HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole June 4 2013 am1
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
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
June 4, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9:34:49 AM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam
Mann, Carl Weimer and
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Pete Kremen.
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAPS,
AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATED TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2013-
180)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
Regarding issue two, staff recommends using the easement language for the plat map and
including a related finding. The proposed ordinance includes updated findings.
Brenner stated use the term "restrictive covenant" instead of reserve in the
easement language. People think a reserve refers to future development. The term
"restrictive covenant" means development won't happen unless circumstances change. It's
a good compromise. Davis stated staff talked about the easement language quite a bit and
determined "easement" implies a line on the map that specifically shows the area on the
plat that this agreement affects. The easement is an agreement between the County and
property owners, going with the land. It's enforceable. There isn't a lot of difference legally
between an easement or restrictive covenant. They like the word easement because it
implies there will be a line drawn on the map.
Davis referenced conclusion 4(b) regarding lot clustering on ordinance page 12. He
read proposed language for the Council to insert into the finding. "Lot Clustering:
Amendments to WCC Title 20 revise rural lot clustering provisions to provide enforceable
criteria and to prohibit residential development within reserve areas. Whatcom County Code
20.32.315, 20.34.315, and 20.36.315 require that an easement on the subdivision plat shall
establish a reserve area per the definition in Whatcom County Code 20.97.344 that is
protected in perpetuity so long as it is not within an urban growth area. This establishes an
agreement between the owner and the County that is enforceable by the County in cluster
design standards of Whatcom County Code 20.32.310, 20.34.310, and 20.36.310. Terms
Special Committee of the Whole — Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
such as "should" and "where practical" have been replaced with terms that can be more
effectively enforced."
Crawford asked if the proposed language is a finding to support the change to WCC
20.36.315(2). Davis stated it is. The purpose of the findings and conclusions is to affirm
that what they did has the effect the Hearings Board is looking for, which is to make things
more enforceable and to make sure these areas are protected in perpetuity. This quotes
that part of the code that does that.
Crawford stated Councilmember Brenner's proposal to change the language would
apply to sections 20.36.315, not this finding. The language change in the finding is
incidental.
Weimer moved to approve the staff's recommended language for conclusion 4(b) of
the ordinance, "Lot Clustering: Amendments to WCC Title 20 revise rural lot clustering
provisions to provide enforceable criteria and to prohibit residential development within
reserve areas. Whatcom County Code 20.32.315, 20.34.315, and 20.36.315 require that an
easement on the subdivision plat shall establish a reserve area per the definition in
Whatcom County Code 20.97.344 that is protected in perpetuity so long as it is not within
an urban growth area. This establishes an agreement between the owner and the County
that is enforceable by the County in cluster design standards of Whatcom County Code
20.32.310, 20.34.310, and 20.36.310. Terms such as "should" and "where practical" have
been replaced with terms that can be more effectively enforced."
Knutzen asked about properties that could be affected by these reserve areas and
where they might be. Davis stated it would apply to any parcel that could subdivide within
the rural zone, rural residential zone, and RRI zone. He doesn't have those estimates. This
would just change the exiting clustering provisions. This doesn't affect agricultural zoning.
Knutzen asked why they are doing this in perpetuity. Davis stated it was specifically
mentioned by the Hearings Board. It is a standard practice for creating reserve areas.
Brenner asked if they can say it's protected so long as it's not in an urban growth
area (UGA), and not use the term "in perpetuity." There are all kinds of things that might
happen in the future that might affect it.
Knutzen asked if this finding was proposed to the Planning Commission. Davis
stated it was not. It is wording out of the code. All they're doing is reflecting what was in
the code and how it meets the Hearings Board requirements.
Brenner moved to amend Councilmember Weimer's amendment and any other
location in the ordinance to substitute "reserve" with "restrictive covenant." Covenants are
between two parties and can be changed. Easements are forever. People must understand
that this applies unless it is in an urban growth area or they change it in the future.
