HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 17 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 17, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Absent:
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
McShane stated he would not participate in the second item scheduled on the
agenda, due to a conflict of interest.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 20.36, RURAL DISTRICT, TO CLEARLY
DEFINE THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN A
CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR
LOCATING CLUSTER LOTS WITHIN A RURAL SUBDIVISION WHICH
COVERS MORE THAN ONE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2001 -129)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Land Use Division
staff suggested this item. There have been amendments to what the staff initially
suggested. The Growth Management Hearings Board found that it was inconsistent
with the Growth Management Act to have planned unit developments outside of
urban growth areas. That is how they used to handle situations in which there was
more than one zoning district that went through one property. If a property
straddled two districts, the owner went through a planned unit development (PUD).
The owner could put some of the lots allowed in one zone into the other zone by
crossing the zoning boundary line. Now that they can no longer do PUD's outside of
urban growth areas, it has created a few problems, which is what this ordinance
would address. As it was proposed, it would allow the lots from any Rural zone to
be put in any other Rural zone. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended
that they not put the density from a Rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) lot onto a
Rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) lot. It could create a change in character of the
neighborhood. The Planning Commission and staff recommend allowing density to
be transferred from R5A or R10A, but not from R2A, as described in section
20.36.310(5)(b) on packet page 68. If they take two -acre density, and put it
against five- or ten -acre density, there could be complaints about increased
density.
Another issue is that they are looking at the agriculture protection overlay
(APO) district. They tried to have this consistent with APO by adding 20.36.310(6).
It is consistent with what was in the APO, but the Council recommended changing
the APO to allow 16 residential lots. She recommended changing this to allow 16
Planning and Development Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
48
residential lots also. If the Council has a hearing on the APO, and talks about the
issue of 16 versus ten residential cluster subdivision lot, that would cover it. They
may need to have a hearing on both at the same time.
Hoag stated they also need to change section 20.36.310(7) because the
Council changed the buffers. Goodwin agreed. They could hold this item for a
public hearing on the same night as they hear the APO.
Hoag stated this ordinance may or may not apply to areas in the APO.
Goodwin stated that was correct.
Hoag stated she was concerned about wells not being within 50 feet. She
asked if there is a reason for a structure to be more than 50 feet away from an
agricultural use. Goodwin stated there is no reason other than having a dairy or
feed lot next to a property line.
Hoag asked if this covers areas where the wells are. Goodwin stated it does
not. It is covered in the APO and also in the Health Department regulations. A
cluster subdivision will be a higher density than what people are used to in Rural
zones. They thought that, by putting them 30 feet from any exterior property line
and 50 feet from adjacent agricultural property, they would not create a conflict
where the new houses encroach on the property lines and other existing uses.
McShane stated that section 20.36.310(7) is redundant with what is in APO.
Goodwin stated it is. It is in this ordinance for consistency. They could change it to
100 feet.
McShane moved to amend language in 20.36.310(7), "...minimum of S0 100
feet from...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend language in 20.36.310(6), "...no more than ter
sixteen residential lots...."
Hoag asked how the total density is calculated. Goodwin stated they take
the acreage at each density and multiply them together.
Hoag asked about overlaying the density. Goodwin stated that the total
density of combining two lots in two different zones could be put together partially
or in whole on one lot or the other. They can't exceed the total density allowed
with the zoning.
Hoag asked what overlaying density refers to. Goodwin stated they could
move some of the units from one density zone to the other zone. They still have to
have the exact same overall density or less, but there is flexibility on where the
units can be located.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
Hoag questioned what prevents the rest of the acreage from being developed
later. Goodwin stated a note is recorded on the reserve tract of the subdivision.
Hoag asked if this language refers to a deed restriction on the parcels.
Goodwin stated it is required in another section of the code, WCC 20.36.315,
regarding the exempt cluster tract. The note stays on the deed unless it is
rezoned, and it can't be removed unless the overall property is rezoned or there is
agreement with the County.
Hoag asked why the Growth Management Hearings Board determined that
they could not have PUD's outside of urban growth areas. Goodwin stated a PUD
allows different uses, such as commercial uses or a higher density. The Hearings
Board was also concerned that there was no maximum amount of units that could
be in one cluster. It was concerned about too many residences being in one area
or a commercial development.
Hoag asked if clusters have been before the Growth Management Hearings
Board. Goodwin stated they have not.
Hoag stated she would not support the motion.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Goodwin stated she would find out from legal counsel if they need to have a
public hearing.
McShane moved to recommend the ordinance as amended.
Hoag asked what the County is trying to do by adopting this. Goodwin
stated one example is the situation with the Shuksan golf course. The PUD
ordinance was taken away after the golf course was already built. It doesn't fit to
put the number of houses on the R5A, and only put the units for the R10A acreage
on the R10A acres. The most suitable and accessible locations left for the houses
are on the ten -acre zoning. There are other examples. If zoning divides a large
parcel, it would be more efficient to design the cluster with the units on the ten -
acre zone rather than the five -acre zone.
Hoag stated she was concerned that it would apply to everyone. If someone
puts in 16 residences clustered on large pieces of land, it flies in the face of what
they are trying to do with planning. Goodwin stated the subdivision and cluster
ordinances already allow that, and there isn't a limit on the number. There are few
instances of large parcels zoned R5A or R10A, so not many would fall under this.
