HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole November 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
Special Committee Of The Whole
November 9, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (1 :02 :44 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner and L.
Ward Nelson.
Absent: Ken Mann and Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2010-
072A) (1 :03 :16 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced policy 2DD-
1 and stated an amendment to it a few weeks ago did not pass for a lack of majority.
Nelson moved to amend policy 2DD -1 as it was previously moved during an earlier
meeting, "Concentrate the majority of growth...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Davis referenced and read from his memo in the Council packet on pages 13 and 14
regarding policy 2GG -2.
The following person answered questions:
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office
Discussion included whether they can use a bright line; limited areas of more intense
rural development (LAMIRDs) are part of the rural element; the definition of the three types
of the rural designations, and; why the language says it must be below one unit per five
acres, but not one unit per two acres.
(1 :11 :11 PM)
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, 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
53
Crawford moved to amend policy 2GG -2, "The rural designation should include
areas of traditional rural uses and densities. While the large majority of the Rural
designation is characterized by densities at or below one unit per five acres, may;
Fesidential densities less than ene dwelling unit per five aeFes are eensideFed traditienal
ftUFardensities, ewre the rural designation may also include rural residential areas...."
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment, "...the rural designation ffhay also
includes rural
Nelson asked if there is a difference in defending the statute if the language says
that the designation 'may' include rural. Frakes stated it doesn't matter in this
circumstance.
Davis stated this is a policy to guide future decisions. Otherwise, it's just a
statement of fact, and doesn't provide any guidance for the future.
Kershner asked if this paragraph is supposed to define the density of the rural
element.
(1:15:52 PM)
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Crawford moved to amend policy 2GG -2 to add language at the end, "...(LAMIRD),
unless justified by the existing rural character of the area." They're trying to define rural in
terms of the historical tradition of development, rather than make it purely a density
question.
Discussion included whether the Hearings Board looks if the County is trying to
diminish densities in the rural areas while still allowing LAMIRDs; whether the County is
going beyond what is allowed, and; whether the language could be interpreted to allow
increasing the sizes of LAMIRDs.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Davis referenced and read from his memo in the Council packet on pages 13 and 14
regarding changes to policy 2GG -4.
Crawford stated Bob Carmichael's interpretation is that this would generally be
applied to areas that aren't yet developed, and the character of that area, within the area to
be rezoned, is going to be undeveloped. The rationale using this is that the character is
undeveloped, so there isn't a reason to rezone. He read from the testimony from Mr.
Carmichael. A question is whether they want to use the word "within." Davis stated that
there needs to be a way to maintain the existing rural character outside the LAMIRDs. If
there's a rezone that changes the character, it gets away from the idea of preserving the
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, 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
existing rural character. This proposal addresses an area that has already been subdivided
to a density higher than the zoning. It's to preserve the existing established rural
character.
Nelson stated all rezones generally change the character, because they usually go for
greater density. Therefore, this language would disallow any rezone that changes densities,
not character. Davis stated density is part of the character.
Nelson stated the question is whether that's good or bad. Davis stated there may be
a way to broaden it to the general area, not the area being proposed for a rezone.
Brenner moved to amend policy 2GG -4, "...and densities within the aFea pFepeSeE[
€eF Fezenirrg in the general area of a proposed rezone."
Knutzen asked if this gives credence to people with existing zoning that is proposed
for a downzone. He asked if this provides criteria by which the County can accept their
existing zoning as being part of the rural character, and keep the existing zone. Davis
stated that's what his proposed amendment in his memo does.
(1:31:54 PM)
Kershner asked if this policy needs to address rezones. Davis stated that is what this
policy does.
Crawford asked why it's important to address rezones in this part of the
Comprehensive Plan. Davis stated it provides future guidance to evaluate proposed rezones
against the established character. If the language isn't there, there isn't a mechanism for
staff to preserve the existing rural character in the rural designations outside the LAMIRDs.
It doesn't exist elsewhere, specific to rural designation.
Crawford stated he's heard that the Comprehensive Plan really doesn't need to
address a rezone policy. He asked if that's correct. Davis stated he's not aware of any
requirement. Development regulations have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan needs to protect rural character. The purpose of his proposed first
sentence in the memo is to extend the idea from rezones to existing zoning.
Crawford stated he will support the motion, but is interested in the option of
removing it all.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Crawford referenced the proposed new sentence in policy 2GG -4, as proposed in Mr.
Davis's November 2, 2010 memo in the Council packet.
Davis stated it extends what's been done in policy 2GG -2. It says these types of
densities are generally okay in rural designations, as long as they've been established. This
language says the higher density zonings are okay in the rural designation, if it reflects
established rural character.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, 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
53
Knutzen asked if normal uses, such as home occupations, would now require a
conditional use permit.
Brenner stated home occupations are outright permitted. It's not related. She
moved to amend the language per Mr. Davis's memo in the packet. Amend policy 2GG -4,
"Permitted uses and densities within the Rural designation should reflect established rural
character. Rezones within the Rural designation should be consistent with the established
rural character and densities in the general area of a proposed rezone."