Brenner's motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Mann asked the difference between a reserve area and a reserve tract. Davis stated
the tract can be built upon. The reserve area applies to the percentage of the reserve tract
that can't be built upon.
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Knutzen asked if the amendment would make the circumstances in code subsections
.320 no longer applicable. Davis stated the perpetuity only applies to the reserve area.
Knutzen asked if this applies only to the reserve area. Davis stated it does.
Weimer motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Davis referenced the map of Fort Bellingham /Marietta and gave a staff report. He
described the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation.
Knutzen asked if there was a reference to logical outer boundaries. Davis stated
there wasn't. Logical outer boundary requirements are for limited areas of more intense
rural development (LAMIRDs), not rural neighborhood designation. A small number of
parcels in the interior of this rural neighborhood and the North Bellingham rural
neighborhood were included to not create islands of zoning. Planning Commission included
more of the large parcels on the periphery than the staff recommendation.
Brenner asked if the Planning Commission recommendation includes the Smith
Gardens. Davis stated it does.
Knutzen read from the findings that reference a case in September 9, 2011. He
asked how this could not be an area where similar densities are already established. Davis
stated this area has higher densities than the rest of the rural areas. The Comprehensive
Plan criteria say that areas with densities higher than one unit per two and a half acres
would be eligible for inclusion in a rural neighborhood. This is one of them. Overall, the
density is higher than that. The Hearings Board felt it doesn't meet the spirit of the
Comprehensive Plan because there are larger parcels. That's why staff is also proposing a
modification to the Comprehensive Plan policies that deal with the rural neighborhoods. In
some places, the policy talks about higher rural densities. In other places, it talks about
areas where smaller lot development has occurred. Those terms aren't necessarily
referencing the same thing. They're not saying all lots within these areas have to be small
lots, but that the overall density needs to be fairly high. Make the language consistent,
using the language about high rural density instead of small lots.
Knutzen stated City zoning is on one side of that property. He asked how it cannot
be argued that it is in an area where similar densities have already been established. Davis
stated there are a number of smaller lots to the west with an average lot size of about 1.7
acres.
Knutzen moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation for the Fort
Bellingham /Marietta map.
Crawford stated they will need to show the Hearings Board they did some work on
this. However, the May 31 letter regarding the Smith Gardens /Satushek properties is
compelling, considering its location and being surrounded by smaller lots. He moved to
amend the motion to approve the Planning Commission to remove the properties as
recommended by Planning staff, except the Smith /Satushek properties. Keep those in.
Develop a finding based on the May 31 letter of why the Smith Garden /Satusheck properties
should remain.
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Kremen stated he's been an advocate for being in compliance with State law. This
map is a glaring example of being irrational. The services are there. It's in a confined
area. There's been a significant establishment of densities in a confined area already. It
makes no sense to not do infill. The goal and objective to prevent urban sprawl is laudable.
He will support the motion to amend as a compromise. He hopes the County can achieve
compliance with the Growth Management Hearings Board, which he also hopes will be
reasonable.
Davis stated Councilmember Knutzen motion is not necessary as the Planning
Commission recommendation is already on the floor for approval.
Kershner stated Councilmember Knutzen's motion is out of order.
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation and approve
the staff recommendation, with the exception of the Smith Garden /Satusheck properties.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. There was a Hearings Board decision about
Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance due to limiting to areas where similar densities
have already been established. Those densities have already been established in this area.
They would be punishing people who didn't develop when the standards were lower. They
are already pulling out all the properties on the other side of Marine Drive and on Country
Lane. It doesn't make sense. This is a perfect example of something that would be infill.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Davis referenced the North Bellingham map and gave a staff report to describe the
Planning Commission recommendation and the staff recommendation.
