HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 21 20031
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 21, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2),
WHICH INCLUDES RURAL LANDS (AB2003 -07SE)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, handed out a copy of his Power Point
presentation (on file). He read from his presentation. The 1970 Comprehensive
Plan had three alternatives for development: a concentrated development pattern
with open spaces in the country; a dispersed settlement pattern, called sprawl
today, or; a moderation between the two. The third alternative is the one
implemented. They have had a history of public policy to preserve and protect
those countryside rural areas. The legislature adopted rural areas of more intense
development, based upon existing development patterns in 1990.
One issue that comes up is whether the County and rural, one unit per five
acre (R5A) zoning preserves open space like it is designed to do. Zoning is a main
implementation tool. There are 45 square miles of city areas in the county. Most
of the R5A zone was put into place before the 1997 Comprehensive Plan.
The policies in this chapter are good. It's good to step back and look at the
vision. Ask whether implementation will get them to achieve the vision in five to
twenty years. He highlighted the proposed changes, reading from his presentation.
Brenner asked if the reason for the density bonus was to encourage more
open space between developments. Aamot stated the intent of the bonus was to
encourage people to cluster. The Growth Management Hearings Board didn't go
along with that for rural areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated Whatcom County still allows clustering. One can't beyond
just the cluster he or she has for development rights. That's not allowed.
Fleetwood asked if it is legally not permitted, and if they are deleting this
provision because they are not legally able to have it. Aamot stated they are
retaining clustering in rural areas, but this proposal would strike the policy that one
should get a density bonus and get more dwelling units on a parcel if one clusters.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is going from to a mandate to an incentive.
Aamot stated it's an option right now. It used to be an incentive. Now it's just an
option, except in the agricultural overlay soil areas. If someone has agricultural
overlay soils, that person has to cluster. It's mandated.
Clustering is a good idea and has merits for certain sites. Some people don't
like clustering for a variety of reasons. Clustering is optional. There is merit to
retaining the option in rural areas. He continued his presentation regarding limited
areas of more intense rural development.
Fleetwood asked if they can change the type of building in the limited area of
more intense development to create more commercial or industrial use. Aamot
stated he'd have to research the answer to that question.
Aamot continued to state that the Council adopted cottage industry
ordinance. They want consistency with zoning so anything over two employees
would require conditional use.
Roy asked for an example of a resource -based industry. Aamot stated it
includes anything using wood products, for example.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the recommendation to amend policy 2EE-
4. However, she remembers a case when a use was allowed because it wasn't
specifically listed as a use that was prohibited.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that issue was with the County code.
Policies are more general.
Brenner asked when the correct time is to bring up amendments to interlocal
agreement. Aamot stated it could be brought up concurrently with the
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Aamot continued to read his presentation. Overall the policies are good.
Olason stated staff took a tour around the county to get input from the
community. They talked about rural character. Staff put together an overview of
current and future development. They focused on five -acre zoning. About 85,500
acres are in the rural zone. Almost 18,000 parcels already exist, with 2,668 parcels
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
available to be divided. That's 60,000 additional acres that could be divided. There
are still some acreages that typify rural character.
Staff looked at rural parcelization. There are two areas that staff looked at,
one west of Ferndale and one east of the Guide Meridian. Staff looked at the
acreages in 1995 -1996. The area west of Ferndale had 77 percent subdivided to its
smallest lot size. Staff looked at the same area in 2001. There was additional
development in that time. People added another 50 lots that are less than five
acres. All are on septic and many have exempt wells. Eighty -four percent is
developed. Staff looked at this area to find agricultural property still in rural zones.
They need to question the value of agricultural open space designation on some of
these parcels.
On the property east of the Guide Meridian, eighty -five percent of the area is
developed out at a five -acre density. The area south of Smith Road will be a
potential urban growth area in the future.
Fleetwood asked if this area looks rural. Olason stated it doesn't look like it.
A lot of it hasn't been built on yet. Some of the properties that look like large,
open areas will be developed.
Nelson asked how they decide rural zoning has character like forestry or
agriculture. Olason stated that's what the policies and zoning text state as the
purpose and intent of that zone. The predominant uses were considered to be
agriculture and forestry with residential use.
Nelson asked why they are leaving out the residential. Olason stated they're
not. He would look at the usefulness of a property once a house goes on it. It is
residential. That's one of the issues they're struggling with. The Comprehensive
Plan also says that they are looking to the rural area to provide agricultural land.
The question is the quantity of agricultural land in rural lands is something they
looked at closely.
Nelson asked if everything out of the urban growth land is agricultural or
forestry land. Olason stated it's a mixture. The discussion here is whether this is
defined as a rural landscape.
Brenner stated it's not so much whether the zoning is R5A, it's how people
build on the land zoned R5A. People have done farms on five acres.
Fleetwood stated it's a legal definition as they've established it. Under one
definition, that's rural.
McShane stated the councilmembers have different opinions of what is rural.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Olason stated the point is to look at what specific five -acre zoned parcels are
rural. Areas are approaching total build -out. They have to decide if that's the
vision. If not, then update the language.
