HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 22 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 22, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON
WERRE FOR " "HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089)
Crawford moved to recommend concurrence with the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated the committee has the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation. He was available to help with any technical
questions.
Hoag stated one issue raised by the City was why they would approve this
prior to a water and sewer agreement. She questioned whether the County code
addressed this. Middleton stated that in the past, it was a condition of approval. It
is the same with road construction in terms of fire protection. It is not unusual for
the County to proceed without the water approval in hand. A water service
agreement with the City typically takes a year or more. The County's planned unit
development (PUD) process is done in 120 days. The city had opportunity to
comment, which they did, and they have not said they have an issue with the
water. The PUD will still have to have water prior to development.
Hoag questioned what the code says. She wanted to make sure they are
following the code, regardless of what the County's practice has been.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated she would look into it.
Hoag asked if there is a definition of the Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX)
zone. Middleton stated the definition is in Title 20. It is a newer zone, written
jointly by the County and the City. They've been struggling with it ever since.
Brenner stated she objected to the zoning because there is no predictability.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
Hoag stated the subarea shows it in the urban fringe. She questioned
whether the recent Growth Management decision on the Birchwood Neighborhood
affects this. Frakes stated it doesn't.
Hoag questioned whether this is in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Middleton
stated it is not.
Brenner stated this proposal is predictable. She liked it. What is allowed in
the UR -MX zone is a mishmash of things. This particular project is not a mishmash.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Planning Commission
just had a hearing and is considering making changes to the UR -MX zone. It won't
solve all the problems, but will be better defined.
Middleton stated Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.85.204(2) defines
the application regulation. A letter from the service purveyor indicating the
availability and the requirements for the service is required in the application. The
PUD is in the water service area. If it wasn't in the service area, the County
wouldn't accept the application until they are either in a service area or have water
in hand from a water association. If they are in the water service area, by law they
have to be served. The water line runs right through the middle of Mr. Werre's
property, so the County wasn't concerned with water availability.
Brenner questioned whether water can be denied if the water line runs
through the property. Frakes stated she didn't know.
Hoag stated she believed the code required that there must be an agreement
prior to application. Middleton stated it is in the service area.
Hoag stated the code refers to a specific letter that has to be in the
application. She questioned whether it was included in the application. Middleton
stated he would let the project's engineer answer that question.
Brenner stated the only thing the applicant has to prove is availability.
Middleton stated the applicant only has to show that water is available, not that
they have a contract.
Pat Jones, Jones' Engineers, stated he represented the applicant. The city is
in the process of preparing the agreement for extension of services. They have a
lot of work to do, so they move slowly. The property has a water transmission line
and a sanitary sewer line passing through the middle of it that will service Fire
District #4's new facilities. It is inconceivable that the city, in their due time, will
not formulate an onerous contract that they will negotiate with the owner. If the
intent of the city is not to provide water, then the fire district will not get water and
sewer. However, they are already building their buildings. The reality is the PUD is
in the service area. The water and sewer is going through the development. The
city staff has concurred with almost everything. They believe in much impervious
surface. The Hearing Examiner set an appropriate condition and made the decision
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
to move it forward. They can't build the project until they have the contract
worked out with the City of Bellingham. The project can't go anywhere until the
contract is negotiated.
Hoag questioned whether the application contained the letter that is required
by the County code. Jones stated there isn't a letter from the city that says the city
will unequivocally provide water and sewer service.
Hoag questioned what would be required in a letter, according to what the
code requires. Jones stated it is about availability of water, which comes in many
forms.
Frakes stated those items that have to be in the application are something
that staff looks at to determine if there is a complete application. At this juncture,
it is too late to decide if the application was complete.
Hoag stated they are being asked to approve the application, and it was an
issue raised by the City of Bellingham. She wanted to make sure they are following
the code. She concurred that providing water wouldn't be a problem, but she
wanted to comply with the code.
Frakes stated they don't need to have the contract, they need to have some
indication. When one is within a service area, it is assumed.
Hoag stated the code specifies the requirement of a letter. If that is there,
then it overrules the objection of the City. If it is not there, then there is a
problem.
Crawford stated the Hearing Examiner did not suggest they give a blanket
approval. The Hearing Examiner provided a condition. He clarified his motion was
to approve the application with the same conditions the Hearing Examiner
recommended. That included the need for the water agreement. They are dealing
with the intent of the code to mitigate the concerns.
