HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 25 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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 25, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by committee member Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford None
Dan McShane
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2000 -023)
Crawford nominated Hoag.
Nomination carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VETO OF ORDINANCE 99 -091, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY TITLE 20.83 AND 20.38
REGARDING NON - CONFORMING LOTS AND LOT CONSOLIDATION
(AB99 -328)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated both the Planning
Commission and the Planning and Development Committee spent a considerable
amount of time on this last year. At the eleventh hour, it was amended
considerably. There was no committee discussion of those because they were
raised on the Council floor late at night. After thinking about those, she
encouraged the Executive to veto the ordinance, and he did. There were only a
couple of concerns about the amendments. One was the provision that a lot would
not be consolidated. The wording was a problem. It said two lots would not be
consolidated unless at least one of the lots is incapable of adequate water, fire flow,
and county- approved sewage system. Her concern was that it would mean there
would be no possible system that could be engineered to serve that lot if they said
a lot had to be incapable. In most cases, a water or sewer system can be designed
for any lot, no matter how bad the conditions or how small the lot. It might cost a
million dollars, but they could do it. Her concern was about putting the burden of
proof on the County to prove whether or not a lot is incapable of receiving service.
A better way to do that would be to repeal the lot consolidation ordinance. She
suggested better wording for that section. Her second concern was on packet page
270 in which language said that no buildable portion of one of the lots is located
outside of the Lake Whatcom watershed. There is similar language about the flood
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
plain alluvial fan hazard area and shoreline. A buildable portion of a lot isn't
defined. It doesn't say the buildable portion has to fit a house, and it specifies only
one of the lots. One could have a large lot totally on an alluvial fan hazard area or
flood plain, with a sliver hanging out, and it would not be consolidated under this
language because there might be a buildable piece outside. What they really want
is to require that both lots are buildable, and the buildable portion is big enough to
build a house. She provided a substitute ordinance that addressed these concerns.
Hoag asked that Goodwin describe the suggestions outlined in the packet.
Goodwin stated one option for the first issue regarding the lot being incapable of
adequate water and sewer is to establish a minimum size for lots in the rural area.
Originally, the Planning Commission recommended two acres. Anything smaller
than that would be consolidated if it wasn't consistent with the zoning. That two
acres was based on the Growth Management Act Hearings Board interpretation and
is a safe size for rural areas. In reality, under a cluster subdivision, lots can be one
acre, which is big enough for an onsite well and septic tank. She recommended
they say that anything less than one acre is to be consolidated, and then put the
burden of proof on the applicant to show whether he or she has a design for a
water and sewer system that could be built onsite without having water quality
impacts. That could be put into the lot consolidation relief section. The text begins
on packet page 277. The section on rural is on packet page 278.
Crawford questioned the meaning of item (1)(f) on packet page 277.
Goodwin stated she rewrote that language. She distributed the revised ordinance.
She suggested that section 20.71.070(2)(f) say, "At least one of the following is
true:"
Crawford questioned why they would include the words "at least." Goodwin
stated it was because both conditions could be true. The suggestion was to
consolidate the lots if one of the lots is less than one acre. Sections .072(6) and
.072(7) deal with lot consolidation relief. A lot owner can apply for relief, and the
administrator would look at the availability of water and sewer service from a public
provider or onsite water and sewer system approved by the Whatcom County
Health and Human Services Department.
Hoag asked about what the Planning Commission recommendation was on
item .070(2)(f). Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recommended
consolidation if one of the lots was less than two acres.
McShane questioned whether designating two acres would cause some
hideous problems elsewhere. Goodwin stated she didn't think it would. One of the
issues that was raised by citizens and councilmembers is that in other areas of the
county they allow cluster development with one acre lots with the overall density of
one per five or one per ten acres. The argument is that they are creating one -acre
lots now under cluster development, and on the other hand they are consolidating
people with lots less than two acres in size. It is a good point, that they would be
encouraging cluster, yet consolidating those with small lots.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
Hoag stated that if they change this, they are saying that two or more lots of
record shall be considered as one parcel, if all of the specified circumstances would
apply. The County would no longer look at anything larger than one acre, unless it
fit under section .070(2)(f)(ii). She questioned whether the County wants to be in
that position. Goodwin stated it is only for existing lots created before 1955. They
are pre- existing lots, so they are not creating new lots. It is also not in agriculture,
commercial, forestry, or rural forestry zones. They are looking at the existing
nonconforming lots in rural areas, outside of urban growth areas (UGAs) that are
outside of agriculture, flood plain, forestry, shorelines, or the Lake Whatcom
watershed. In most cases, it will be the rural R5, R10 or R2A zones that are not
designated for agriculture.