Weimer asked why they are leaving in two large parcels, one along Deer Creek and
another along Ten Mile Creek, when they are trying to protect water resources along with
rural character. Davis stated one parcel is a park parcel. The other parcel, if removed,
would create a situation in which a single parcel of RR5A would be left. Staff recommends
leaving it in based on the context of its location on Axton Road.
Weimer asked if the park parcel has an easement in perpetuity or if it can be
changed. Davis stated he doesn't have that information. He believes it's in public
ownership.
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for the North
Bellingham to draw the boundary lines as presented by staff.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to remove the park area to the west
and include the two areas east of Northwest Drive and south of W. Axton Road.
Crawford asked for information on the two areas east of Northwest Drive and south
of W. Axton Road. Davis stated they are more than five acres in size. They are currently
zoned RR2A, subject to the density overlay. They are proposed to go to RR5A.
Brenner stated the overlay isn't part of this. There was something they did that
wouldn't allow it to be denser than two units per acre. Davis stated there is a rural
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
residential overlay that achieves higher densities than the minimum lot sizes if the
surrounding developed properties have an average lot size that is smaller.
Crawford accepted a portion of the friendly amendment and moved to accept
the staff recommendation, with the exception of the southern two parcels one - quarter mile
south of Axton Road on the east side of Northwest Drive. Include those two parcels within
the boundary.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
Davis referenced issue six and the Smith & Guide Meridian maps. He gave a staff
report on the Planning Commission and staff recommendations.
Kershner asked if this is related to conclusions 5(a -c). Davis stated it is.
Mann moved to remove the two northern properties on the Smith & Guide Meridian
maps from the LAMIRD.
Crawford stated this is a difficult decision. He's sympathetic to Mr. Pullar and
everyone who was removed. In reality, this should not impact anything in Whatcom
County. This is a great example of how the people who appeal these things go overboard.
They are really harming people. However, he can't say there was development there in
1990. The applicant hasn't asserted that development existed there. The small building on
the north parcel has existed, but is not of a scale that is what the State is trying to define
their LAMIRDs as. With great reluctance and frustration, he will vote for the motion.
Brenner stated stuff has been sold on the property since before 1990. She went to
the Planning Department with Doug Pullar, who Planning staff advised to delay developing
until the State did its improvements to the Guide Meridian so the ingress and egress could
be determined as regional for everyone there. It's not just about buildings. It also had
roads and services. It's not accurate to say nothing ever happened there.
Knutzen stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. That property has always
had some sort of commercial activity. The State Department of Transportation (DOT)
installed a five -lane road with a turn lane because it expected commercial activities. The
State dealt with these property owners in terms of commercial activity for their ingress and
egress. The property owners paid property tax on commercial status. Now they're telling
the property owners, who did the responsible thing and delayed development, that they are
no longer commercial. Throughout the findings, the Planning Commission referenced that
the County could be guilty of a taking. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mann stated he's reluctant about the motion also. He prioritizes getting into
compliance. There's no way around this one.
Brenner stated appeal this Hearings Board requirement, and the County will be in
compliance when it wins the Superior Court appeal.
Kershner stated she won't support the motion to amend. According to the GMA,
LAMIRDs can include undeveloped property within its boundaries. There is a developed
property to the north. They are in compliance with the GMA due to that clause. She agrees
with comments about the motives of the groups who are appealing the County's decisions.
Special Committee of the Whole — Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
It does not have anything to do with protecting rural character or preventing sprawl. It has
to do with control. In this case, the law is behind them. The parcel is within a LAMIRD.
Kremen stated they are all being threatened. It doesn't make sense. This is prime
commercial property on a thoroughfare that is optimized for commercial property, and the
law allows for undeveloped properties. Because he is being threatened, he will reluctantly
support the motion. They have to be in compliance.
Brenner stated they are supposed to be in compliance with State law. The Hearings
Board is a political body. It's not necessarily State law. Every time they have appealed the
Hearings Board in the past, they have won.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Mann and Weimer (3)
Nays: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (4)
Davis referenced the Birch Bay - Lynden & Valley View maps.