Hoag stated that when they talk about the intent of the code, they look at
how the code is applied. They have to at least comply with the code. The problem
is that they can't approve the application if it doesn't comply with the code.
Crawford stated the Hearing Examiner's condition #2 was that there was no
further development until such an agreement has been completed. The Hearing
Examiner is making certain that code is enforced.
Hoag stated it might not be within the Hearing Examiner's ability to do that,
if the code doesn't allow it.
Brenner stated the code says the applicant only has to prove the availability
of water. When the applicant gets to the point of construction, he has to have a
contract.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
Middleton stated the code requires a letter of availability. There is no letter
from the City of Bellingham in the file. The Council will have to decide whether or
not to uphold the Hearing Examiner, who reviewed that section of the code and
decided to approve the project as conditioned.
Hoag asked what would happen if they delayed it. Middleton stated WCC
section 2.33 requires the County to make a decision within 120 days of the
application.
Hoag questioned where they were at in the timetable. Middleton stated they
are at that deadline.
Hoag questioned the date the application was filed. Middleton stated he
could look into it.
Hoag stated she wanted to know if there was any reason they couldn't hold
this until the next meeting to make sure the letter is on file, so they are complying
with the code. She didn't have any objection to the application other than it
appears they are not complying with the code. Because the City of Bellingham has
brought that to their attention, it doesn't seem prudent to proceed if they know
they are in violation of the County code.
Jones stated this is a dual application. What is before the Council is a
planned unit development. The total application is a subdivision plat
simultaneously processed with a PUD. The preliminary plat does not come before
the Council. The Hearing Examiner decides it. They could go ahead with Hearing
Examiner's approval of the preliminary plat and ignore the fact that they are a PUD,
which has some technical benefits. However, they are asking for preliminary PUD
approval. In many respects, approval is almost redundant.
Brenner stated the availability is there. She understood they are supposed
to follow process, but with or without a letter, they know there is availability. It is
disturbing that the City can hold up an application just because they can, and the
County delays applicants who are operating in good faith when there is no possible
way it is not in a service area. They have a problem. It doesn't go against the
intent of the code. The intent of the code is what the code is about. She had a
problem delaying this.
Hoag stated she didn't doubt there is water availability. However, just
because one is in a service area and there is water line running through, it doesn't
mean water is available. If there is a way they can do this in a lawful manner,
there is no reason to proceed in an unlawful manner.
McShane stated the applicant did not go for maximum density at this
location. He questioned the reason for that. Jones stated they have, on a number
of applications, found that the City of Bellingham does not necessarily agree with
the County's notion of density in the UR -MX zone. The person with the water
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
makes the rules. All the County's development standards and zoning requirements
in the urban fringe are irrelevant. They have to do it the City's way. The density is
an artifact of the City's perspective. They look at what they think the proper
density should be, not what the County zones.
Brenner questioned whether they would increase the density if the City
allowed it. Jones stated they probably would.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a break at 3:30 p.m. for five minutes.)
Hoag asked if the proponent would be willing to delay this for two weeks so
they can have a letter on file to satisfy the code requirement. Jones stated the
applicant is unable to move on this until the contract with the City of Bellingham for
water is done. To the extent that the Council would feel comfortable, delaying it
has no practical impact on the applicant other than having to pay their consultant
to come back to the Council.
Hoag asked if they could delay it for two weeks. Jones stated Mr. Werre
made his application to Bellingham in 1998. As a practical matter, it has no impact
on his project if the Council acts or doesn't act. What they are doing is ritualistic.
Hoag asked if Jones was all right with delaying the decision for two weeks.
Jones stated he was. To the extent it would fall within the time limit, they would
waiver that aspect of it.
Brenner asked if waiting for two weeks would guarantee they would have a
letter. Jones stated it would not. The City Council has their first reading with staff
recommendations, which were in support, on February 28. They have to have
three readings.
Hoag stated it would increase the pressure on the City of Bellingham to
supply them with the letter.
McShane referred to item nine on the Hearing Examiner decision, packet
page 153. They have a couple of lots in which they are unsure if they are
buildable. Jones stated they have a geo- technical report. They cannot get into the
specifics of site development until they do the actual site development. An
appropriate condition is that those particular sites have a site - specific report when
one begins to develop the site.
McShane stated he was concerned because he didn't know how steep the
slope really is. They are being asked to approve a potential project that includes 50
lots. Jones stated whenever they approve plats, they don't know exactly where
someone will site a house. There may be a lot that has unbuildable portions. The
appropriate thing is to require a special report of the plan at the building permit
level.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
McShane stated he wanted to make sure there are buildable lots. Jones
stated there are buildable lots, but some of the lots may have unbuildable portions.
