HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 15 20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 15, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY UR -MX ZONING TEXT
REGARDING COMMERCIAL CENTERS, BUILDING SETBACKS, THE
CALCULATIONS OF THE PERCENT ALLOWABLE MULTI - FAMILY
STRUCTURES AND TO PROVIDE FOR SIGN REGULATIONS IN THIS
ZONE (AB2000 -254)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is the last of the 1999
rezones. Staff docketed this item to address changes to the Urban Residential,
24 Mixed (UR -MX) zone. The UR -MX zone was adopted at the same time as the urban
25 fringe subarea plan in 1997. After working with it, they discovered things that were
26 missing. County and city staff worked together. The Planning Commission made a
27 few wording changes that the city has not approved. This ordinance is what the
28 County and city agreed on. The only difference is the density bonus for planned
29 unit development. The Planning Commission added language on Council packet
30 page 75 so a ten percent density bonus would be allowed if one does a planned unit
31 development within a UR -MX zone. Originally, to get a density bonus in the UR -MX
32 zone, one had to purchase development rights, provide low- income housing, or do
33 other things. In the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, one can
34 automatically get a density bonus. Instead of having to purchase development
35 rights, developers said they would rather just do a planned unit development and
36 get that ten percent density bonus first. This undermines the Transfer of
37 Development Rights (TDR) ordinance because the developers wouldn't be required
38 to purchase development rights, but would get them for free. Then ten percent
39 bonus is not automatic, because the developer would still have to provide open
40 space and other things. Under the UR -MX zoning adopted at the time of the TDR,
41 one couldn't get any density bonuses in the UR -MX area until he or she first
42 purchased development rights. For this, one could get the ten percent PUD density
43 bonus before purchasing development rights. One still has to provide open space,
44 clustering, and other design features in order to get that ten percent. It is a
45 difference from what they adopted earlier and what the city and County agreed on
46 for the urban fringe plan.
47
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
There are other amendments that would change the ordinance, which the
city and County both worked on together. On page 67, there is an addition that
multifamily development would not be allowed in the Bennett Drive area. There is
quite a lot of apartments there already. On page 69, there is a new term called a
"neighborhood center" in which clustered two -acre commercial developments are
allowed. Previously, they were called "community centers," but that was confusing
to the public. It was meant to mean a neighborhood commercial center.
Hoag stated that there is language missing from the end of section
20.24.132(2)(d). Goodwin stated that is correct. That subsection is supposed to
say, "Neighborhood centers shall not be developed in areas characterized by
residential development at less than one dwelling unit per acre except as part of a
mixed residential development."
Brenner asked why they would not have neighborhood centers in areas
characterized by areas of residential development. Goodwin stated the language
specifies that residential development should be less than one dwelling unit per
acre, except as part of a mixed -use residential development. That is the language
that is missing from that section.
Brenner stated they wouldn't want it in a low- density area because the
purpose is to have a nice neighborhood.
Goodwin stated that the purpose is to have people walk to the corner grocery
store. If the density is less than one unit per acre, then everyone is driving
anyway. The idea is that it there is a walk -in, pedestrian- oriented neighborhood
center in a higher density residential area.
She continued to state that they added reference to sign regulations on
Council packet page 70. On page 71, there is an additional restriction on the
multifamily development on Bennett Drive. On pages 72 and 73, they deleted a
redundant discussion of accessory apartments. It should have been deleted as a
conditional use when the Council did the accessory apartment ordinance years ago
because it was added as an administrative use. On page 75, they made a change
regarding the PUD density bonus.
Brenner asked for an explanation of the meaning of the phrase, "shall not
duplicate bonuses allowed under this section." Goodwin stated density can't go
higher than ten units per acre. There were some creative consultants who tried to
do all the density bonuses allowed under the UR -MX zone, and then do a PUD to do
an additional, duplicate density bonus. One can do a PUD or a TDR, but not both
and get the same bonus twice. The city didn't know about this change. It was
added after the public hearing. The city hasn't said that it objects since the change
was proposed.
Goodwin continued to state that on page 79, they clarify that the Bennett
Drive area is not a multifamily area and is also not a receiving area for TDR's. It is
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
in the UR -MX plan, but wasn't put into the code. The last page is the sign
regulations.