Crawford stated he wishes they had appealed this decision, along with the others. A
Hearings Board decision said this is not an issue of logical outer boundary. However, the
Growth Management Act defines roads as a logical outer boundary for LAMIRDs. The
County hasn't used it too much. In this case, the idea is that this area could develop in the
near future as a freeway - accessible development, which the Hearings Board accepted.
Letting the one corner go fallow makes no sense. That parcel is necessary to make any
kind of LAMIRD logical outer boundary. The County could have presented that in court, and
may someday. He supports the Planning Commission recommendation.
Weimer asked if an argument can be made about logical boundary. Davis stated
staff made that case last year, and also noted a building on that parcel in 1990.
Weimer stated the County has already been down that road, and the Hearings
Board rejected it. He moved to remove that parcel to get back into compliance.
Brenner stated it won't get the County into compliance. It just means that the
County won't deal with that issue before Superior Court. She would like to know how many
acres affect their so- called compliance.
Mann stated he wished they'd opted for mediation or some sort of arbitration a long
time ago. This going back and forth with the Hearings Board is frustrating. People criticize
Futurewise and other litigants, but they aren't doing this for fun. They would have been
reasonable and may have agreed to some of these things. The Hearings Board is a political
body. The County Council and Planning Commission are political bodies. The Governor is a
political person. They also elect the judges. Don't make it a criterion for ignoring anything
the Hearings Board has to say. Follow the law as it's currently applied. It's obvious they
have to remove these properties if the Council has any intention of complying.
Crawford read from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). He asked how removing that corner
lot accomplishes anything in the RCW as a logical outer boundary.
Kershner stated the Growth Management Act was not designed to target specific
property owners. The County was cautioned many times that it cannot pick and choose
parcels based on what was there or who owned it. They have gone beyond what is
acceptable in setting up the rural element, Comprehensive Plan, and zoning code. She
Special Committee of the Whole — Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
supports the Planning Commission recommendation. The County is in compliance with that
parcel included.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Weimer (2)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Davis referenced the small lots language on page 9 of 12 of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding rural neighborhoods and Policy 2MM. Replace language about smaller lot areas
with higher rural densities. They intend to clarify and remove inconsistencies from using
two different terms. Don't use the "small lot" terms.
Kremen moved to accept the language changes above Goal 2MM and in Policy
2MM -2 on pages 9 and 10 of 12 as shown in the Council packet.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Davis referenced conclusion five of the ordinance and gave a staff report. Legal staff
suggested deleting the wording in that finding and replacing it with more general finding
that talks about private pending appeals and County appeals. The new language is, "The
County and property owners in affected areas have appealed several issues on which the
Board found the County out of compliance in its January 4, 2013 order. With the adoption
of this ordinance, the County has opted not to take action on these issues on appeal and, at
the present time, does not intend to take action until they're reviewed by the courts."
Crawford moved to replace the language in conclusion 5(a -c) and replace it with
the language submitted by Planning staff, "The County and property owners in affected
areas have appealed several issues on which the Board found the County out of compliance
in its January 4, 2013 order. With the adoption of this ordinance, the County has opted not
to take action on these issues on appeal and, at the present time, does not intend to take
action until they're reviewed by the courts."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Davis stated there are several staff clarifications of the proposed findings shown in
red text. He asked if there are objections. If not, he will make revisions for Introduction
tonight.
Weimer moved to approve all the Planning staff recommended language shown in
red underlines.
Knutzen stated they've made changes to the reserve tract. Staff has different
recommendations. He referenced conclusion 2(i) and asked if it still applies. They made
changes to wording about perpetuity.
Kershner stated they didn't change the wording about the reserve tract. They only
made the finding stronger.