McShane stated the report did not assure that the lots were buildable. Jones
stated the question was whether the slopes were stable. They would not anticipate
that someone would be inclined to build over the slopes. To the extent that comes
about, the lot would have special treatment.
McShane stated that based on that type of soil, he doubted whether there is
a deep- seated landslide possibility there, but it wasn't evaluated. Middleton stated
Goldthorp and Guenther reviewed it. He has been on the site several times. They
are all geologists. There isn't any area that they feel is unbuildable, however there
are individual sites for which they want to see the review done again at the time of
the building permit application. When they condition the plat, it puts on a notice for
the purchaser.
McShane questioned whether this whole issue would be brought forward if
there was any uncertainty that there were unbuildable lots. Middleton stated it
would not.
Hoag asked for clarification on the UR -MX zone. Middleton stated the UR -MX
zone allows for almost everything if certain criteria are met. He read from the
purpose statement in WCC section 20.24.010.
Hoag asked how they see if the applications accomplish the goals of the
purpose statements. Middleton stated they try to see if it meets all the goals, but
that has been difficult. It was a good idea to allow people to do what the market
allows for, but there are functionality problems. The City has stated they will only
approve residential uses in the UR -MX zone.
Hoag spoke against the motion because the applicant was willing to wait.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor and McShane abstaining.
Hoag moved to hold in committee, pending receipt of the letter that is
required by the County code. The code requires the letter from the water server.
The City objected to approval because of that. The Council is not following its own
code. The applicant said he is willing to wait until they have the letter in the file. If
there are codes that lay out certain processes, they should be followed.
Brenner stated the code also assumes that the responsible parties will
operate in good faith. Mr. Werre's proposal has been on the backburner for a while.
Two weeks will not change whether or not the City will provide that letter. They
know the city has enough water. The only thing in question is whether the pipes
are big enough to serve the proposed density in the area. Jones stated he designed
the pipes. They are big enough to provide service.
Hoag stated the code requires a letter, not assumptions.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
Motion to hold in committee carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY JACK LAIRD
FOR " "TOAD CREEK VISTA" (PUD99 -0001) (AB2000 -090)
Pat Jones, Jones' Engineers, stated they are comfortable with the Hearing
Examiner's recommendations. They have a will -serve letter from the City of
Bellingham, and the city is going to have to trespass on Mr. Werre's property to
provide the water.
Hoag asked about the findings and conclusions on packet page 194. Under
the project description, it says the property is bisected by Toad Creek, which is
located in the southwest corner of the property. It also says there are two
wetlands consisting of 3,199 square feet that are located on the northern portion of
the property. It also says that an assessment revealed there are no proposed
impacts to streams or wetlands. She questioned whether the report verifies that
the project is far enough away from those areas that it will not impact them. Jones
stated the 3,000 square feet of wetlands is an interpretive thing. They are not
jurisdictional wetlands. The spirit of the answer was that they are not touching the
jurisdictional wetlands. They are staying out of the stream corridor. The setbacks
exceed required setback.
Hoag asked if the project area is near the stream. Jones stated that is a
qualitative statement.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned whether the stream is in a portion of the property they are
not dealing with. Jones stated that was correct. The stream is separate and
distanced from the property lines by 100 feet. There will not be construction or
drainage in that area.
Hoag asked about a geo- technical note being placed on the face of the plat
for lot 12. Jones stated it just says that if someone wants to go beyond the clear
building area, a geo - technical report will have to be done that is site - specific. The
note will say that any building activity beyond a certain line will require a geo -tech
report.
Hoag asked about language at the top of page 195, regarding numbering.
She didn't see that in the conditions. Jones stated they are required to put street
addresses on each lot.
Middleton stated that language refers to the addresses.
Hoag stated it has to be a condition of approval, but it is not in the Hearing
Examiner's conditions. Middleton stated the Hearing Examiner does not put
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
46
47
48
49
redundant statements in his conditions. If state law requires a condition, it is not
repeated in the PUD. It doesn't need to be a condition of approval.
Brenner stated both applications were posted at the same time. Jones stated
Mr. Werre's application to the city was submitted a year earlier.
Brenner asked why the application that was filed later received a letter from
the City of Bellingham. Jones stated Mr. Werre was perceived by the City of
Bellingham to be difficult to work with.