Hoag stated the UR -MX zone has been described as an area where the
preferred type of development will occur. However, in reality, it ends up being just
apartment buildings. She asked if there is anything that can encourage the type of
development that they are looking for. Goodwin stated they are not primarily
multifamily areas. Only 25 percent of the UR -MX area can be multifamily housing.
There was never the intent to be a commercial development either. They only
meant to have neighborhood centers within walking distance of residential areas.
The plan wasn't for a commercial neighborhood to be spread throughout the
residential neighborhoods.
Crawford stated the reality is that there has not been any commercial done
in the UR -MX zoning. It has all been single family residences. Goodwin stated that
there have been several neighborhood centers.
Crawford stated the developments along Bakerview Road are mostly single
family residences. Goodwin stated most of them are, but most of them were
already approved or proposed. There have been a few community centers
approved. One of them is on McLeod Road.
Hoag asked if the language allows for and encourages someone to live above
a retail shop. Goodwin stated that is allowed only in the two -acre commercial
center, not in the entire zone.
Brenner asked for a reason why any neighborhood would want to have this
happen. The only positive is for a developer. They need to encourage the idea of a
neighborhood center, to give people a reason to want to absorb the extra density.
She asked if there is something they could do to encourage the neighborhood
centers. Goodwin stated that most available and vacant intersections would be
developed into a neighborhood center through free enterprise.
Brenner stated that having a gas station does not create a neighborhood
store with any warmth or neighborhood ambiance. Goodwin stated they were
hoping for a center like Barkley Village. If there was a large enough chunk of land,
it might be cost effective to do that type of development. However, a lot of these
pieces are only a half -acre or an acre, and all one will put in is a fourplex or single
family housing.
Brenner suggested creating an incentive or streamlining the process so that
developers want to put in a little neighborhood grocery, for example. Goodwin
stated there is a limit on the amount and size of allowed multifamily housing.
Brenner stated they need a building standard so the area doesn't end up not
having any warmth. Make the neighbors feel that it is an improvement on the
neighborhood, not a plight.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Hoag asked if this is the only zone in which a person can live and work in the
same building. Goodwin stated the Resort Commercial zone allows a person to use
the space for living and working.
Hoag stated a concept has been done in Canada where a commercial use is
on the ground floor, parking is underneath, and living space is above. The whole
development was self- sufficient. Local zoning regulations stand in the way of that
concept. The UR -MX zone is the one place they can do something like that. She
was concerned that there are not incentives to do that type of development. She
supported this zone. Goodwin stated the city is working on that type of idea in
their downtown plan.
Hoag stated this proposal is an improvement, but she would like to see the
staff pursue other ideas.
Pat Carmen, City of Bellingham, stated the city was not aware that there
have been changes to the TDR's. They have not had an opportunity to discuss the
changes. The UR -MX zone was to be a receiving zone, not a dumping ground, for
higher density. They were to be single family residences. It was the intent that
they be single family neighborhoods with a mix of higher density residential and a
cluster of commercial community activities. She didn't feel comfortable
commenting on the loss of the TDR's.
Brenner asked if the city discussed the idea of multifamily housing in the UR-
MX zone. Carmen stated they worked closely with the County when the zone was
created. Twenty -five percent of allowed multifamily units seemed to be
appropriate. In the Bennett Drive area, there is a large block of URM -18 zoning,
which is a transition from the UR -MX zone and the commercial zone and Gateway
Industrial area. There many are areas with blocks of only multifamily development.
The intent of the UR -MX zone was to have more single family neighborhoods with a
variety of densities.
McShane stated the Planning Commission didn't want to do away with TDR's,
but they don't want to hold someone to this only way to go. Goodwin stated that
was correct. Developers complained that it is difficult to purchase development
rights. In order to achieve a higher density, they could go with the density bonus
of ten percent. They would have to have a bigger parcel to take advantage of the
bonus.
McShane asked what other zone they can transfer development rights to.
Goodwin stated this is the only zone. There are a limited number of acres for the
UR -MX, and they are not allowing the Bennett area. They are limiting the amount
of receiving areas and there will be no incentive to get that density out of the
watershed unless they open other receiving areas.
