HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 8 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
November 8, 2006
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
I. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THE UR AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT CLUSTERING,
RESERVE TRACTS AND WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
(AB2006 -406)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services, stated the goal is to create a land
use pattern to facilitate appropriate urban densities in the urban growth area in the future,
while allowing a reasonable use of the property in the interim period, until the site is zoned
as a short-term planning area, and public water and sewer become available. In the urban
growth area (UGA) under the current regulations, a landowner with property in the urban
residential (UR) or urban residential mixed use (URM) zone can develop property at urban
densities if the site is within the short-term planning area and public water and sewer are
available. If not, the density is one dwelling unit per five acres (R5A). Clustering is
required so 80 percent of the site must be in the reserve tract and available for future
development.
The original proposal would have decreased the density to rural, one dwelling unit
per ten acres (R10A), and require 90 to 95 percent of the site in the reserve tract. The
Planning Commission considered maintaining the RSA density, decreasing the minimum lot
size for clustered lots, imposing a maximum lot size for cluster lots, requiring all
development to be grouped together in one single cluster, and requiring the reserve tract to
be un- buildable until developed at urban densities in the future, when the site is rezoned
and public water and sewer became available.
Staff prepared a revised proposal in September. He described the new proposed
ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised proposal, and
that it not apply to the Bellingham urban growth area, as they are currently formulating the
subarea plan.
McShane stated the original proposal was for a density of R10A, and is now R5A.' He
asked about the reserve tract. Aamot stated the proposal doesn't have a minimum reserve
tract size. It just says the lots have to be very small. The revised proposal ends up with
smaller lot sizes than the original.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 1
McShane stated the Planning Commission decided on small lots instead of
establishing the percentage for the reserve tract. Aamot stated that is correct.
Fleetwood asked if this is applicable to all UGA's except Bellingham. Aamot stated it
is applicable to all UGA's, except Bellingham, that have urban zoning. About 56 percent of
the UGA's have urban residential zoning designations, including the Bellingham UGA.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 149. She asked why they do not apply this
to the Bellingham UGA. Aamot stated the Planning Commission is working with the City of
Bellingham and residents on the Bellingham Urban Growth Area. They may come up with
different rules. The Bellingham UGA includes 1,374 acres of urban residential, three units
per acre (UR -3), 530 acres of urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4), 40 acres of
URM -18, and 80 acres of URM -24. Blaine has 3,218 acres of UR -4. Columbia Valley has
1,143 acres of UR -4. Birch Bay has 2,352 acres of UR -4. It also has 1,265 acres of URM -6
density.
Brenner stated this has nothing to do with accessory dwelling units. It's about
zoning. A question was whether the clustering moratorium stops all growth, because this is
clustering. The only clustering they did was in rural forestry. This won't stop all growth.
Aamot stated it wouldn't stop any growth.
Brenner stated another question was regarding Whatcom County Code (WCC)
section 20.22.320(6) and the possible effect on devaluing land. Aamot stated this applies
to the urban growth area. There may be farmers in the urban growth area. The deed
restriction already exists for cluster subdivisions. This is for the urban residential (UR)
zones.
Brenner referenced WCC sections 20.20.320(3)(a) and (b), which allows neighbors
to have a say about whether the development proposal might adversely affect or devalue
their property. It doesn't allow the property owner to have the same right on his own
property. Aamot stated that language is already in there. It's not new language.
Brenner stated it seems odd to allow a neighbor to make a value judgment. She
doesn't see how they can do that. She asked what they consider "significantly adversely
affect" or "suffer a substantial decrease of property value." Aamot stated he's not sure he
can answer the question. The intent may be to provide an opportunity to adjust a reserve
tract because of wetland or other issues.
Brenner stated it looks like neighbors have a right to comment on the dividing of
property.
McShane stated he is fine with the language. One can make an argument that the
same opportunity will be available to anyone through the SEPA process. It may seem
duplicative. Whenever a land use decision is made, there is an opportunity for someone to
make a claim that there is a significant negative impact. Anyone could make an argument,
regardless, through the SEPA official. It can be administratively appealed.