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Davis stated this conclusion is where they say how the rural element of the
Comprehensive Plan harmonizes the GMA planning goals in RCW 36.070A.020. The one
later on is about how they responded to the Hearings Board. There is some overlap. In
both cases they make the point that they have enforceable standards, and those areas are
protected through the reserve area. There is no conflict.
Brenner stated they must go through each recommendation rather than doing one
blanket motion.
Kershner stated they don't have time to do them one -by -one.
Weimer moved to approve all the Planning staff recommended language shown in
red underlines, but not highlighted in blue, in the proposed findings and conclusions, pages
one through 20 of the ordinance.
Brenner moved to remove the last sentence in finding 28. The finding should be
about what the County determines about the boundary, not what the Hearings Board
determines. Davis stated it is a fact that's what the Hearings Board said. He included the
finding to differentiate the issue from the overall rural neighborhood device, which the
Hearings Board found compliant. It just found the boundaries out of compliance. This
finding explains the distinction.
Brenner stated the language doesn't need to be in there.
Brenner's motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Kremen (2)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to close debate and vote on Councilmember Weimer's motion.
The motion failed, due to the lack of a supermajority, by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (3)
Brenner moved to amend to reinstate the first paragraph in conclusion 5(a) on
ordinance page 12.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Brenner moved to reinstate the fourth paragraph in conclusion 5(a) on ordinance
page 13 that begins, "The owner of the subject parcel has supplied additional
information...."
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Brenner moved to reinstate the second paragraph of conclusion 5(b) on ordinance
page 13 that begins, "The owner of the parcel appealed the Board decision, which is
pending...."
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Kershner stated they included that language already in the substitute language.
Davis stated the substitute language deals with all the appeals in a general manner.
Brenner stated it's helpful to be more specific on some of this. They get specific on
findings for people who oppose what they're doing, but they aren't getting specific for
people with whom the Council agrees.
Kershner stated the property owners are appealing with their own attorneys. Let
them build their case and stick with what the County is doing with its appeals. Don't mix
the two.
This motion was not voted on.
Weimer's motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Brenner moved to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the second sentence in the new
paragraph above Goal 2GG, "Portions of the rural area ... and n9ust shall be retained.
Rezones from...." It sounds punitive to say it the other way. Use language that is more
legal.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Weimer moved to amend section 20.34.320(2) on page 6 of 14, which should be
Ilee servatm ,., reserve tract."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend policy 2GG -3(A), "Residential density (the average -i
density of parcels that contained a residence as of January 1, 2013 for the rural area
outside LAMIRDs) within 500 feet of the area to be rezoned is less than 7.5 -aaFes 1 unit per
5 acres."
Davis stated exclude urban growth area as well, in case one of these is next to an
urban growth area. The change from less than 7.5 acres to 1 unit per 5 acres is a major
shift in the criteria.
Mann asked if they can keep it as 7.5 acres if they use density. The Council received
a comment about parcels that aren't buildable. Davis stated it talks about the average size
of parcels that contain a residence. There may be some illegally created parcels that have
houses. Parcels without a house would be excluded. This only calculates the density in
terms of parcels that have a house. In most cases, those lots will be legal lots of record. It
is a good idea to exclude parcels within urban growth areas or LAMIRDs. He did not include
those areas when he created the analysis maps. It would be consistent with the existing
rural residential overlay district.
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Mann stated it seems like 7.5 is an odd number. Davis stated that if half the lots
around a parcel are ten acres and half are five acres, the average is 7.5 acres. If the
threshold is five acres, the average of the lots would have to be smaller than five acres.
Mann amended his motion and moved to amend policy 2GG -3(A), "Residential
density (the average size of parcels that contained a residence as of January 1, 2013
excluding parcels within an urban growth area or LAMIRD) within 500 feet of the area to be
rezoned is less than 7.5 acres."
Crawford asked if that's already covered in Policy 2GG -3(B). Davis stated that
means the proposed rezoning area, the lot itself, is not within an urban growth area. When
drawing the 500 foot perimeter, it could include some really small lots that artificially affect
that calculation.