Nelson read the Board's definition of rural character.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner and Nelson (4)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Brenner asked if there is any connection between policy 2GG -4 and home
occupations. Davis stated nothing would change the rules for home occupation.
Crawford stated the uses that are going to be allowed for home occupations are
going to be in the zoning code, not the Comprehensive Plan. However, this will guide any
future changes.
Davis stated the narrative before policy 2GG allows for home -based and
conditionally - permitted businesses. They are a part of the rural character as they are
defining it.
Crawford moved to amend the last sentence of the narrative before goal 2HH as
recommended in Mr. Davis's memo, "The criteria listed under Goal 2HH were used to
designate the Type I and Type III LAMIRDS in 2010 and should be used to designate future
Type II and III LAMIRDS and to evaluate future proposed modifications to Type I LAMIRDs."
Kershner asked if they can modify Type III LAMIRDs. Davis stated they can create
new Type II and Type III LAMIRDs in the future. This paragraph provides criteria to
evaluate new LAMIRDs, which are usually lot- specific.
Kershner asked if they would create a new LAMIRD that is right next to an existing
LAMIRD, rather than expand the existing LAMIRD. Davis stated Type III LAMIRDs need to
be isolated.
Crawford asked about future modification of Type II and Type III LAMIRDs. He
asked if the Growth Management Act (GMA) addresses future proposals. Davis stated he
hasn't seen anything.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment, "The criteria listed under Goal 2HH
were used to designate the Type I and Type III LAMIRDS in 2010 and should be used to
designate future Type II and III LAMIRDS, and to evaluate future proposed modifications to
Type I, II, and III LAMIRDs." Make sure they have policies that allow expansion of an
existing Type III LAMIRD.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, 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
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Crawford moved to amend per Gary's memo, page 11 of 29, policy 2HH- 1.A.1,
"...(residential ai-,d or non - residential)...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Davis stated they can move on into the LAMIRD criteria section. Staff gave a
presentation in June on LAMIRD designation criteria, about which the GMA is very specific.
There must be boundaries around areas that were characterized by the built environment.
Platted land in 1990, but not developed, is not considered part of the built environment.
The GMA allows counties to place undeveloped lands within LAMIRDs, which must be drawn
around areas that predominantly have a built environment.
Crawford asked about what the County was found out of compliance.
Brenner stated the County hadn't given a reason for the boundaries it set. Davis
stated the suburban enclave, small town, and other designations didn't have established
boundaries per the requirements of State law. The proposal is to have criteria that mirror
State law.
Nelson asked if the criteria are considered separately or collectively. Davis stated
the criteria in 2HH1.B serve as additional criteria, not stand -alone criteria.
Brenner stated that if a landowner has vested lots, the County can't un -vest them.
The County can't prevent the landowner from developing. Pretending they don't exist is
nuts. Frakes stated the legislature has been clear about what can and can't be considered.
The use of the word "built environment" is in the statute. It's not something the Board has
come up with.
Davis stated it doesn't mean the properties can't be developed. It means that the
condition of vested lots can't be the only justification for a LAMIRD.
Knutzen stated include a criteria that considers zoning to some extend. The GMA
states that property can't be taken away without compensation. People have bought
commercial property thinking that's where there business would be. The last proposal had
those properties designated rural, and the businesses would have required a conditional use
permit.
Crawford moved to amend 2HH1.B, "4. Existing zoning prior to designation as a
Type I LAMIRD, except existing zoning may not be a sole criterion for designation."
Brenner asked if they can use non -built language as a criteria.
Crawford stated these aren't sole criteria, but can be considered.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, 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
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Knutzen referenced policy 2GG -11 and stated there isn't a definition for a minimum
level of necessary services. Davis stated policy 2EE is about rural services. He's not sure
they need policy 2GG -11.
Knutzen moved to delete policy 2GG -11, "
required." It doesn't define minimum level of services. It's redundant.
Brenner stated she would like to find out the origin and purpose of policy 2GG -11.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Nelson (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann and Weimer (2)
Knutzen referenced policy 2GG -13, "Decisions regarding zoning within the Rural
designation, including permitted and conditional uses, should take into account the
cumulative impacts of uses allowed by administrative approval and conditional use permit
over time." Davis stated he was asked the reason for this policy. This is something written
a year and a half ago. There isn't anything in GMA that says counties must look at
cumulative effects. He didn't find anything in a Hearings Board decisions. It was probably
something that was in another county's code and found to demonstrate the County's ability
to preserve rural character by looking at cumulative impacts.
Brenner stated it's in the permitting language.
Knutzen stated he thought the County Code is sufficient, and wondered why they
need to repeat it here. Davis stated this language is not required. It gives staff guidance to
check on cumulative impacts and make sure they can protect the rural character.
Crawford asked how staff would check for cumulative impacts. He asked at what
point staff or anyone would decide that they've reached a maximum cumulative impact.
Davis stated it could be considered on a case -by -case basis.
(2:46:51 PM)
Crawford stated the language is for the Council when considering overall zoning. He
doesn't know how to define it.
Nelson stated consider how to define cumulative impacts. Either eliminate the policy
or reword it.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�o.w hatcom .w a.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/9/2010, Page 7