He compared an area with cluster development with an area with traditional
five -acre development, showing historical aerial photographs of the property.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson asked if the population changes are from the recent forecast. Aamot
stated they are estimates of population.
McShane stated the estimates are based on the median projection from the
Planning Commission.
Fleetwood stated a reason for rural zoning is as a buffer between population
and agriculture. Aamot stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) talks about
minimizing conflicts.
Fleetwood stated there is an enormous rural buffer that is largely zoned R5A.
He asked if anyone considered re- designating areas to agriculture that are
presently designated rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) and adjacent to
agricultural areas. Olason stated rural zoning was established as anything left over
after establishing resource lands and urban growth areas. There are some
provision in the resource chapter about reviewing agricultural lands and designating
other lands as agricultural lands. In some cases, there were two or more tiers of
agricultural zoning. There may be some secondary agriculture that is more like
R5A and R10A that might not be the best of the agriculture. Much of the R5A is
outside of the most intensively farmed areas. It was used for livestock pasture.
It's difficult outside the core area to get that property farmed. There are isolated
areas that have a lot of activity. A purchase of development rights (PDR) exercise
is to look at those areas and take in some rural zoned land of value. That option is
always there. It's called out in the Comprehensive Plan currently. It's hard to find
additional rural units.
Fleetwood referenced proposed policy 2CC -10 and asked if the converse of
that would also fit, and if they should have a guideline that says they should
encourage downzones from R5A to R10A. Olason stated that's a policy decision.
The concept was that they shouldn't entertain upzones to R5A if they want to retain
R10A zones. To go to the next level, they must think about what they are after
with R10A zone. The R10A zone may also be questionable for resources value of
lot size.
Caskey- Schreiber stated many R5A parcels belong to separate property
owners. She doesn't know how they could possibly downzone them. Olason stated
they'd end up downzoning the few large parcels that are left. In some cases,
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
they're in the middle of a lot of development. The value over the future of
agriculture is suspect.
Fleetwood asked if a voluntary downzone is easy or complicated
procedurally. Aamot stated they've never done a voluntary downzone.
McShane stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment changes were
suggested as means of laying out the groundwork for carrying out the visioning
process. Look at the goals of the rural area. He asked the advantage an R10A
zone has over an R5A zone. Olason stated R10A zones are typically larger parcels
out of the old agriculture zone and off the best soils.
Aamot stated part of the rural vision talks about having less traffic
congestion and preserving more open space.
McShane stated they have a range of goals. He asked what they are trying
to do with this chapter. Olason stated the update was trying to look at what has
changed legally. They've found that it's not really out of compliance. The real
question is what they can do differently in development regulations, if they can
agree on what rural is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the direction staff is going. People want
predictability. They have to infill with like areas. Continue to look at large parcels
of land zoned R5A as potential agricultural lands. She doesn't know if she can
defend downzoning in that area, even though she might like to see it.
Roy stated development of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program
could be useful. They know when rural areas are gone. Look at urban areas as
evidence. People in Whatcom County have a strong sense of what is rural. The
TDR program should be continued. It could be one incentive.
Nelson stated there is quite a bit of rural five and ten acre parcels. He asked
how they are going to accommodate people who want to live in the rural area, but
don't want to farm or log. That's the pressure that will be put on farmers and
foresters. They need to address the available land supply for small lots in rural
areas to accommodate septic and water. Find areas that are appropriate.
Roy stated they have accommodated those people well. They're moving
onto the five -acre lots.
Brenner stated Councilmember Nelson is saying that if they provide more of
the very small acre zoning, they could do some TDR's rather than downzoning. She
asked why they didn't do cluster requirement on all rural zoning. Olason stated it
was specifically trying to address the need to maintain an agricultural land base.
Someone may have to transfer within a zone if that person can't transfer out of a
zone. Rural zones include a variety of lot sizes. There is some question about
internal transfers. As long as they are not increasing overall density in a zone, part
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
of the question is the way it looks to the neighborhood. Discuss how to
accommodate those TDR's. Density won't change if they ignore it. They will have
to move them out, move them around inside, or downzone them.
Fleetwood stated this item would be held in committee for two weeks.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.72 — POINT ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICT
AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS (AB2003 -317A)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated amendments are intended to help people in
Point Roberts maintain the character of the area while providing opportunity for
economic growth.
Whatcom County Code (WCC) Section 20.72.051 is a new section to allow
Bed & Breakfast lodgings in the resort commercial zone. Goals and policies in the
subarea plan further support this amendment.
The amendment to section 20.72.153(3) is new to require a vegetative
buffer between a proposed airpark subdivision and any neighboring properties.
This originated from property owners to the east of the property they are
concerned about. There was a debate about whether the buffers are enough.
The amendment to section 20.72.154 is unclear about what types of sports
facilities are allowed. This amendment allows a horseracing facility and its
associated uses.
The language in section 20.72.155 was inadvertently removed in 2002.