Greg Kirsch, 4365 Y Road, stated he doesn't understand the part of this ordinance
that deals with clustering outside of urban growth areas.
Crawford asked how much urban residential density is outside Whatcom County
urban growth areas. Aamot stated there are some areas in Sudden Valley, the Foothills, the
Mt. Baker Rim area, and (inaudible).
Planning and Development Committee, 11/$/2006, Page 2
McShane stated they are all in the existing limited areas of more intense rural
development (LAMIRD's) or recreational subdivisions. Aamot responded (inaudible).
Kirsch stated he is concerned about how this ordinance would affect the LAMIRD on
Squalicum Mountain. The ordinance talks specifically about what will be allowed outside of
urban growth areas. He asked if this ordinance will have any affect on Squalicum Mountain
or a limited affect on rural zones outside of UGA.
Brenner stated there is no effect on Squalicum Mountain or rural zones.
Crawford stated he likes most things in the ordinance. He likes the reduction in the
minimum square footage. The UR and URM zones are mostly in UGA's. A pattern of
development due to a demand for land supply has left less than desirable parcels in those
areas. Reducing minimum lot size is good. It will make a different pattern of development
than what they've seen in the past. The clusters will be tighter. One aspect he questions is
making the reserve tract un- buildable. He asked why one of the four lots have to be
contiguous if a majority of the property is not buildable. If they are in the long -term urban
growth area of Birch Bay, for example, with 20 acres, people with high and dry ground in
those zones are about to develop, if they already haven't. This would apply to people with
less than desirable land. It's not uncommon to have a large portion of wetlands. He asked
the Planning Commission's reason for no longer allowing building in the reserve tract.
Aamot stated it is easier to lay out an urban density plat if there isn't a house in the way.
Brenner stated there are going to be exceptions where it won't be possible to cluster
all the lots together. However, clusters are supposed to be lots that are all together on one
tract with a future reserve tract. That's not what's happened. All over the place, there are
a bunch of houses together, with one house out in the middle of the open area. That
precludes any future decent small development.
Crawford stated there seems to be problems with most sites. Often, sites have
serious site constraints. Allowing a building in the reserve tract allows adaptation to site
constraints.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it's becoming tougher
on remaining parcels in the urban growth areas to cluster. The Planning Commission is
trying to balance the request of the cities, to leave the maximum amount of land possible
available for infill, consistent with their zone. The way to do that is to not put a house on a
remainder parcel. They also have to make sure that the critical areas ordinance in the
urban growth area is flexible enough to allow mitigation that also supports maximum
density. There is a concern about wetlands in the city, with mitigation going out into the
county. These areas will be in the city in the near future. Leave as much of it
unencumbered with rural density as possible.
Crawford stated he understands. However, the County should err on the side of
flexibility for the property owner. There is not a lot of UGA land out there left that doesn't
have site constraints.
McShane stated this is a short-term, not long -term, housing market solution. Market
forces won't allow the appropriate development of areas zoned this way. The Planning
Commission may be trying to compromise by letting people maintain their one per five acre
density by requiring smaller lots that conform more to urban levels of density. That may or
may not resolve the 90 percent reserve tract issue. He asked if the initial Planning
Commission proposal allowed building on the reserve tract. Aamot stated it did. The
Planning Commission took away that option.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 3
1
2 McShane asked who would own the reserve tract. Aamot stated that's an undecided
3 question. It could have multiple owners that would make it difficult to sell.
4
5 McShane asked if there was any thought of where the house would go on the reserve
6 tract. Aamot stated they didn't talk about that.
7
8 Crawford asked if they will be seeing no expansion of the UGA. Hart stated they
9 haven't decided yet.
10
11 McShane stated homes on properties being developed at urban levels become a
12 constraint such that they are being knocked down. In one case, the houses were less than
13 six years old, and each were worth about $500,000. They were all knocked down because
14 they constrained the location. The developer would have done a lot better if those houses
15 hadn't been there.