Hoag questioned whether this would accomplish what they are going to try to
do with the lot consolidation ordinance if they pass the ordinance with this
language. Goodwin stated it is not what she would recommend, but it is as close to
what she would recommend that the Council wants. She preferred two acres
without as many opportunities for relief because they passed zoning for a reason,
but the Council wanted a more lenient ordinance. This would provide a more
lenient ordinance. It would still adequately protect resources, agriculture, and
forest lands. It would still be large enough to have onsite water and sewer. If
those were the two issues, this would do it. If someone had a lot smaller than one
acre or had agriculture or forestry, they could get administrative relief if they can
show they can design a system for a smaller lot.
Hoag asked about the new language on pages 5 -7 of the substitute
ordinance. Goodwin stated these are her recommendations. The language the
Council adopted is not bold face type. It would create an administrative approval
process for lot consolidation relief. For the relief process, the administrator would
look at items in section .072(1). She recommended they also look at suitability
based on critical areas and other environmental constraints, besides just geo-
hazards. Particularly wetlands and flood plain. She also recommended the
administrator look at the impact on natural resource lands of long -term commercial
significance. The Growth Management Act says they should protect the agriculture,
forest, and mineral lands. Those are not areas they would want to encourage a lot
of small development if it was consolidated on the criteria. Lastly, she
recommended they administrator consider the availability of water and sewer
service. Councilmember Brenner introduced this concept. If someone could get a
system designed that wouldn't pollute the water, they shouldn't be consolidated.
Hoag stated these new changes would address the provision on packet page
269. She questioned whether it would also address the revised wording on page
270. Goodwin stated it would.
Hoag asked Goodwin to address section .070(1)(f) and the percentage of the
lot that is in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The Planning Commission
recommended that no portion of the lot be in the watershed. Goodwin stated the
County Council modified that to say that no buildable portion is outside of the
watershed. She took a 50/50 balance between the two, and recommended
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
designating 50% of the buildable portion. It is an arbitrary figure. If they have a
two -acre lot with two buildable sites outside of the watershed, and a small corner of
it was in the watershed, then there wouldn't be a reason to consolidate it. Perhaps
the Planning Commission and staff recommendation was unreasonable. She didn't
think they want to go to the other extreme. She also considered designating a
building site acreage that would provide a housing footprint. That might be another
way to go.
Crawford questioned whether anyone has looked to see how many lots of
record there are on the watershed boundary line. Goodwin stated there are
probably very few. She guessed there was some in the Geneva area. There may
also be some in the Toad Lake area.
Hoag stated she was comfortable with the 50 percent.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that if they want to designate a housing footprint size, they
could amend section .070(1)(f)(ii) to say, "
lots is .•.; Each lot has a 1,500 square foot building site located outside of the
Lake Whatcom or...."
McShane stated it would be easier to measure. Goodwin agreed. Fifteen
hundred square feet was an arbitrary figure. The average new single family house
is 2,195 square feet, which is big. Assuming that people would build a two -story
house close to the watershed, 1,500 square feet would allow a building footprint
and parking area.
Hoag questioned whether this applies to the lot size. She questioned
whether a ten -acre or three -acre lot, for instance, would fall into this. Goodwin
stated it wouldn't for a ten -acre lot. The lot would have to be less than one acre,
and no more than 50% of that one -acre lot would be in one of the other areas.
They would have half an acre for the lot.
Hoag questioned whether it doesn't have to be less than an acre if more than
50% of the area is in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The 1,500 square foot
designation outside of the watershed concerned her. There may be a very large
portion that is left within the watershed, although large lots aren't consolidated
because they match the existing code. She was more comfortable designating 50%
because it would be the same, no matter what size the lot is.
McShane stated he would rather leave it at 50 %. Goodwin stated that if they
leave it at 50 %, they could introduce it to the full Council at the evening's meeting.
not.
Hoag questioned whether item .070(1)(e) was new. Goodwin stated it was
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
Crawford moved to amend sections 20.83.070(1)(f) and 20.83.070(2)(f), "At
+east &One or both of the following are true:"
Hoag questioned whether this has been introduced. Goodwin stated this
ordinance, with the revisions, has not been introduced.
Hoag stated they could add it to the Introduction Items during this evening's
meeting. She questioned whether the ordinance in the packet was introduced.
Goodwin stated it was adopted and vetoed. It has not be reintroduced because she
wanted to wait and see what the committee wanted to do before introducing it.