Crawford moved to recommend approval of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations.
Brenner stated the city is saying they don't have the time, but they had the
time to process the request for the application that was filed later.
Hoag stated that is a complaint with the City, not the County.
Brenner stated that wasn't true. The biggest concern from the County's
constituents is that are stuck in urban growth areas are that they are in a no -mans
land. They can't vote in the city. The County councilmembers are their
representatives. The councilmembers have to ensure fairness.
McShane referred to page 209 of the Council packet, which is a fax from
Doug Goldthorp to Marilyn Bentley regarding this issue. He questioned why lots 20
and 21 were left out. Jones stated the staff geologist had arbitrarily set a slope as
the criteria that he wanted to look at. The other two lots are flatter, compared to
that criteria.
McShane asked about the erosion rate on Toad Creek. Middleton stated it is
pretty stable. They want to take a look at the homes when the permit applications
come in. They don't want any new homes to add to the situation.
McShane questioned whether Middleton believed that Toad Creek currently
would erode the bank much. Middleton stated he did not.
Hoag asked why they decided not to ask for the note on lots 15 through 19.
Jones stated the Hearing Examiner's conclusion led the staff to take it off the other
lots following the report that Austin Wong prepared for the County.
Middleton stated that was correct. There was a lengthy public hearing before
the Hearing Examiner. He recommended that the Council look at the Hearing
Examiner's file.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
49
50
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83 AND 20.38 REGARDING
NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, brought maps of key areas in the
County that have many nonconforming lots that have been consolidated. There is
an Oak Park addition to Blaine that was platted in 1890. It is in the city's aquifer
recharge area. There are 336 lots under 38 owners. It is now zoned rural one unit
per ten acres (R10). There is no physical road access.
Hoag asked if these were consolidated under the previous lot consolidation
ordinance, and if they would become unconsolidated if the Council gets rid of the
ordinance. Goodwin stated that was correct.
Goodwin stated the lots are 25 feet wide by 125 feet deep, which is
approximately .07 acres, or 2,000 square feet. One could physically put a
singlewide trailer on each lot and still meet setbacks.
Another area was in the Drayton Harbor watershed and consisted of 288
acres. More than 50 percent of the area is wetlands. There are 11 owners. It was
platted in 1911. The lot sizes are 25 feet wide by 125 feet deep.
Another area is on the top of Galbreath Mountain. There are 360 lots under
one ownership. It is zoned Rural Forestry and Commercial Forestry. There is no
road access, and it is extremely steep.
Another area is above Fairhaven and consists of 435 lots with 12 owners. The
lot sizes are mostly 25 feet wide by 125 feet deep. It is above Yew Street. It is on
steep slopes.
Brenner stated the lots that are not in an urban growth area would not have
the ability to have a septic system, well, and other things they need to have.
Goodwin stated that was correct, however they could do a community drain field to
serve four or more lots together, or they could park one recreational vehicle (RV)
on each lot. The law says that a person could have one RV per lot of record.
Brenner stated that, even with a community drain field, they would not end
up with the density that is platted. Goodwin stated it would be difficult, but it's
possible. One could put in 360 singlewide trailers, with five -foot side yard
separations, and a community drain field that serves the entire area. However, it is
highly unlikely.
Dawson stated that any lot that was only 25 feet wide poses a health and
safety hazard regarding fire protection.
Brenner stated that is why they should make it dependent upon health and
safety issues, and not a one -size fits all requirement.
Goodwin stated there is another area in Silver Beach. It is 348 lots with 42
different owners. The lot sizes are .17 acres. They are 125 feet wide by 60 feet
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
49
50
deep, and are a little wider. These could each be developed. The issue here is that
they are in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Dawson stated that area would need a proper storm system. Goodwin stated
that there was no attention given to stormwater, steep slopes, or wetlands in those
days. The Silver Beach area is all on hydric soils, which means onsite septic
systems will not work, and stormwater will run off rather than soak in.
Goodwin stated the committee had asked for information regarding the
number of lots that had been consolidated. They do not have that information, and
it would be very time - consuming to determine the amount because the assessing
records are not tied into the geographic information system (GIS) system. In
1995, a student intern counted the number of lots in selected areas. There are a
little over 1,000 in those select areas, and several thousand countywide, that are
currently consolidated. Three hundred and sixty lots are under one ownership.
There are not a lot of people that are affected.
Hoag questioned whether the lots platted prior to 1959 would be left alone.