Brenner asked if other receiving areas have to be in a UR -MX zone. Goodwin
stated they would have to be within urban growth areas. They could do it in other
urban residential areas within the urban growth areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Hoag stated she's heard that developers have said that transfers of
development rights are difficult to purchase. Goodwin stated they are not difficult
to purchase, just expensive. The issue is why someone would want to pay for a
development right when he or she could get a density bonus for free. A
development right in Lake Whatcom is expensive real estate, and a developer
would want a lot of money to sell the development right.
Hoag questioned what incentive one would have to purchase the
development rights from Lake Whatcom, and what good it would do to have a TDR
program, if no one can sell the development rights. Goodwin stated the density
bonus is for only ten percent. A TDR can be a lot more than that.
Brenner suggested that they focus on property value instead of density.
Goodwin stated that the city and County are going to get together next year to
discuss the TDR program.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, stated he owns Lake Whatcom acreage
and also UR -MX zoned acreage. He was originally impressed with the idea of
TDR's, but there is no economic viability to it.
Regarding the PUD's in the UR -MX zone, they are not something that is going
to actually benefit the public, from the developer's standpoint, as it would benefit
the developer more. A substantial portion of the UR -MX zone is wetland. People
are forced to do a PUD anyhow, so they receive an automatic bonus. There are not
sidewalks and infrastructure to support bicycle and foot traffic in the areas of these
neighborhood centers. An in- between alternative would be to allow mobile home
parks. It is probable to cluster six to ten units per acre in a mobile home setting,
instead of single family detached housing. He suggested a bonus for mobile home
parks.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner asked how to keep a mobile home park from getting rundown.
Isaacson stated it takes covenants and good owners. A number of the retired
people in the community like home ownership, but not necessarily the responsibility
of owning the land. The proximity of a lot of this UR -MX is conducive to mobile
home parks. That use hasn't been encouraged in the code.
Brenner stated it would need to be approached in a way to promote pride in
ownership, which many of the mobile home parks don't.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the Planning Commission version
of the ordinance. If they drop the language regarding the PUD's, the Council will
have to schedule a public hearing.
Crawford stated he liked the Planning Commission version as it is.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
Hoag asked if staff would look at the language regarding PUD's when it looks
at the TDR program next year. Goodwin stated they could look at this then. It is
not going to kill anything to have that ten percent density bonus for PUD's, but it
does reduce the incentives.
Brenner stated no one has used the TDR program anyway. The problem is
that they don't have a good TDR program. Taking this out will not change
anything.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO ADD A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR " "DUPLEX" AND
" "SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING," REVISE THE DEFINITION OF
" "MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING" AND CLARIFY THE USE OF THESE TERMS
(AB2000 -321)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is related to the
previous item, but it affects most residential sections of the code. They've
discovered that the County definition of "single family dwelling" included duplexes.
Also, the term " single family attached dwelling" was undefined. The terms were
used in different ways in different sections of the code. A duplex is now defined as
a building with two units in it. A multifamily unit is a single building with three or
more families. A single family attached dwelling is a group of two or more single
family dwelling units, each on a separate lot of record and that are joined by a
common wall. That is like a townhouse. Staff went through all the zoning codes
and changed the words to be consistent with the definitions. The intent was not to
make changes in the use, but to define the terms as they have been interpreted in
the past.
Dawson asked if a mother -in -law unit could be a duplex. Goodwin stated it
could be permitted as a duplex or an accessory unit.
Brenner asked for clarification on what townhouses are. Goodwin stated
townhouse owners own the property under the unit's footprint. Condominium
owners own the ground communally.
Brenner questioned what other types of attached single family dwellings
exist. Goodwin stated a duplex could have a common wall, with each side being
owned. It would be in the style of a townhouse.
Hoag questioned the incentive for doing an attached single family dwelling
instead of a duplex. Goodwin stated an attached single family unit is a townhouse.
A townhouse can be a duplex. The overall density would have to remain the same.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 6
1
2
3 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
4
5 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFT EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF THE
6 TITLE 21 LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (AB2001 -153)
7
8 McShane stated that the Council couldn't adopt this ordinance until its
9 meeting on May 29, so this issue is for discussion only.
10
11 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the Title 21 land division regulations were
12 extensively revised last year. After several months of administering the new
13 regulations, the County staff identified items to bring to the Council's attention.
14 The first issue is to restore the five -year restriction on selling a parcel that was
15 received as a gift. This provision existed in the regulations from 1979 until
16 December 2000. It prohibited a person from selling a lot received as a gift for five
17 years, unless the lot went through the subdivision process, including public review.