Hoag stated it would be scheduled in Planning and Development for the next
meeting on February 8.
McShane moved to amend language in section 20.83.070(2)(f)(i), "One of
the lots is less than one two acres; or:"
Crawford's motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated he would speak against McShane's motion. He questioned
whether the Council already looked at this item and decided they wanted one acre
designated.
Hoag stated she didn't so.
Goodwin stated the Council removed it altogether, and the Executive vetoed
it. They are back to a clean slate and can recommend whatever they think is
appropriate.
Crawford questioned whether they are recommending that particular
language, as the Planning Commission recommended it. Goodwin stated they would
if they designated two acres, as the Planning Commission recommended.
Hoag questioned the pros and cons of the motion. She questioned whether it
would mean that some of the cluster developments would be consolidated or that
they would not be consolidated because they didn't meet the other requirement.
Goodwin stated they would not be consolidated because they would be legal under
the zoning density, if they were approved as a cluster subdivision. Still, the overall
density would be consistent with the zone. The administrator looks at the pattern of
existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject lots when deciding
whether or not to grant relief. If a person in a rural R10 zone had a ten -acre lot,
and the surrounding lots were one acres, then the person would probably be
granted relief so they can have what everyone else has. However, if they are going
to be granted relief anyway, the Planning Division doesn't have the extra staff time
and the public shouldn't have to pay fees to run it through if the intent is to allow
one -acre lots anyway.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
Hoag questioned what specifically they are trying to accomplish and the
intent. Goodwin stated the theory of lot consolidation is that there are a lot of
preexisting lots that might be substandard under current zoning and environmental
regulations. If they are, they should be consolidated into one lot and reviewed to
determine the impact on the environment, the compatibility with the surrounding
area, and whether water and sewer can serve it. In this case, a one -acre lot in a
rural area is not likely to be incompatible with the surrounding land use, but a lot of
areas have predominantly five- and ten -acre lots, with some old preexisting one -
acre plats. The Planning Commission recommended two acres because that was
the staff recommendation. The Growth Management Hearings Board has said
several times that any lot smaller than two acres isn't rural. That is where staff
came up with two acres. However, the cluster subdivision does allow one -acre lots
in rural areas.
McShane's motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -087, AMENDMENTS TO THE
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING TEXT TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR
TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND DESIGNATE THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED AS A SENDING AREA (AB2000 -043)
Goodwin stated there is no change from the packet. The change in the
packet is to amend the ordinance they adopted earlier to exclude Sudden Valley as
a TDR sending area for a period of six months, so the Sudden Valley Association
can do their own density reduction plan, and then re- evaluate it to see whether it is
working. That was the intent of the Planning Commission when they considered
this. There was a considerable amount of discussion about that. They have since
received the density reduction plan from Sudden Valley and it is included in the
Council packet. Not excluding Sudden Valley was an oversight on the part of the
staff. This was one ordinance that wasn't discussed extensively by Council because
it was done late in the year. Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance to
exclude Sudden Valley.
McShane asked about language from the Planning Commission. There was
discussion about how critical areas would be treated in the transfer of development
rights. He didn't see that it was included. The language regarding the critical areas
was left out from what was brought forward from the Planning Commission. He
suggested language on Council packet page 298 that was proposed by former
Planning Commissioner Crawford regarding critical areas. Goodwin stated there
was a lot of debate on this issue. They can change the text if they need to. This
language is no longer in section 20.89.032. It is somewhere else.
McShane stated he thought it should have been under section 20.89.021.
Goodwin stated the entire document was re- written because there were so many
changes. It is per developable acre, under section .021.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
McShane stated the concern in Planning Commission was who would be
responsible for determining if land was developable. It puts the onus on the
landowner.
Hoag stated they would not be transferring out development rights that
couldn't be developed anyway.
McShane stated they would be the first ones transferred. He didn't find that
language anywhere else, and it seemed that was the most appropriate place.
Goodwin stated the language was not included. They would do a further
amendment to the zoning text and add it as another section of the ordinance,
(Clerk's Note: This discussion was continued later during the meeting. See
page nine.)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SITING CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
(AB2000 -048)
Hoag stated they received additional information.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is an ordinance that is a follow up to
a request made by Council last year to address cellular telephone towers. There is
a moratorium. They have requests for permits and continue to get requests, even
with the moratorium. It is an area that is quickly changing in terms of technology.