The language in section 20.72.204 only applies to Gulf Road. There is a lot
of focus on a village center concept in the subarea plan. Uses listed are proposed
for prohibition because they are inconsistent with the proposed use.
Section 20.72.270 would exempt Point Roberts from the agricultural overlay
district.
Section 20.72.652 originally included language that stated there are
archeological resources in Point Roberts, but there is no regulation to deal with
those areas. They also included tree retention regulations, but they are interpreted
to only apply to Lily Point. Those two areas were split up. The new section
provides protocol for permit applications within 500 feet of a known archeological
site.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Section 20.72.653 has been amended to be administratively consistent with
new watershed tree retention language, but applicability is somewhat different. It
would apply to all parcels in point Roberts. In resort, general, and small town
commercial zones, tree retention can be applied to required open space
requirements. There is not a specific tree retention requirement other than what
would be required in open space or landscaping requirements.
She submitted a substitute version of Exhibit A. She had received additional
comment from the Lummi Nation Historical Preservation Office, which made
recommendations for changes. Staff and the Washington State Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation worked together to develop those text
amendments. The tree retention amendments are proposed to be consistent
administratively with what is most recently adopted.
Nelson asked if any development that occurs has to go through the
archeological process. The Lummi Nation has claimed archeological sites on
forestry lands, but those sites are kept confidential. He asked how that would
work. Pederson stated the shoreline administrator and the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) official review permits for those areas. Review is done
concurrently with the State. They would be notified if within known archeological
sites.
Nelson asked if specific archeological areas are defined. Pederson stated
they are.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Planning Department
has two staff members who have access to the locations of those archeological
sites. The rest of the staff and the public are not allowed to know where those
locations are.
Nelson asked how the sites are designated. Goodwin stated there has to be
an archeological discovery.
Dave Niles, Point Roberts, stated he wanted to compliment County Planning
Department staff, especially Ms. Pederson and Ms. Goodwin, for the fine work
they've done on the Point Roberts text amendments. The text amendments are
well thought out. They say what people can do, not what they can't do. They take
advantage of the rural character to develop certain projects. He suggested that
clustering is more of a natural process. Different areas in Point Roberts have
clustered naturally. It's difficult to legislate.
Fleetwood asked the general state of agreement amongst the people of Point
Roberts. Niles stated Point Roberts formed an economic development group. He
submitted a list of the current membership of the Point Roberts Economic
Development Committee (on file). The Planning Department is included in the
group. The purpose was to alleviate problems with communication in rural
unincorporated areas. A recent meeting addressed better communication between
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
these areas and Whatcom County. The EDC represents all the various interests in
Point Roberts.
Isaac Bloom, Lummi Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office, stated that
the archeological program is run through the National Park Service. He worked
with staff from the County and submitted comments. He appreciated the
opportunity of being a part of that discussion. The Tribe has expanded its cultural
resource management program. It is proactive in establishing partnerships with
outlying governments and community groups.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval of the substitute version
submitted by staff today, including the amendments suggested by the Lummi
Nation.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.130 and asked if the uses were outright
approved before, without administrative approval. Pederson stated they were. The
criteria for administrative approval uses weren't referenced.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.204. Pederson stated the Gulf Road area
was targeted as the village center. They want to target retail and business
services. Community storage is not conducive to pedestrian- oriented uses.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.204(3) and asked why marine services are
prohibited. Pederson stated marine services are not a pedestrian service. Some
marine services are provided for.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are trying to have protective measures to keep
the downtown core viable. People who need marine services will need them
regardless, and may be willing to go outside the area.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.350(3) and asked what the provisions are
that are referenced. Pederson stated the provisions require an additional five feet
added to side and rear yards for each ten feet of building height, in excess of 15
feet. It won't apply in this area.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.403 and asked the reason for the change
from a conditional use process to a variance. Pederson stated that section talks
about changing the height. That is done through the variance process.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner referenced section 20.72.653(2)(a)(i), she asked for clarification on
what the pre- existing canopy is. Pederson stated it is whatever is on the site
before clearing started.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced section 20.72.653(8)(b). Don't require a licensed
arborist or forester. Some people who aren't licensed may know a lot about trees.
Don't make the language that restrictive.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that puts staff in a position of arguing whether or
not someone is knowledgeable. The substitute version is different.
Fleetwood stated it may be required, not shall be required.
Pederson stated that is for the case when someone proposes that a tree is a
hazard, but there is some debate about it. If that were to happen, a profession
would be hired to make the decision.
Brenner referenced section 20.97.019a. She asked for a legal definition of
how large a geographic locality is. She asked how far out from the found object is
considered within the geographic locality. Goodwin stated the language specifies
500 feet from a site, but it doesn't say how large the archeological site is.
Brenner asked if the site is the width of an object is found. Goodwin stated
it would then mean 500 feet from the object. If they found a village, then it would
be 500 feet from the village. Development activity 500 feet from a known
archeological site has to have additional review.
Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance with the substitute
Exhibit A to the full Council carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, Page 9
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
2
Planning and Development Committee, 10/21/2003, Page 10