrial uses in this
category would have included large volumes of waste water, odors, solid waste disposal
needs, etc. There may still be a demand for these uses. The present requests, however,
which generated the need for review of the legislation, have been much more benign and
we also have a number of positive examples including Granny's Muffins in Cordata and
Darma Juice in Fairhaven. The difficulty is in making the judgement on the amount of
impact of any given use. In checking with several jurisdictions, the only distinctions made
seem to be to limit the obviously potentially obnoxious uses based primarily on odor, it
seems, such as fat rendering, breweries, wineries, and vinegar, sausage, pickles, and
saurkraut manufacturing, or fish processing in general.
Because Whatcom County has no Light Impact Industrial areas on the waterfront, where
fish processing might be desireable. Therefore if fish and meat processing are precluded,
most potential problems are eliminated without creating any major loss of opportunity.
Extension of time between preliminary and final plat approval.
The present limit of three years plus a one year extension may be limiting to some
developers in certain situation_ s. It certainly does not provide for phasing which is a
logical way to approach some subdivisions. In relaxing the time table, the concern is not
to go too f-ar into the future as development standards and zoning requirements evolve
and premature preliminary plats, which lock in final plats too long, could lead_ to obsolete
.land use patterns and practices: Without.a firm idea -of what is reasonable or what seems
.. ..., rV� • VVT
FILE REF: #21 -94:ZT Page 3
too much, the request to go up to ten years on a discretionary basis or with a phasing
proposal seems excessive. In fact, there is a question of whether four years is not
adequate if phasing is not involved.
FINDINGS
1) There have been several problems which have arisen lately which might be helped
with modifications to existing regulations.
2) There appears to be a market for plant nurseries in residential and the rural zones,
but these are not presently allowed in any of the three zones.
3) Nurseries have some attributes which make them desirable in residential zones
including large open areas and greenery.
4) Locating nurseries in residential zones has the potential to reduce or shorten
vehicular trips.
5) Plant nurseries can create a number of problems including traffic generation, noise,
odor, and use of chemicals.
6) Most of the negative aspects of nurseries can be dealt with under the proper
conditions.
7) Food processing is not addressed in the Light Impact Industrial zone, except to be
specifically excluded as a conditional use, whereas it is specifically called out in the
General Manufacturing zone and Heavy Impact Industrial zone.
8) There are a wide range of uses under the rubric of food processing, many of which
are benign enough to fit in the Light Impact Industrial zone or lower intensity
zones.
9) The difficulty lies in sorting out what use would appropriately go where. A number
of ways exist to handle this which eventually come down to a performance
standard judgement.
10) The subdivision regulations allow three years between preliminary plat approval and
final plat approval with the possibility of a one year extension.
11) This can be viewed as ample time or exceedingly short depending on one's
perspective and external conditions.
12) The notion of phasing is not addressed in the time requirements
l5t
FILE REF: #21 -942T Page 4
CONCLUSIONS
Plant Nurseries
Properly conditioned, nurseries could be allowed in most residential or rural areas. The
UR zones, however, are not considered appropriate because of their densities and land
values.
Food Processing
Food processing in general is appropriate in Light Impact Industrial zones. Applying
performance standards as necessary and eliminating meat and fish processing eliminates
potential problems.
Extending Plat Approval -
Allowing for phasing in logical units with a time period of up to six years would provide
ample flexibility for subdivision developers while leaving a reasonable end date for
residents of the area for changed conditions if the plat does not get finalized within that
time period.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Amend Title 20 as follows:
Amend Chapters 20.32, 20.34, and 20.36 to allow plant nurseries and
greenhouses for storage, propagation and culture of plants including sales
as an accessory use.
- Amend Chapter 20.60 as follows:
Re- number existing list
IS
vu,y cv, IJzr4
FILE REF: #21 -94:ZT Page 5
2. Amend Section 21.20.1 10 of the Whatcom County Subdivision Regulations:
21.20.1 10 Lapse of Approval and Time Extensions
ApPFOVal of a ffeliminaFy plat shall beeeme invalid unless the final plat is sUbMit
Geumeal at least 30 days befeFe the expiFatien ef this thFee ye8F peFied shall
in geed faith te submit the final plat with the thFee yeaF peFied.
ac ivities fGF allimal, da+Fy,
P eduiT-r.
f
uit, vegetable
seafood, bakeFy a
2. Amend Section 21.20.1 10 of the Whatcom County Subdivision Regulations:
21.20.1 10 Lapse of Approval and Time Extensions
ApPFOVal of a ffeliminaFy plat shall beeeme invalid unless the final plat is sUbMit
Geumeal at least 30 days befeFe the expiFatien ef this thFee ye8F peFied shall
in geed faith te submit the final plat with the thFee yeaF peFied.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting July 27, 1994 Page 1
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, David Simpson, at
1:40 P.M. The meeting was held in Cooperative Extension Service large
meeting room, 1000 North Forest, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dave Ernst, Leslie Hamilton, Elaine McRory, Phil Urso, Clare
Fogelsong, Jerry Landcastle, and David Simpson
STAFF PRESENT Dan Taylor and Carole Magner
Approval of Minutes was postponed.
1. File #21 -94:ZT Text Amendments: Plant Nurseries /Food Processing /Minimum Lot Size /Plat
Approvals. Taylor presented staff report, beginning with food processing in LII. Staff is
recommending approval of food processing in LII, excluding meat and fish processing.