16
17 Brenner stated she thought they were going to say that the reserve tract is not
18 buildable unless there is already a house and accessory dwelling on it. Aamot stated that is
19 true of the current proposal.
20
21 Brenner asked if there is an exit clause if someone can show they have critical areas.
22 Other than the clause, don't allow the reserve tract to be built until it becomes part of the
23 city. Work on language say that administrative approval would allow modification in the
24 case where there are critical areas or other reasons that would preclude clustering all of the
25 buildable area together. Aamot stated staff and the Planning Commission did not consider
26 it.
27
28 McShane stated he is concerned about saying the reserve tract can't be built on
29 because of ownership of the tract. If the reserve tract is owned by the cluster, it could
30 create problems. He liked the Planning Commission idea of the square footage. The
31 reserve tract could house the water and sewer system. An idea is to go back to the density
32 of R10A if they are going to allow the reserve tract to be built on.
33
34 Brenner stated the developer would decide that the reserve tract would belong to a
35 single individual. It would be an amenity that the person who buys it could pay for. Aamot
36 stated he doesn't think the County can restrict who the developer sells to.
37
38 Brenner stated they can run into the multiple owner difficulty with anything. Make
39 sure it isn't divided up. Aamot stated he'd have to look into it.
40
41 Crawford stated he is not aware of any place where a developer would give a reserve
42 tract to the cluster owners. The developer would retain ownership for economic reasons.
43
44 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
45
46 Crawford stated the developers aren't selling the cluster lots with a proportional
47 ownership to the reserve tract. More importantly, it's an issue of flexibility. These lots are
48 tough to build on. Keep flexibility. The buildability of the reserve tract allows one more
49 house on that parcel.
50
51 Brenner stated the purpose is too keep the land open to put together small lots for
52 development, not for parks. It needs to be done in a way that is for future development,
53 not for parks.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 4
1 Aamot stated around 95 percent of the reserve tracts are currently buildable. A
2 small percentage are made unbuildable. If this was approved, they'd all have to be
3 unbuildable. Some of the areas will be on the outer fringe, and may not be rezoned for
4 many years. It's a possibility that there may be undivided interests, but it may not occur
5 much.
6
7 McShane moved to amend the ordinance throughout to designate a density of one
8 unit per ten acres and allow building on the reserve tract. Aamot stated people would not
9 have as many development rights if the density were one unit per ten acres. It wouldn't
10 affect future urban density development.
11
12 McShane stated the original proposal was R10A throughout. Aamot stated that is
13 correct.
14
15 Brenner stated it's a de facto downzone that she won't support. Don't develop on
16 the reserve tract unless there are extenuating circumstances.
17
18 Fleetwood stated he is opposed to the motion also. He is happy with what is before
19 the committee.
20
21 Crawford stated that if passed, this would be a big issue. This is a big enough
22 change that they ought to have a public hearing on the change, beyond the concurrency
23 hearing.
24
25 Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
26
27 Brenner moved to add language that allows an administrative approval process to
28 allow modification of a cluster if it's not a viable option, due to site constraints.
29
30 Crawford stated every site has constraints.
31
32 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated one situation is if an owner wants to live on the
33 property and a second situation is if an investor is developing the property. An owner
34 should be able to put a lot wherever. Have the flexibility to allow the owner to have a
35 house wherever. That owner will probably be the one to sell the property to a developer. It
36 isn't realistic to have an individual house stop an entire development. The person in the
37 individual house is the one person who will make the decision about developing the land. It
38 is easier to deal with one owner than all the owners.
39
40 Make sure the septic fields are close enough to be closed off when a septic system is
41 available and development can happen. Allow the property owner to build on a reserve
42 tract. If he doesn't want to sell for development, he won't. If he does, the house won't
43 restrain future development.