Goodwin stated the lots platted after 1959 have followed current subdivision
regulations and are not consolidated. Also, they are proposing to change the date
to 1955. Most of the ones that are consolidated were platted around the turn of the
century. She submitted two substitute ordinances. The task was to try to catch
the lots that are very small and /or in wetlands and critical areas. The first
substitute ordinance was co- created by Councilmember Brenner. No lots would be
consolidated unless the criteria on page four of the ordinance are met. That means
everyone in the Lake Whatcom watershed overlay or other areas would still be
consolidated. The rest would not if they could have water and sewer systems.
That would address some of the issues, but would leave some to be decided by the
Assessor. The question would be how the Assessor would know whether there is a
40 -foot by 40 -foot lot, or whether they have a County- approved sewer system.
Hoag summarized that one wouldn't be consolidated if he or she had a 40 -foot
by 40 -foot building site and was not located in one of the special areas. Goodwin
stated that was correct.
Hoag questioned whether Drayton Harbor was established as a water resource
protection overlay district. Goodwin stated they did not. They made it a
stormwater special district. They would have to have a 40 -foot by 40 -foot site
outside of the critical areas.
Hoag questioned what a designated critical area referred to. Goodwin stated
it refers to an area designated according to the County's Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO).
Crawford questioned whether they should require a county- approved sewer
system at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Goodwin stated the intent was
that, if they could get one, they wouldn't consolidate.
Brenner stated there were comments attributed to Goodwin that said any type
of water or sewer system could be considered. That is why she wanted it to be a
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
49
50
51
county- approved system. If an owner can't get those approved systems, then he
or she couldn't develop the lot.
Goodwin stated the second proposal is the same concept. It is simpler by not
having the language, "at least one of the following...." The conditions (a) through
(d) are the same as the ones that are there now. Condition (e) says that anything
under one acre would be consolidated if it doesn't meet the zoning. It also allows
for staff to look at these and determine if sections .072(1) through .072(3) would
apply.
Brenner stated that the administrative approval condition was supposed to
also be in the first substitute ordinance. Goodwin stated section .072 requires the
zoning administrator to grant consolidation relief, instead of just considering
granting relief, if section .072(2) is met.
Brenner questioned the difference between the two substitute ordinances.
Goodwin stated the difference is that substitute ordinance two requires an
administrative review process, so that if the lot is under one acre, it goes to staff,
who looks at the three criteria. They get more scrutiny than if the Assessor were to
automatically consolidate. She also added section .072(3) regarding road access.
Brenner stated she didn't have any problem with section .072(3). Everyone
has to have the length and width of their parcel. It is on record at the Assessor's
Office. If it is a lot of record, those numbers are there. She questioned why
Goodwin was concerned that someone would have a 40 -foot by 40 -foot lot, if they
don't. Goodwin stated she was not concerned about that. The Assessor's Office
generally does not have accurate zoning on their parcel maps. Also, they don't
have critical areas maps. If the lot is under an acre, it gets administrative review
so staff can look at the criteria. If the lot can meet the criteria, then it would not
be consolidated.
Hoag stated that the two substitutes are essentially identical. She asked the
difference between the two. Goodwin stated the difference is that they are
consolidated, and then are granted relief, if they look at the criteria. The other
difference is that they have to have road access.
Hoag stated she liked the road access requirement. She didn't understand
the reason for having the original requirements if they are going to turn around and
allow relief if these criteria apply. She questioned whether that only happens if
someone requests relief. Goodwin stated that was correct. The owners would have
to request the relief. It puts the ball in the applicant's court, so they need to bring
in and demonstrate that they have water and sewer, that they have a building site
on each lot, and that they have road access.
Brenner stated it would save money if the applicant has to do this, rather than
having staff do this work. Goodwin stated the administrative fee of $125 should
cover a couple hours of staff time to look at the issues.
Hoag stated she was concerned because of the possibility of the lots
developing that are not in the cities or the urban growth areas. The County will
have to supply them with Sheriff and other services. They are zoned as they are
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
48
49
50
51
for a reason. If something has been undeveloped since 1890, and doesn't match
the zoning, it will cause a tremendous impact if they are allowed to develop if they
have a 40 -foot by 40 -foot building site.
Brenner stated very few lots will fall into that scenario, compared to all the
lots that are in critical areas, in the watershed, and in other critical places. This
doesn't apply to agriculture or forestry zones, which are the most rural. This
applies to lots that are substandard for today's lots, but will not be hurt if they are
developed. It is in areas that are not going to be bothered by development.