18 The Planning Commission recommends against the five -year restriction. He
19 presented a transcript of the Planning Commission discussion (on file). However,
20 staff believes it is still an important part of the proposal. Before the emergency
21 ordinance temporarily reinstated the five -year restriction, the staff was seeing quite
22 a proliferation of gift exemptions. He presented a bar graph showing the increase
23 in gift exemption applications (on file). The Planning Department recommends that
24 the five -year restriction be reinstated on a permanent basis.
25
26 The second item is approval of vehicular access by the County Engineering
27 Division, in compliance with County development standards. This would not require
28 construction of a road for a gift exemption, but would require the
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Engineering Division staff to review access to make sure it would
site distance. The Engineering Division staff also wanted to add a
the easement must meet development standards for width.
County
:)e adequate for
requirement that
The third issue is regarding remainder lots. The remainder lots, the portion
of the lot not given in the gift exemption, are sometimes left without a deed. The
new proposal is that there be a requirement that a legal description be filed with
the County Auditor, with a covenant stating the restriction on dividing the
remainder lots. The restriction on re- dividing the parcels applies to all of the lots,
including the remainder lots. The sale restriction only applies to the gifted lots.
One could short plat the remainder lots without review by neighbors.
41 Richard Duane, Engineering Division Development Manager, stated he and
42 Mr. Aamot would work to bring forward a change to make the short plat process
43 more user friendly. Regarding the gift exemption, there are a couple of things that
44 the Engineering Division is concerned with. First, the Engineering Division will not
45 recover any fees for the work they will do on the gift exemption. The work includes
46 review and a visit of the site plan. At some point, staff will modify the fee schedule
47 so the Engineering Division can recover cost. The gift exemption fee does not
48 make allowances for engineering services.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 7
1
2 Brenner asked for detailed information on the costs to the Engineering
3 Division.
4
5 Duane stated that the Engineering Division looks at issues of access,
6 management, safety, concurrency, and substandard road requirements. They
7 would like to add a requirement to the gift exemption that all lots in such divisions
8 shall have access onto maintained public roads constructed to current minimum
9 road standards for two -way traffic. This allows the Engineering Division staff to
10 look at issues of safe access onto County maintained roads, the substandard roads
11 that are out there, and concurrency issues. Now, only 75 percent of the County
12 maintained roads meet the minimum requirements. Most of the roads are
13 substandard. On the face of this, 75 percent of the gift exemptions will be denied.
14 However, there is a variance process. Once denied, the application will go into the
15 variance process. The Engineering Division will look for specific improvements to
16 allow the development of that property, or a voluntary mitigation fee given to the
17 County Engineering Division to put into the next County road project that is in the
18 near vicinity. That is how they would mitigate the gift exemption.
19
20 Brenner stated that donating money to another project would not make this
21 road any safer. She liked the idea of having it to standard as it enters onto the
22 County Road. She questioned whether it has to meet the County road standard all
23 the way through the plan. Duane stated it does not. It only has to meet standards
24 where the gift exemption accesses onto the County road. It could be as little as 60
25 feet. There are specific places where the road is substandard. To get that 60 feet,
26 it could be quite a cost to the person giving the gift exemption. It might be
27 dangerous to allow someone to access a substandard road. In that instance, the
28 Engineering Division would look at the next County road project in that area that
29 would make an improvement, and ask for a voluntary donation to that project, but
30 not the entire amount that would total the cost of the access. Staff will put that
31 donation to the next road project in that area.
32
33 McShane stated the idea is to avoid having a gift exemption cause access
34 problems. Line of site issues need to be looked at. At the time the house is
35 developed, the person would know where the road can't go due to access problems.
36 This requirement would avoid any problems that the gift may be for someone.
37 Duane agreed. Problems that they may not foresee now could come up in five
38 years.
39
40 Hoag stated that the language on Council packet page 191, subsection (6)(e)
41 sounds like it is not just talking about easements, but about actual road. First, they
42 are adding engineering approval to this, and then they want to add engineering
43 fees to cover costs. This is starting to look more like a short plat than a gift
44 exemption. The County's role should simply make sure that there is an easement
45 for access. She questioned whether the other issues are covered at the time a
46 building permit is applied for. Duane stated that on private roads, a driveway
47 permit may not be required. If it is not required, then no one from the County will
48 be required to review the access. If one is accessing onto a County maintained
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, 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
48
road, a permit is required. A permit is not required when accessing to a private
road.
