HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 9 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 9, 2008
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Bob Kelly
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE SIZE OF LARGE COMMERCIAL RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2008 -112A)
Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
report and explained the background of this item and Planning Commission
recommendations, approval with modifications. The proposed ordinance adds limitations to
the general commercial, general manufacturing, and light impact industrial zones. The
commercial retail limits are 35,000 square feet outside urban growth areas (UGA's) and
65,000 square feet in the short-term planning areas in the UGA's as long as there is
connection to sanitary water and sewer service at urban levels of service.
Weimer asked why they adopted the square footage similar to Lynden, with the
lowest allowed square footage, rather than a square footage equal to one of the other cities.
Cleanthous stated they are supposed to have levels of services lower than the cities,
according to the Growth Management Act. The interim ordinance had a limit of 75,000
square feet. The County shouldn't have commercial retail larger than the cities have.
Weimer asked if this size is allowed only in those three zones. For instance, the
gateway industrial zone won't allow this size of a store anyway. Cleanthous stated the
35,000 square feet limit is the largest allowed in the gateway industrial zone. Other zones
allow commercial retail, but they already have smaller limits.
Weimer stated the Bellingham UGA's don't have short-term and long -term planning
areas. He asked how those areas are affected. Cleanthous stated all of Bellingham's UGAs
are short-term planning areas.
Weimer asked how many areas in the county can actually have a development of this
size. Cleanthous stated there is a limited number of areas. The general manufacturing
zones have all been annexed to Bellingham. There are none of those zones on the map
currently, but there is potential for rezones, which is why it's included in the proposed
ordinance.
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/9/2008, 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
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCES
SCHEDULED FOR ADOPTION FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING
(AB2008 -261C)
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this item is a
placeholder in case the committee wants to discuss the two items scheduled for a public
hearing at this evening's meeting:
Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code, Title 23, Shoreline Management
Program, removing the administrative procedures from the Shoreline
Management Program (AB2008 -302)
Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code, Title 23, Shoreline Management
Program; the Official Shoreline Map and associated provisions of WCC Chapter
16.16, Critical Areas, and WCC, Title 20 Zoning Ordinance to update the
Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program in accordance with the
requirements of the Washington State Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173 -26)
and other applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations
(A132008 -303)
Gill stated the first ordinance is regarding the administrative procedures. He hasn't
received much feedback. The Council adopted the procedures in the February 2007 version
of the program. The administrative procedures are pulled out of the plan so they don't have
to go through the State process. They have to do with the application requirements, costs,
and other things the County must keep track of locally. The procedures are clearer than
before. He has received no comments about the administrative procedures. It can be
changed at the meeting tonight without going through a big process. If there are comments
during the hearing, the County can make changes easily and re -adopt the ordinance.
The ordinance for the standards, policies, and regulations is AB2008 -303 and goes
through the State process. If there are changes as a result of tonight's hearing, it would
have to go through the full County and State process. The State may opt to not have
another public hearing. It's hard to say how long it would take. It could take awhile, since
they would be reopening the entire process.
Fleetwood stated Mr. Wenger indicated the State would try to expedite the State's
process. Gill stated the County would have to go through the County procedures as well.
How long it takes depends on the amount of public involvement. The range is probably two
months to a year.
Weimer stated misinformation from all sides has been floating around. He asked if
they are opening the hearing to the entire plan, or just the things the State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) recommends for changes. Gill stated the hearing is on the entire
program.
Weimer asked if the consultant will present a staff report for the audience on what
has been changed. Much of this regulation has been on the books since 2007.
Fleetwood stated a procedural review would also be helpful. Also address some of
the common misinformation.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/9/2008, Page 2
Gill stated staff is working on a handout. There has been talk that the Ecology
changes will make existing lots and structures nonconforming. This isn't disputed. With
any code update as standards change, prior development isn't always going to meet those
requirements. There has been a lot of development on the shorelines, even since the
original Shoreline Program was adopted in 1976, and those developments are
nonconforming. Each amendment to that shoreline program has changed the setbacks.
There are quite a few nonconforming lots and structures out there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard repeatedly that houses wouldn't be allowed to
be rebuilt if they burn down. She understands that the houses could be rebuilt according to
today's standards. She asked if there would be an exception to allow the rebuild if the
setbacks are so great that the property rights are inhibited. Gill stated there would be an
exception. There is language that attempts to make new development conform to
standards more closely, but in most cases, owners won't have a lot of room to back up and
become conforming with the provisions. They will be able to rebuild as long as they're not
enlarging the existing footprint. He read the section in the code that applies to this
scenario, section 23.50.070.F.
Fleetwood asked the reasoning for the 18 -month timeframe. Gill stated he could
check the Planning Commission meeting summary for those reasons.
There is going to be an issue with increased setbacks. The regulation now includes a
nonconforming section that talks about what's allowed. A nonconforming lot, smaller than
20,000 square feet, that can't meet a setback is allowed a total building area footprint of
2,500 square feet.
Ecology made changes to this section. They could be significant. Ecology allows
commercial and mixed use developments that are nonconforming to also expand within the
existing footprint. That was not allowed under the previous program.
The language regarding the 2,500 square foot building area used to say "at least
2,500 square feet." Ecology changed it to "not more than 2,500 square feet." Also, Ecology
prohibits extending a house waterward of the common setback line.
Fleetwood asked if people can use the conditional use setback to get around that
requirement. Gill stated he believes so.
There has also been talk that public access will be required on private property
shoreline areas. There are public access requirements in the new program, but they are for
public projects. Some major private shoreline projects, such as long plats, will be required
to provide public access. Another section says public access will not be required, and there
is an associated list of uses. It will be determined on a case -by -case basis. He read the list
in section 23.90.080.6.4. Ecology made a change to this section. Previous policy was to
require public access for all public entities. Ecology added that policy to the regulation
section of the shoreline program. There are also exceptions to that requirement.
He received comments on the overall program, including clarity on how docks should
be measured. Ecology is asking to amend a phase in the utilities section, "FRee} the ~,.,.a
on(y within the u "roan growth, areas." Ecology also asks to add
the health code salutation that limits desalinization for any subdivision or binding site plan.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/9/2008, Page 3
1 Weimer stated most of these concerns are about things that were done in 2007, and
2 not a result of Ecology's changes.
3
4 Kelly asked for a list of concerns regarding the 2007 program and concerns about
5 Ecology's changes. Gill stated most of the concerns he's heard are about the program as a
6 whole, and have already been vetted through the original shoreline adoption process in
7 2005 through 2007.
8
9 Kelly stated it would be interesting to know the percentage of comments that pertain
10 to what was already passed and the percentage of comments that pertain to Ecology's
11 changes. Gill stated that would be good to know. Figure that after the hearing. They don't
12 have all the comments yet.
13
14 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated there is a lot of confusion. People don't
15 understand how some of these things will play out. People are frustrated because they feel
16 disregarded. Ecology is making them look bad in the way they've handled it.
17
18
19 OTHER BUSINESS
20
21 Weimer stated the Council must send a letter to the State Department of
22 Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) about the regional planning
23 committee, required by growth management. Rebecca Craven has a draft letter that he
24 will bring forward to the full Council at this evening's meeting under Other Business..
25
26
27 ADJOURN
28
29 The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
30�
31
32
33 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
34
Y
36 ATTE .?''�J�0 .�0 ''�.- WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
387 O `HHArco��fi WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
39
4° ' ...
42 Darn Brd�r� 1��'°'� u cil Ilerk eth Flee ood, Committee Chair % 43 HIV
Planning and Development Committee, 9/9/2008, Page 4