Most parcels that would fall under this are 40 acres. It would be more valuable for
a neighbor to be next to a golf course with small lots than next to five -acre lots
with one house in the middle of each.
Don Kehrer, land use consultant, stated one can do a cluster subdivision
anywhere in the Rural zones right now. One is not going to get any additional units
Planning and Development Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
beyond what one is entitled to, per the zoning. The effect of this would be to allow
cluster subdivisions where they are not allowed now. If one chooses to fall under
that provision, one can cluster the combined lots with the most flexibility. Density
doesn't increase. The other effect is to limit the clusters to sixteen residential lots,
where there isn't a limit now. The benefit of having the increased location flexibility
is to locate in areas that are not environmentally sensitive.
Hoag stated it increases the density for parcels zoned R10A. Kehrer stated
that would happen, but only in a cluster.
McShane stated that overall there would be a vast area of open space left.
Kehrer stated that if it is done as a long -plat, it goes through the Hearing
Examiner process. The neighbors would get notified. It is also subject to the state
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process. If it is a short -plat, only four lots are
allowed.
Hoag asked if removing the option to transfer R5A density to R10A would gut
the intent. Kehrer stated it would for his client, Shuksan golf course.
Hoag stated that if there is Hearing Examiner review, it is only reviewed for
whether the subdivision meets the criteria. Kehrer stated that if there are impacts
to neighbors, there could be mitigation, such as locating it in another area of the
parcel. Because they are dealing with R5A and R10A areas, they are dealing with
low density. One would have to have a lot of acreage to make an impact.
Hoag asked if anything would prevent someone from buying up different
parcels and creating a large development. Kehrer stated one could still do that
right now.
Hoag asked if the application automatically gets a public hearing. Kehrer
stated it does if there are over four residences.
McShane restated the motion to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (GC) FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES AT THE
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST SMITH ROAD AND GUIDE
MERIDIAN (AB2001 -130)
McShane stated he would not participate in the discussion due to a financial
conflict of interest.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this property is shown on
a map on packet page 89. It is a proposal to change zoning from Light Impact
Planning and Development Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
Industrial (LII) to General Commercial for about six acres. The zoning boundary
does not follow the property boundary. The proposal is to make the subject
property General Commercial.
Hoag asked the location of buildings. Goodwin stated the buildings are in the
two parcels adjacent to Smith Road and the Guide Meridian. As the Guide is
widened, the businesses on the corner don't have room to relocate. There are also
topography issues. Access would be an issue, and Smith Road will have to be
widened at the same time.
Hoag asked if the property to the north is owned by the same person.
Goodwin stated it is. They don't know what businesses would go in. The parcel to
the west is a different owner, but the two owners are working together.
The staff recommendation is to rezone part of the northerly parcel, but not
all of it. The concern is that it is in the Deer Creek Water Association area, with a
limited amount of water. The water association stated it doesn't have sufficient
water to serve a greater demand. The existing owner is already using more water
than allocated. However, the owner could develop a low water use. Staff
recommended in favor of rezoning half the parcel to relocate the business only.
The staff recommendation is option one of the staff report.
The Planning Commission recommended rezoning the entire parcel, and let
the water district deal with the water shares. Another Planning Commission issue is
that it is not necessarily true that LII will use less water than General Commercial
(GC). There is a changed condition of the road construction and the need to
relocate the buildings. The proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(GMA) and Comprehensive Plan. The only issue is whether the Council wants to go
with the entire property or part of the property.
Hoag asked if there may be a shortage of LII. Goodwin stated there is a
shortage of fully serviced industrial land in the county, particularly parcels that
have access to water and sewer. They don't have a shortage of this type of LII.
Steven McBee, property owner to the west of the subject parcel, stated that
he and Mr. O'Neill are planning to put the properties together. Any redevelopment
will have to be to the west or north. The lay of the land is such that there is going
to have to be a lot of earth moved around to develop the properties. Given the
amount of available land, they need the entire parcel rezoned to GC to get the
funding needed to develop the property.
Mr. O'Neill currently has two water shares. He also has two water shares.
That should be sufficient to handle any development.
Hoag asked if they currently use the two shares. McBee stated they do. His
business uses only a few hundred cubic feet per month.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 4/17/2001, 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
McBee stated that Mr. O'Neill has a high use now, but it is due to old pipes.
That situation would change with the new building. The water issue has been
overblown by Deer Creek Water Association. Four commercial water shares should
be enough. They will both lose portions of their properties. It is viable to
redevelop the land if the entire parcel was rezoned to GC.
Hoag asked if the tax rate is different on bare land between LII and GC.
Goodwin stated she was not sure. The property value may be slightly more for GC,
but there are variables.
Hoag asked where Mr. McBee would draw the line if there could only be 2.4
acres that are rezoned. McBee stated the only spot is to the north. There are
issues of wetlands there also. Unless they get the rezone, nothing will happen in
the way of development. He will continue to operate in his commercial zone, and
Mr. O'Neill will probably have to sell his property. The lenders require GC zoning to
make development of the property viable.
Hoag stated she would bring the issue to the full Council with no
recommendation from the committee. If the Council determines to rezone only half
the parcel, then it would need to have a public hearing.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:57 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, 4/17/2001, Page 6