Hoag stated private roads generally have little impact. Duane stated there
are many private roads in which many people are accessing a County road. The
issue occurs when there is a 12 -foot driveway, and other people start accessing
other homes from the 12 -foot gravel or dirt road.
Hoag asked why a private road has to meet a minimum standard. Duane
stated that cars still drive on it and kids play on it.
McShane stated another reason is for emergency access.
Hoag questioned whether that comes up when a building permit is requested.
Duane stated some of the issues are covered, but not always. It's better for staff
to look at these things up front. Emergency vehicles are a primary interest. After
that, site distance and access issues are very important.
McShane stated it might be nice for gift recipients to know ahead of time
what the cost of putting in a road might be.
Hoag stated she hesitated to add more onerous restrictions to gift
exemptions. She understood adding back in the five -year restriction because
developers were abusing it. Duane stated this is an attempt to address the
problem of providing infrastructure now, instead of in five years.
Brenner agreed that one could get a gift exemption, but there could be a
need for some reason to sell it off before five years is up. She would like to see an
exemption from the five -year restriction.
Brenner asked what the standard is. Duane stated that different roads have
different standards. A private driveway is approximately 12 feet. A 30 -foot
easement and 16 -foot gravel drive is required for up to 12 users.
Brenner stated that gift exemptions will not have a lot of people using the
road, so it would qualify for a 16 -foot gravel road. Duane stated that if they are
accessing onto a road with only 12 users, then that is correct, but not if the lot
accesses onto a bigger road.
Brenner questioned whether the access road would be widened at the point
of intersection with the main road, and the rest would remain 16 -feet wide. Duane
stated they would widen the access road directly in front of the property. That is
how the County has been operating. However, it is sometimes not safe to have a
long 16 -foot road, which bumps out to a 22 -foot road for a period of a hundred feet
before bumping back in to a 16 -foot road. In a case like that, it may be more
efficient to have the developer voluntarily donate money to the Engineering
Division, so the money can be more efficiently used.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 9
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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated she can think of many roads that are 16 -feet wide for many
miles, but she couldn't think of any terrible accidents that have ever happened on
those kinds of roads. There is access available for emergency services. The entire
point is that it is a gravel road, and one can't drive very fast anyway. She liked the
standard the way it is, and she like the idea of widening it at a main road. One of
the things they've talked about is trying to devise ways to not pave or to get rid of
impervious surfaces. Once they start compacting gravel, it eventually becomes
impervious, just like asphalt. The County should move in the opposite direction of
not having a road one inch wider than absolutely necessary to get emergency
vehicles in. Duane stated that in some cases a 12 -foot road could be adequate for
emergency access, which requires one -way access. However, a 16 -foot road is not
a good road for two -way traffic. On a lot of the gift exemptions, there are enough
users where there is significant two -way traffic. That is where they start to have
problems.
Hoag questioned whether they are talking about the location where a
person's driveway accesses a private road, or the location where a private road
accesses onto a main road that determines the width requirements of the private
road. Duane stated it would be where the private road accesses onto the public
road.
Hoag asked how wide a private road has to be if it accesses onto a public
road. Duane stated that the easement would be 30 feet, depending upon the
number of users. The possibility exists that the private road would be a 16 -foot
road on a 30 -foot easement, accessing onto a public road. That is where they have
concerns. The public road they are accessing onto may not meet the County
standards, which is now 22 feet wide with four -foot shoulders.
Hoag questioned what a private road would have to do to meet the
requirement suggested in section (6)(e), if the road has fewer than 12 users.
Duane stated one would need a 30 -foot easement with a 16 -foot wide gravel road,
plus two or three foot shoulders.
Hoag asked what happens if the added language is not included. Duane
stated the possibility exists that someone could put an easement in, and the
Engineering Division could not comment on that easement. There may be a
dangerous access point created by the easement.
Dawson asked if there has to be a paved apron that joins the private and
public roads. Duane stated that it would depend on the pavement or the existance
of the County road. If the road is a paved road, they would probably require a
paved apron attached to the paved County road.
