HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 9 20101
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 9, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Sam Crawford.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
CLARIFY AND REVISE THE DEFINITION AND STANDARDS OF HOME
OCCUPATIONS (AB2010 -047)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and handed out a substitute ordinance (on file) and stated there have been three versions
of the ordinance. The first version is the Planning Commission version in the binder. The
second is the modification in the January 22, 2010 memo to Council. The third he just
handed out. He described the changes in the third version of the ordinance. The purpose
for this ordinance is to provide more clarity in the administration of home occupation. A
more detailed code provides more consistent review and interpretation. Ultimately, this
ordinance is less restrictive. He described the changes from the current code.
Brenner stated she likes the comparison of home occupation with cottage industry.
However, include the cost of getting a cottage industry permit. A home occupation is
outright permitted. Harrison stated the cost is approximately $1,400 for administrative
approval. The cost for a conditional use is $3,000.
Brenner suggested they allow a limit for home occupation, unless approved by the
administrator. That was not a cottage industry. A cottage industry is an industry. That
was a mom - and -pop operation. There is a clear difference between home occupations and
cottage industries. Harrison stated the tiers are partially confusing. The first tier is called a
home occupation. The second two tiers are called cottage industry. They are just labels.
They are really looking at three different tiers for operating a business in the home, with
different permitting and review requirements.
Brenner stated allow a home occupation, even if a bigger size, if staff can see there
are no significant impacts. Harrison stated that still requires a review process.
The following people spoke:
• Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/2010, 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
Steve Moore, Moore Industrial Company, stated the regulation is confusing.
In the real world, few people are aware that they have to get a building
license for a home occupation. He suggested that this be delayed and that
the Council put together a task force of people in the commercial industrial
business to develop something to satisfy everyone's needs.
Roger Almskaar, Consultant, stated he is concerned with subsection .150(14).
A structure that isn't a residence shouldn't be required a certificate of
occupancy. Get legal analysis on that subject.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated the occupancy permit,
based on how the County staff have been willing to work with people, is a
problem. The general public doesn't have a good feeling about Whatcom
County Buildings and Codes. There should be a list of problems with existing
businesses, and determine if this proposal will solve those problems. Create
a fourth category for in -home occupations that don't hire anyone. It's the
homeowner's liability, not the County's liability. Use a criterion of whether or
not they are better off with or without the regulation. Outreach to the people
involved to develop this ordinance.
Suzanne Bosman, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Discussion included the differences between home occupations and cottage
industries; the certificate of occupancy requirement; the square footage thresholds for
home occupations; whether home occupations require a permit or are allowed as an
accessory use if meeting requirements; when it's required to meet life safety requirements;
whether typical county residents with a home occupation currently know they have to meet
building requirements; whether the County is required to adopt the International Building
Code (IBC); a commercial certificate of occupancy (C of O) versus a residential final
inspection; the different occupancy types in the IBC; liability associated with not following
the IBC; a discussion of the building code being a different discussion from this ordinance;
how to modify the building code, and; gross vehicle weights of different types of heavy
equipment.
Mann stated figure out how to clarify the C of O requirements in section
20.84.150(14).
Crawford stated he doesn't like this section. It's too restrictive. He understands
they need reasonable controls. However, it's overreaching to have to meet business
occupancy requirements just because someone walks through his door and makes a
financial transaction. Harrison stated there is a liability there.
Harrison stated they can remove subsection (14) and study the issue.
Knutzen stated he prefers to hold the entire ordinance.
Weimer stated he and Councilmember Brenner proposed a text amendment two and
a half years ago to make the language less restrictive for certain people who want to work
in their garage or barn. It has become something more complex. They still need to fix the
regulation for people who are in that conundrum.
Mann asked if the requirement in subsection (14) still applies even if it isn't in the
ordinance. Harrison stated it is in the existing code section for building code and life safety
requirements. The language in item (14) was changed to include the requirement for
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/2010, 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
53
certificate of occupancy, which is an additional requirement of the code. One of the building
code requirements is the certificate of occupancy.
Brenner asked for a legal opinion on whether they must have the language in
subsection (14).
Crawford stated the intent of subsection (14) was to clarify, but it doesn't. Remove
subsection (14). Put this forward to a hearing and adopt the ordinance. Most of the
ordinance is good.