Hoag stated rural areas would be hurt if 300+ platted lots are developed.
Brenner stated there aren't that many.
Hoag asked Goodwin to find all the rural examples. Goodwin stated she
would look through her information. There are examples in rural areas.
Hoag questioned whether Whatcom County Code section 20.84.235, as
referenced in the substitute ordinance, is the conditional use criteria. Goodwin
stated it is. Everywhere else, the conditional use criteria is used to judge
administrative approvals.
Hoag questioned why they would not want it in this ordinance. The
conditional use criteria take into account whether the use will have a negative
impact on the surrounding area. Goodwin stated this is a compromise. Her
preference was that they adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that
they first wrote. Knowing that is not going to happen, she tried to look at the
critical issues. In her opinion, the critical issues are whether each lot has road
access, whether there is a building site outside the critical area, and whether there
is water and sewer. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, traffic, and
public services are also critical issues.
Hoag stated they are very critical issues. Goodwin stated they are not as
critical.
Hoag questioned who suggested it be removed. The language removing the
criteria is new. Goodwin stated that language has been in all of the proposed
drafts, including the Planning Commission draft. Substitute ordinance two is a staff
compromise. She hoped it would be something everyone would agree on.
Dawson suggested increasing the 40 -foot by 40 -foot requirement to 60 -foot
by 60 -foot, for fire safety reasons. Goodwin stated she would also be in favor of
making it bigger.
Brenner stated she would support the 60 -foot by 60 -foot requirement. Her
concern was that, at 40 -foot by 40 -foot, the house would have to be a lot smaller.
It would discourage some people from building on their lot. The County doesn't
owe someone the right to build a mansion on his or her lot. If the lot requirement
is 60 -foot by 60 -foot, they will probably have more people building on those lots.
She would do it either way.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
49
Hoag stated requiring the lot size to be 40 -foot by 40 -foot would include more
lots.
Brenner stated the maximum square footage of a house on a 40 -foot by 40-
foot lot would be 800 square feet. A lot of people will be discouraged from
developing the lot if the biggest house they can have is only 800 square feet.
Hoag stated Brenner's proposed language only says that if there is a 40 -foot
by 40 -foot site available, they cannot be consolidated. That also means that a
larger building site will also not be consolidated. There is nothing that restricts
them.
Crawford moved to accept substitute ordinance number two, with the
amendment to item .072(2) on page 5, "...at least " sixty feet wide and €et
sixty feet deep, on each lot...."
Hoag stated she wanted to break that into two motions.
Crawford rescinded his previous motion and moved to amend substitute
ordinance number two, section .072(2) on page 5, "...at least " sixty feet wide
and " sixty feet deep, on each lot...."
Brenner stated that, at 60 -foot by 60 -foot, there is a higher likelihood that
those lots will be developed. They could conceivably end up with more developed
lots that way.
Hoag didn't agree with Brenner's conclusion.
McShane questioned whether it goes to the state Department of Community,
Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) if they were to rescind lot consolidation.
Goodwin stated that if they do rescind it, they should do a new State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) review and send it to CTED for a 60 -day comment period.
They are required to do that under the Growth Management Act. This draft is
similar enough to the Planning Commission draft that it would not have to be done
again.
Crawford questioned what is wrong with an owner building on a 60 -foot by
60 -foot lot if they are zoned for it, they are not in the watershed, and they are not
it a critical area.
Brenner stated nothing is wrong with that. She didn't have a problem with
the amendment. If someone has a 60 -foot by 60 -foot lot, he or she can build a
bigger house.
lot.
Hoag stated the language in both of the ordinances specifies building site, not
Brenner stated it was supposed to specify lot size.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, 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
Goodwin stated the intent of substitute ordinance number two is that the lot
can be whatever size it is, but there has to be at least a 40 -foot by 40 -foot building
area.
Hoag stated that using the words "at least" means that they are starting with
a 40 -foot by 40 -foot size, and including everything that is larger. If the minimum
size is 60 -foot by 60 -foot, they have excluded everything that is smaller than that.
Specifying the smaller size doesn't mean it will limit the size of the house on other
lots. It simply allows one to build on a smaller lot.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Goodwin asked that typos be corrected.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Hoag moved to hold this in committee until the next meeting on March 7.
She wanted an opportunity to look at both versions and review the implications.
She didn't want a prolonged conversation at the Council level until they've ironed
out the wrinkles.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/22/2000, Page 14