David Bell, Chair Fourth Corner Economic Development Group, who testified that he has been
working with the granola project that has a potential location in LII. The company requires
a minimum of five acres. Minimum impact facility. Materials used in product are organically
grown and nothing is stored outside. Minimal dust inside and out. One noisy machine, but
it does not translate through to the office area. Bell is very positive and the company feels
good about locating in area. Bell would like to see maximum flexibility in the text, but would.
not want to see standard that would go against the integrity of the area.
Bob Anderson, 203 West Holly, Bellingham, representing John and Cathy Olsen owners of site
on Grandview Road. He was surprised to see that granola processing plant would be excluded
from LII. This language is fine. This fairly benign manufacturing would not interfer with
critical area. Olsens' support the text amendment.
Ernst moved, Fogelsong seconded to accept staff's recommendation, adding "excluding
primary processing" before "meat and fish products. Motion Carried unanimously.
Subdivision amendment: Staff recommends four year extension. In the case of phasing, final
plat approval for each subsequent phase must be within two years of the final plat approval
of the previous phase with the possibility of a one -year extension.
Jack Swanson, Attorney, 103 East Holly, Bellingham, representing McCloud Road /Northern
Heights project developers. He submitted Exhibit 1, "Proposed Amendment to Whatcom
County Code, Section 21.210.110." A developer needs to have guarantee that phased
projects will be allowed the necessary ability to extend .plat approval. Health and safety regs
are not "grandfathered;" thus, regulations cannot be avoided even if there are time lapses.
Bill.Florea, Whatcom County Land Use Division. He stands with staff recommendation. Staff
started with.the proposal submitted by Swanson.and revised it. The difference between the
two that he doesn't like is that the ten year planning cycle is too long .... standards change,
zoning may change, entire comp plan could change. Ten lots se_ em like a reasonable size to
staff.
Nate Brown, Director Planning and Development Service. There needs to be a minimum lot
size -"with established time for phasing the project. Tweed Twenty has inadequate storm
drainage regulations and examplifies the County not being in a position to tweak the project
as time and regulations have changed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting July 27, 1994 Page 2
Moved by McRory to accept staff recommendation. No second.
Moved by Simpson, seconded by Landcastle to approve proposal submitted by Swanson with
the proviso that a phase consist of at least five lots.
Fogelsong expressed concern about ( #2) ... Swanson mentioned that two projects would be
effected with the retroactivity. These two projects brought this proposal forward (Lincoln
Green and Northern Heights).
Simpson offered to amend his motion, adding "active" after any to #2. It was decided that
Commission will leave it and if there are more than two projects, staff will return with info
before this goes to Council. Brown added, however, this benefits two individual projects but
how does the Commission know that other projects didn't die.
Call for question ... motion failed.
Ernst has mixed feelings about accommodating the super large developers of the county.
Simpson suggested letting the Council decide about the extension ... if it is ten years, or six
years, or two years.
Brown would recommend for time extension: Ten year requirement would be acceptable if
County can be comfortable with the phased review. Taylor thinks Swanson's proposal covers
issues.
Moved by Simpson to reconsider his motion; seconded by Landcastle.
Ernst suggested modifying Exhibit 1, B: six years will be "three years, up to a maximum of
six years" from the date of preliminary plat approval. Brown explained that staff has a
problem with the word "may" in B ... we do not have the assurance there will be close
examination of the extensions ... may will be changed to "shall." (C) will be "three years"
instead of two years.
Simpson asked to add to (C): "Such phases shall be conditioned upon compliance with any
Whatcom County development standards in effect as of the date of application for the
extension of the next phase.) "
Definition will read: "A phased subdivision is any subdivision consisting of at least five lots
intended for phased development where the applicant intends to develop the subdivision in
stages, with each stage receiving final plat approval as completed. It will appear in Definition
Section of Title 20 and Title 21.
Fogelsong moved to exclude paragraph 2 from Sim pson's-motion. Fogelsong and Brown are
concerned. about give special consideration to two projects ...-item (2). This amendment to
Simpson's motion failed.
Motion as amended was approved unanimously.
Nurseries
Kent's Nursery on Northwest Road ... Barbara Brenner requested review. Staff. is proposing
in Rural and Rural Residential and Rural Residential Island, but not in Urban Residential zone.
/5-4 .
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting July 27, 1994 Page 3
Accessory Uses presently must be grown on the site.
Moved by Fogelsong and seconded by Ernst to accept staff recommendation. Landcastle
thinks they should remain in UR until zone converts to urban uses. Fogelsong and Ernst
agreed to Landcastle's request. Motion .carried.
Simpson would like staff to review minimum lot size ... smaller than five acres must take into
account sewer easements and access easements ... can't build on ingress and egress but can
develop over sewer easements. Simpson would like staff to return with language that
addresses this. Brown explained that the Commission needs to understand staff time is not
available now because it is taken up by the tight timeline of the comp plan adoption process.
The Commissioners requested staff include this as a future agenda item so public has an
opportunity to respond if this is a problem or not ... staff says there's not a problem.
Bob Anderson explained that there are situations of record where minimum buildable area and
minimum area of zoning code lot size when ... Simpson moved for staff to prepare definition
buildable minimum size to zoning minimum size that are separated defintions in Title 20 and
Title 21. Motion carried.
15