Hoag questioned what a dangerous easement is. Duane stated that an
easement at a crest of the hill would not allow someone coming out of the
easement to see oncoming traffic.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 10
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
Brenner asked how widening the road would affect that danger. Duane
stated that in that case, widening the road may not be the issue. They may require
that the access be moved.
Brenner asked for an example in which widening a road would make a
difference. Duane stated that skinnier roads are substandard because the driver
doesn't have the room to react to surprises, such as a bicycle entering the road.
Brenner suggested that it would be better to require a reduced speed on the
707-rd
Crawford asked what the Engineering Division staff would recommend for
section (6)(e). Duane suggested added language to section (6), "(f) All lots in such
divisions shall have access onto maintained public roads, constructed to current
minimum road standards for two -way traffic." That means that the road one
accesses will be up to standards.
Brenner questioned whether that width would apply to the entire length of
the road. Duane stated that it would apply to a private roadway accessing on to a
publicly maintained facility, and that publicly maintained facility should be 22 feet
wide. If the publicly maintained road is not 22 feet wide, the exemption would be
denied because the road is substandard. The owner would have the option of
improving the roadway to 22 feet where they are accessing, or mitigating through
the variance process with a voluntary contribution.
Hoag questioned whether the lot can have access from a private road going
to a public road. Duane stated it can, as long as the publicly maintained road
meets the minimum standard where the private road meets the publicly maintained
road.
Hoag questioned whether a publicly maintained road has to meet standards
anyway, because it is the County's road. Duane stated it does have to, but about
75 percent of the roads in Whatcom County don't meet County standards.
Brenner questioned whether the County would punish the private owners if
the County public roads don't meet standards. Duane stated it is not a
punishment, it is a development tool. Developers use the road. The County asks
for infrastructure to be in place before development.
Hoag stated this isn't development. This is family giving gifts to family. This
is supposed to be an exemption from all that.
McShane stated it is a different way of developing. There is no difference. It
still costs the community. Duane stated that fairness is an issue he must deal with
for all developers. He can't treat different types of developers in different ways.
He looks for consistency. That is what he is trying to do.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 11
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
McShane stated that they could have the impacts of gift exemptions. A
person who does a short -plat is more greatly impacted because they are paying for
all of the exemptions. They are creating an inequality without this.
Crawford questioned how many hundreds of vehicles go in and out of
Hovander Park. It is probably four or five hundred. The County has seen fit to
provide a few turnouts. The County has not seen fit to upgrade the road. Here
they are talking about a road that is obviously a public road. The County likes the
way it is.
Hoag questioned whether Mr. Duane was familiar with the studies done in
Denver, in which the determination was made that roads are safer when they are
narrower. Duane stated he was familiar with the traffic calming procedures in
Boulder, Colorado. Traffic calming through narrower streets and landscaping will
slow people down. He is familiar with that.
Hoag stated a study was done in Denver that compared accident rates on
roads of different widths. The study found that people sped on wider roads, and
there is a lower accident rate on narrow roads with shorter sight distances. The
County brought this up in the past. The County upgraded a number of County
roads that are now huge. They take up farmland and acreage that isn't necessary
for traffic loads that aren't there. She questioned whether the County is going in
the direction it should be going. She wondered if the standards are too high if 75
percent of the County roads do not meet those standards. Duane stated the
County builds roads for 20 and 30 years in the future, not for today's traffic. Also,
lane width goes back to safety. Safety with a car is space. A driver needs space to
have the necessary reaction time. That is a hallmark of traffic engineering. That
has not changed.
McShane stated that is not the issue before them. The question to be
answered is whether or not everyone should comply with those standards.
Brenner asked for an example of where it is dangerous in the county where
there is a 16 -foot wide, long, gravel private road, with a nice wide apron where it
meets the County road.
McShane stated one example is Coyote Lane. It is a very narrow gravel road
with weaves and twists in it. There are more than 12 homes on the road, and the
access onto Everson - Goshen line has very poor visibility. The road is too narrow for
two cars to pass safely.
Brenner stated she wanted to know if a situation in which a 16 -foot wide
private road with an apron at the access onto a public road is dangerous.
McShane stated that issue is about the standards, not whether the County
should grant relief from those standards.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 12
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
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, stated the staff is using a different
format for counting the lots that have been created. He asked for clarification on
that new method. Previously, two gift lots and two remainder lots were counted as
two stamped lots. Now, they are counted as four stamped lots.