They looked at Bellingham's ordinance and modified it. They also did research to
determine parameters that would satisfy federal requirements. The ordinance
provides for flexibility and works hard at establishing design -based review. They've
said up front in the ordinance what they would like to see in an application in terms
of siting. It also provides flexibility for people to make a case for those sites that
are limited. They are not experts in cell tower review, so the ordinance provides
authorization to bring in a third party reviewer to provide an objective analysis.
An issue came up from the staff person who would administer this code. It
identifies that the term "leased" as it is used in this code doesn't work. It is a
technical matter that relates to the subdivision requirements under state law. It
says that if a person leases land for commercial purposes, with a structure on it, it
would have to go through a binding site plan or other subdivision requirement.
Typically, the area that is secured is small. They've been handled as easements. It
has been done that way for some time. There has been disagreement about the
technical difference between the two terms. This is to provide staff a point to cite
when they get into discussions with the cell tower applicants. He recommended
that they include the language in the section cited in the memo dated January 19.
Hoag stated the language substituted clarifies it.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
McShane moved to include language to section 20.13.020, "(14) Site. For
the purpose of this chapter, site means a building, structure, leased area in
compliance with the provisions to Whatcom County Subdivision regulations (Title
21, WCC), site easement area...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked whether they would all be conditional uses. Olason stated they
have a wireless communication facility (WCF) permit. In the situations in which they
co- locate on an existing structure, they can go through a more streamlined permit
process. Anything new anywhere would have to have a conditional permit. The
WCF is described in section 20.13.080(1)(A).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned where that language is in the code. Olason stated it is in
section 20.13.080(1)(a).
Hoag questioned whether that language contradicts the language that the
wireless facility permit must be done by administrative approval. Olason stated
there is another reference on page 13 of the ordinance.
Hoag suggested that there be language in section 20.13.100 that says it is
an administrative approval process except in the case of controversial permits. It
will refer back to another section in the code that requires others to be approved by
a conditional use permit process. Olason stated that on page 12, section
20.13.070, there are additional standards for residential - related districts. They are
setting up whether or not the permit requires a conditional use permit process or a
WCF permit.
Hoag stated she wanted that referred to in section 20.13.100, packet page
322, "A Wireless Communication Facility permit is an administrative approval
permit except as noted in WCC 20.13.070, ...." Olason stated the idea was that
new support structures shall require a new conditional use permit. The only one
that wouldn't require a conditional use permit would be those that are collocated or
clustered.
Hoag stated she agreed, but they just need a referral to the correct portion
of the code. Goodwin suggested, "A Wireless Communication Facility permit is an
administrative approval permit except where a conditional use permit is required in
20.13.080 and 20.13.070(2)."
Olason stated he wanted to go through and make sure they are not leaving
out any references.
Hoag stated there was one other item that needed clarifying on page 314 of
the packet. Section 20.13.050 needs to have the listed items actually listed instead
of in one paragraph.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, 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
Goodwin stated they would fix all scriveners' errors.
Hoag moved to amend language in the ordinance in the first sentence in
section 20.13.100 on packet page 15, "...administrative approval permit, except
where a conditional use permit is required in WCC 20.13.080 and 20.13.070, and
shall be processed...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommended approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -087, AMENDMENTS TO THE
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING TEXT TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR
TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND DESIGNATE THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED AS A SENDING AREA (AB2000 -043)
(Clerk's Note: Continued from above.)
Goodwin stated the wording is not there. They will include the wording as it
is in the Planning Commission minutes. She suggested the language be inserted in
section .021 on packet page 285, "...maximum dwelling units per developable acre.
Where the land is impacted by critical areas, as defined in Title 16, development
potential shall be demonstrated by the landowner with consideration given to
opportunities for cluster development. In the event of...." That language was what
the Planning Commission voted on.
In addition, they would need to add that as a separate section in the
ordinance. It would be a new section three in the ordinance, "Section 3. WCC
20.89.021 is amended as follows: .021 Development Rights. The residential
building rights permitted to a lot, parcel or area of land under the base density of
the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and the Official Whatcom County Zoning
Ordinance (Title 20, WCC), measured in maximum dwelling units per developable
acre. Where the land is impacted by critical areas, as defined in Title 16,
development potential shall be demonstrated by the landowner with consideration
given to opportunities for cluster development. In the event of any conflict
between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the density standards
of the Comprehensive Plan shall control. It is not the purpose of this section to
create any such potential which would not otherwise exist"
She would bring it forward for the evening meeting. The current Section 3
of the ordinance shall become Section 4.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/25/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 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, 1/25/2000, Page 10