Mann moved to hold in committee the most current version three, and request that
staff provide more information about removing items (14) regarding C of O, and items (4)
and (7).
Knutzen stated item (7) should take commercial vehicles into consideration.
Brenner asked for a legal opinion on item (14). Stalheim stated it is a question
about how they implement the building code. They can take it out of the ordinance without
a legal opinion.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE CLARIFYING AND REVISING THE DEFINITION AND STANDARDS
OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS AND SECOND COOKING FACILITIES WITHIN
WHATCOM COUNTY'S ZONING CODE, TITLE 20 (AB2010 -048)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and handed out an updated version of the ordinance (on file).
The following people spoke:
• Gary Honcoop, 770 E. Wiser Lake Road, stated the substitute version is better
than the original draft ordinance. His family is impacted by this ordinance.
As written, the ordinance excludes a future detached accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) if the original unit has a second kitchen. The part about accessory
apartments is a huge improvement. Regarding accessory apartments, include
the language "or attached garage." Minimum lot size should be around 1.8
acres. Most people do not understand that they have to have this permitted.
It's important that families be able to take care of their aging family
members.
Discussion included changing language about a second kitchen; the enforcement
issue of people converting portions of their residence or accessory building into an illegal
apartment or an illegal accessory dwelling; a substantial number of building permit
applications that include portions of the proposal obviously intended to be converted into an
apartment after the building inspector leaves; how this discussion with residents has been a
consistent problem and drain on staff time; whether it matters if the owner occupies the
residence; whether the covenant makes a difference to how an owner will use a residence;
reducing the five -acre minimum up to ten percent; not using lot size to determine whether
an accessory unit can be allowed; how to interpret the code as written in the case of older
homes with unattached garages; limits for breezeways; the reason for lot size limitation on
accessory dwelling units; the appropriate process to lower the lot size limit;
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/2010, 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
Mann moved to recommend that the Council adopt the substitute ordinance with
one amendment to 20.97.003, °...It is substantially contained within the contiguous
structure or attached garage ... is internal access between the units, provided, however that a
detached garage whose foundation is 10' or less from the single family residence is
permitted as an accessory apartment. A covered or enclosed breezeway does not constitute
an approved access."
Stalheim stated the intent is to not have to connect the garage as long as it is within
ten feet of the single family residence. It is an accessory dwelling unit on smaller lots,
which seems to be the committee's intention.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE CLARIFYING THE APPLICABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL
PROTECTION OVERLAY (APO) BY INCLUDING THE AREA OF ADJOINING
ROAD RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN THE CALCULATIONS OF PARCEL ACREAGE FOR
APO ZONE (AB2010 -049)
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
report.
Brenner stated leave it as it is until they clean up the agricultural protection overlay
(APO) zoning. Also, she would like an answer to the issue of parcels smaller than 20 acres
that are being actively farmed or are conducive to farming. There are over 100,000 acres if
they include farms with smaller acreage. Niche farmers are just as important as bigger
farms.
The following people spoke:
• Theresa Sygitowicz, citizen, stated there is a history of dairy farms in
Whatcom County that were on 20 acres.
• Brian Jones, Jones Engineers, stated U.S. Census data will cover what is
happening on the land.
Discussion included the APO language making them consistent with the Growth
Management Act; whether someone could have a viable dairy farm on five acres; the reason
for choosing 40 years as the appropriate parcel history, and; how they prove whether a
parcel was or was not farmed in history.
Crawford stated add language to 20.38.040(1) so it says, "Parcel acreage shall
include the area of adjoining road rights -of -way, unless it can be demonstrated by the
applicant that agricultural practices have not been conducted on a given parcel within the
past 40 years, in which case the parcel size shall be calculated without including the
adjoining road right -of -way. For properties within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management...." He agrees they shouldn't pursue clustering, except in the case when there
is a history of non - farming.
Mann moved to amend add language to 20.38.040(1), "Parcel acreage shall include
the area of adjoining road rights -of -way, unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant
that agricultural practices have not been conducted on a given parcel since January 1, 1975,
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/2010, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
2
2
z
z
2
28
29
30
in which case the parcel size shall be calculated without including the adjoining road right -
of -way. For properties within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management ...."
The motion to recommend approval with amendment carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
The committee discussed the agenda for the next few meetings.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
Bill Knutzen, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/9/2010, Page 5