44
45 Brenner asked if it is the same as before, if they don't do this. The problem now is
46 getting enough city -sized lots if built to rural standards. Pros stated that if property owners
47 want to buy 20 acres in the urban growth area, they would put their houses where they
48 wanted and then develop the other three lots by clustering them in another area of the
49 property. Don't force the cluster around the owner's house, which is most likely going to be
50 there already.
51
52 Brenner stated that's the way they do clustering now. Aamot showed examples of
53 how developments can be clustered.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 5
1 McShane asked if property owners are currently required to hook up to water and
2 sewer when they become available. Aamot stated they are not, under the County code.
3 Cities have different policies that vary.
4
5 Crawford asked if one has to build a house in the area to be the reserve tract, and
6 then do a three -lot subdivision in the other, cluster area, or if one has to cluster around the
7 original house. Hart stated the owner would have to cluster around the original house. It's
8 very difficult to come back and infill when there is a pattern of a separate house away from
9 the cluster.
10
11 McShane stated the motion, if approved, would require a public hearing. It's a
12 substantial change.
13
14 Aamot asked if the motion applies to WCC 20.20.310(3). It would allow modification
15 to allow the reserve tract to be buildable with one house.
16
17 Brenner stated that is correct, if there are site constraints.
18
19 Aamot read section 20.20.310(3). The motion will allow one dwelling unit on the
20 reserve tract if site constraints don't allow all units to be grouped together in a single
21 cluster.
22
23 Fleetwood asked if there are standards and criteria to determine when that happens.
24 Aamot stated there would have to be a judgment call on the administrative staff. That
25 could involve appeals and legal arguments.
26
27 Hart stated that if they do this, hold over the ordinance, and run the change past
28 staff in the field. He has concerns about that administrative review process. It puts a lot on
29 the Land Use Division Manager to make that decision.
30
31 Crawford stated the Council must do a better job of letting the Planning and
32 Development Services Department understand the Council's intent. They're talking about
33 an area where they're trying to increase density. Enable development in certain areas.
34 Take off the extra reserve tract restriction. Every parcel is unique.
35
36 Hart stated the motion would work if the parcel is so constrained that there is no
37 other option to get four houses in 20 acres in the cluster. They're still trying to reserve as
38 much of the property as possible. The idea is not to preclude that from happening. In those
39 instances, staff would make the call. Make it a narrow use of administrative power.
40
41 Aamot stated this is part of the concurrent review docket, and can be held in
42 committee for two weeks.
43
44 Brenner stated that if they keep allowing a house to be built anywhere, often the
45 house will be built in the middle, and it will make future urban development difficult.
46
47 McShane stated he is concerned about not allowing any building on the reserve tract.
48 The current motion raises concerns. He will consider allowing building on the reserve tract,
49 with constraints. One scenario is an existing owner with a house clustering new houses
50 near the existing house. If there are no houses, make all houses cluster together. The one
51 house on the reserve tract would have to be adjacent to the cluster, so it appears there is a
52 four lot cluster.
53
54 Brenner withdrew her motion.
Planning and Development Committee, 1118/2006, 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
McShane stated hold this item in committee to develop that language.
Brenner moved to reconsider Councilmember McShane's original motion to amend
the ordinance throughout to allow building on the reserve tract. She doesn't like the way
the clusters are being developed around the county, but she also doesn't want to
micromanage anything, either. Her motion does not include amending the ordinance to go
back to R10A.
McShane stated he's not comfortable supporting that if the density is R5A.
Fleetwood stated they should give staff an opportunity to develop language, and hold
in committee for two weeks.
Brenner withdrew her motion to reconsider.
Fleetwood stated they would consider this matter again in two weeks.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JULY 2006 BIRCH BAY COMPREHENSIVE
STORMWATER PLAN (AB2006 -426)
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
Th eeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, tJWj4t#�,T, inscription
ftb
fir• r
�; coffin ••
E .
Darfa�Bro0 M0PCounc'Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleet odCGmmiftee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 1118/2006, Page 7