Aamot stated that is correct. He took that into account when he made his
comparison.
Isaacson stated they've had enough public hearings about this to know that
there is no desire to restrict development on the remainder parcel. The giver
should not be restricted. There has been massive public input on this, and no one
wants to restrict the giver.
He was shocked that the Engineering Division would require a voluntary
donation. He did not see how that could be applicable in several exemption cases.
Not all exemptions will even have a road built, as in the case of farmland or
timberland.
McShane questioned whether it would be possible to do a gift exemption of
this type of land, and make a note in the deed of the gift, so one wouldn't have to
worry about access. Aamot stated there could be some kind of covenant saying
they weren't going to build on it. Right now, the language doesn't require
construction of the access at the time the exemption is granted. When the owner
comes in for a building permit, the standard for that use would be looked at then.
McShane stated that if access is not a concern in the case of gifting
forestland, then the Engineering Division could see that on the deed and know it
doesn't have to be an issue.
Isaacson stated that would prohibit the land down the road. The reality is
that the County has made a decision socially within the community that gift
exemptions are a good idea, and they would be exempt from different things that
developers would be subject to. The Planning Commission has even recommended
fewer restrictions. He supported the five -year restriction because gift exemptions
shouldn't be used to circumvent the short -plat process. Building the road to a
standard can also trigger several other things. If the road is built, then they have
to look at the potential for storm drainage, and they would have to install ponds.
He did a short -plat that has nine users, and the road is restricted. The short -
plat was reviewed by the Engineering Division. That road is 20 feet of asphalt in
the Lake Whatcom watershed, with two -foot shoulders on each side, full storm
drainage, and a retention /detention pond. That was a requirement to the County
standard. The road had to be asphalted because it exceeded certain grades, and it
also needed a paved apron. He didn't understand how a 16 -foot gravel road is
always going to be all that is required.
There are already several trigger mechanisms built in. First, the building
permit process has a requirement that they have to meet all- weather road surfaces
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 13
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
20 -feet wide. If the road is not 20 -feet wide, there has to be pullouts every 300
feet, prior to getting a building permit. There would not be a building permit issued
on a twelve -foot road with no vehicular turnouts. On accessing a public road, there
is a requirement for an access encroachment permit. There are trigger
mechanisms for every point they've brought up at this meeting, including the site
visibility concern. A person needs an encroachment permit to access a public road.
That permit can be denied if there is not adequate site visibility.
Hoag asked what would happen if the easement doesn't go to a place that
does allow good visibility. Isaacson stated is a "buyer beware" problem. Things
change all the time. The owner will need to meet the requirements in place at the
time of construction. If a short -plat or long -plat is done right now, that individual is
vested under those requirements. That individual is not vested with a gift
exemption. The individual will have to meet the codes. It is more restrictive to the
individual receiving or giving the exemption, because he or she will have to meet
the code at the time of the building permit. It is better for long -range planning,
because people are not vested.
He is also concerned about the watersheds if one has to build to existing
codes. Any gradients over 12 percent in this county need to be asphalted. There is
a concern about that in the watershed. They should not make the assumption that
every exemption needs to have road constructed at this time and to this standard.
Tom Brown, 7024 Mount Baker Highway, stated this is a great assault on
property owners by the County. Mr. Isaacson summarized all his points well.
Everything is triggered when the land is developed. He questioned the problem
with letting someone get a piece of ground, take four or five years to clean up a
building site on it, and then someday be able to afford to build a house on there. It
may cost more in the long run, but the person will not pay interest to the bank, and
it will not cost the person a fortune to do it at this time. He questioned where the
five -year restriction came from, and suggested a restriction of 18 months instead.
If a person who is gifted a piece of property gets involved in a divorce, that
property cannot be sold to settle a divorce. The property would have to be
forfeited. He did not agree with the rush on gift exemption applications, but gifting
the parcel allows one to vest the zoning that is there. Part of the process in this
county is that a person cannot buy into the existing zoning and be guaranteed that
zoning in the future, because the zoning can change as the County Council
changes. It can be changed as the County staff changes. That is the problem with
short - platting. That is also the reason that people are logging right now. If they
don't harvest timber or develop land now, they will never be allowed to. A person
should be allowed to sell his or her gift deed. There is no impact to doing that. The
County makes money from every parcel created. The County is gaining revenues
and is not putting out any services for that empty parcel.