Mann stated he thinks of density as something per something, not just 7.5 acres.
Davis stated density means the average size of parcels that contained a residence.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. It goes in a direction opposite from where
this should go. He never understood why Caitac ended up with ten -acre zoning when
everything around it is urban growth area or five -acre zoning. The parcels near the urban
growth area should be considered for being denser in the future. Say that it has to be on
the edge of the zoning boundary between the R10 and whatever it's adjacent to, as long as
it's a higher density zone. Otherwise, it's possible someone could think they would be
allowed to have an island of R5A in an area zoned R10A. If there is pressure to change
from R10A to R5A in the future, the parcels next to a LAMIRD or UGA would be the best
candidates. This is not the direction they should go.
Kershner asked if this language states the obvious. Davis stated not usually. If a
parcel is within 500 feet of a UGA or LAMIRD, the perimeter will go into the LAMIRD. The
question is whether they count the lots in the LAMIRD, or leave them out and count only the
rural density.
Weimer stated he supports the motion. It goes to the heart of what the Hearings
Board has been saying about controlling sprawl. If they include the lots in LAMIRDs and
UGAs in the overlay calculation, they will increase densities into the rural character. They
are supposed to protect the rural character, which is the density in the rural character, not
the density in the UGA.
Crawford stated it's a logical reduction of density to have R5A zones surrounding
UGAs and R10A zones further out. The only place they will want to see shifts from the R10A
zone to the R5A zone is on those edges. They aren't talking about making it a UGA. They
are simply talking about policies that guide future applications to change from R10A to R5A,
which is still rural zoning.
Brenner stated she's torn. She has no problem with R5A zone being next to a
LAMIRD or UGA. There are plenty of ways to develop it without skewing density. In areas
they know the cities will expand, be more careful about ensuring they can expand easily.
Crawford stated what he just said is consistent with the change from R10A to R5A he
proposed after the downzone of 2009. They put R10A zone adjacent to UGA with no
consideration of going to R5A instead. He proposed taking those adjacent parcels, which
used to be in the UGA with a density of up to six units per acre, to one unit per five acres.
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, Page 10
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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Supporting this motion is inconsistent with the action the Council took in moving those R10A
lots by Birch Bay back to R5A.
Kershner stated R5A zoning is rural and reflects rural character. She doesn't have a
problem with R5A zoning.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Weimer (2)
Nays: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Crawford and Kremen (5)
Brenner asked if the property owned by the mother of Mr. Hickey is in the Lake
Samish or Lake Whatcom watershed. Davis stated it is in the Lake Samish watershed.
Brenner stated parts of the cities are never going to expand in certain directions.
The County should include variety in the Yew Street Area. This gentleman is only asking for
a simple division of the property. If zoned one unit per two acres, he and his mother could
live there. This isn't any kind of spot rezone. Consider areas next to city limits where the
City has said it would never expand. Don't downzone people in that area. She asked if it's
appropriate to do this as part of the rural element. Davis stated staff met with Mr. Hickey
and discussed all his options and the 2016 review. His situation is only relevant in whether
he would meet the criteria to go from R10A to R5A. In this case, it wouldn't help him
because the collection of parcels is just over five acres.
Crawford moved to recommend introduction of the Planning Commission
recommendation as amended today and at the Council meeting on May 21.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW PACKINGHOUSES IN THE
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300B)
Knutzen moved to move it forward for introduction and a public hearing.
Brenner stated she has stuff she wants to do.
Mann stated it's not ready for introduction.
Crawford stated he doesn't support the motion. He assumed the Committee of the
Whole would have a work session.
Knutzen withdrew his motion.
Kershner stated this item is held in Committee of the Whole.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Special Committee of the Whole — Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 9, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�,o.w hatcom .wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole - Morning Rural Element Meeting, 6/4/2013, Page 12