The County often joins with the Land Trust to create spaces where hundreds
or thousands of people visit. He asked what kind of mitigation the County required
of itself and the people who donated that land for future development. The County
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 14
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
made the people who are living on that road do voluntary mitigation donation to
improve the road. The County exempts itself, and the few people it works with
have to carry the burden.
He wanted to hear someone cite the accident history of these roads that are
causing problems. He supports having reasonable ingress and egress. The
standard is not affordable. It is not affordable housing. They need to have an
access. He was shocked by the $200 fee, which doesn't cover the cost of
engineering. The applicant has to produce the deed history, drawing of the land,
and every bit of information that is needed. All the engineer has to do is go
through the information to follow the deed trail. The Engineering Division can
simply see where the access and easements are. It should not take more than an
hour.
The state site requirement is 1,200 feet in either direction, or about a half
mile. If the County is going to take a voluntary mitigation fee equal to the cost of
building a County road for a half mile, it is very expensive.
Brenner stated it is a half million dollars.
Brown stated that not everyone is a crook. Most people have done it for
good honest reasons, and should not be penalized.
Crawford stated there are two perspectives on the purpose of the gift
exemption. One purpose is for generations of the same family to all live together,
such as the Waltons. A second reason is for providing financial security. The land
becomes a piece of a financial issue that needs to be resolved through divorce or
death. He questioned whether the "Walton" idea is really what this is all about, and
what people want. Brown stated the "Walton" idea deals strictly with agricultural
land.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brown continued to state that it was made available for a family to get
started on. It wasn't a requirement for them to stay. Most people don't have
money to give their children, and instead give land. Make the restriction one or two
years, not five years. That would still stop this misuse of the gift exemption.
McShane moved to recommend adoption of the staff's recommended version
on Council packet page 198.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend subsection (6)(f) on packet page 198, "...of receiving
it, except in the case of death or divorce within the immediate family, unless a long
subdivision has been approved...." The language refers to the person receiving the
gift. If someone receives a lot as a gift, and if one of their family members dies or
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 15
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
he or she divorces, this restriction should not apply if they need to sell the
property. She is just talking about the person receiving the gift exemption.
Crawford stated it creates an enforcement challenge. It is more enforceable
to reduce the number of years the restriction is in force.
Hoag stated that the point of having the five -year restriction was to keep it a
family exemption. If that timeframe is reduced, the gift exemption becomes a
development tool. The only objection she ever heard to the five -year restriction
was in the case of a death or divorce.
Brenner stated five years is arbitrary, and she would like to see it reduced.
She liked the motion. There should not be a timeframe if there is a hardship.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag questioned why Councilmember McShane opposed.
McShane stated he concurred that it would be difficult to administer. It is a
risk of the gift exemption. He is not that enamoured with the gift exemption, but
he is not willing to get rid of it.
Crawford moved to amend all references in sections (6)(d) and (6)(f) from
five years to 18 months.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to add the words from the Planning Commission to section
(6)(d), "...binding site plan procedure, except for any further gift exemptions." If
the zoning is already there for a certain density, the owner didn't initially do a gift
exemption for that full density, and the person receiving the gift exemption wants
to come back later, then there is no problem. The density wouldn't be any different
if the person does it after the gift is received. What they are talking about does not
change the zoning density.
McShane stated there are many water issues that the gift exemption doesn't
address. They end up with lots that may not be good lots. Those questions are not
answered at the time the lots are given. That potentially defeats the purpose of the
zoning.
Hoag stated the gift exemption recipients then come in for variances.
McShane stated that is the way the Technical Advisory Committee
recommended eliminating all gift exemptions.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
McShane moved to accept the Engineering Division's request, "(f) All lots in
such divisions shall access onto maintained public roads constructed to current
minimum road standards for two -way traffic." The current section (f) would
become a new section (g). He has concerns about creating lots with water
problems, and in those cases, the recipient should be beware. In this case, this has
an impact on everyone and creates an unfair advantage.
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
McShane stated this committee did not succeed in amending the staff
recommendation, which will go before the full Council as it is. This issue would be
scheduled for a public hearing on May 29, 2001. It will not be scheduled for the
Planning Committee.
Crawford stated he did not support the staff's recommended version.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/15/2001, Page 17