HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 21 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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 21, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
Also Present:
Bob Ryan, Bellingham City Councilmember
Leslie Richardson, Bellingham City Councilmember
Terry Bornemann, Bellingham City Councilmember
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83
AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT
CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is the ordinance as
revised at the last meeting. She recommended adoption.
Crawford asked how they ended up on 60 feet by 60 feet in section .072(2).
A lot of the old plats are 50 feet wide. Someone suggested they make the limit 40
feet by 90 feet instead.
Brenner stated her original suggestion was 40 feet by 40 feet. ON some of
those properties, people just want to build small cabins. If the County doesn't
allow them without big setbacks, they are hurting people they didn't want to hurt.
She has talked to Councilmember Hoag, who may be receptive to changing it to 40
feet by 40 feet.
Crawford questioned whether they also want to establish a square footage
limit on the overall buildable space. He is open to that.
Goodwin stated there is usually a five -foot side yard setback. There is
usually a 20 -foot or 30 -foot setback from the road. A 40 -foot by 40 -foot lot could
not allow a building on it.
Hoag stated they are talking about specifying a building site.
Brenner stated they also talked about the term building site. Some of this
has to do with whether the building site is in a critical area. Goodwin stated a 40-
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
foot by 40 -foot building site would be a 1,600 square foot house. That would be
adequate.
Hoag stated she talked to a builder who had some concerns. He came up
with some language that might address it a little better. She suggested, "...a
building site, exclusive of setbacks, at least s+� forty feed wide and s+)y forty feet
deep, which...." Goodwin stated that would work.
McShane stated his lot is 40 -feet wide.
Goodwin stated a small city lot is 60 feet wide.
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 140, section .072(2), "...a
building site, exclusive of setbacks, at least s+xt -y forty feet wide and s+x-ty forty feet
deep, which...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the committee made a change to the findings at the last
committee meeting. The amendment was to finding 13, "...zoning ordinance to
ate reduce situations...." Goodwin stated she would make that correction.
Hoag questioned whether the only criterion for consolidation relief for any lot
outside the watershed or a critical area is that is one acre. Goodwin stated it has to
be less than one acre.
Hoag stated a lot that is less than one acre and in a rural area will be
considered for consolidation. However, it will be granted relief based on the relief
criteria. Goodwin stated they are first consolidated. It doesn't say they will be
considered for consolidation. They will be considered as one undivided parcel for
the purpose of use or sale. They are automatically consolidated if they are less
than one acre and don't meet the zoning. If they meet the criteria on packet page
140, they shall be administratively granted relief.
Brenner stated someone who doesn't meet the criteria can still ask for
consolidation relief. Goodwin stated the Council eliminated any other option
besides administrative relief.
Brenner questioned whether there is an appeal process if one is denied.
Goodwin stated there is an appeal process to the Hearing Examiner. The applicant
would have to show the administrator erred and that they do meet the
requirements.
McShane questioned whether Goodwin felt this would go to the State
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED). Goodwin
stated this has already gone to CTED. This version is not substantially different
than what the Planning Commission recommended. She has been sending CTED
drafts as they've been working on it. The earlier version went through CTED
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
review. This version is somewhat different than the earlier version, but not much
different.
McShane agreed that the two versions are close enough.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council, as amended.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag out of the room.
Hoag questioned how many plats are in rural areas that might obligate the
County to provide serves to if they don't change this. Goodwin stated there are
probably at least several thousand lots that are in rural areas and are not in the
Lake Whatcom watershed or critical areas. The only lots that would remain
individual lots are the lots that are one acre or are combined with other lots to be
one acre. For example, there are 360 lots on top of Chuckanut Mountain. All 360
lots wouldn't remain because they are very small lots. They are 20 feet wide. They
would become one -acre lots. However, those lots were zoned Rural Forestry, so
they would not be consolidated.
Hoag stated they originally distinguished between what was or wasn't within
urban growth areas. If something is within an urban growth area, she isn't
concerned about providing services to it. If they are talking about creating or
allowing de- consolidation of many lots in a rural area, she is concerned about
having to provide services. Goodwin stated that is a decision they have to make.
There are going to be a substantial number that are in the rural areas. They are
consolidating them only down to one acre, which is a rural density parcel.
Hoag stated those same people with one acre can apply for exemption
because they are not in critical areas and are not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Goodwin stated that is correct.
Hoag stated they are not limited to one acre, they are limited to 60 feet by
60 feet.
Brenner stated the building site can go down that small.
Hoag stated one could have many 70 -feet by 70 -feet lots in the rural area,
out in the middle of nowhere. Goodwin stated there are not a definitive number of
lots outside of Rural Forestry and Agriculture zoning. She has a list that has how
many lots by certain areas, and there are several thousand. She was not able to
run it through the geographic information system (GIS) to find out exactly how
many there are. In the Assessor's information, they are consolidated and only
show as one parcel. There is no way to find out unless she manually counted the
lots, which would take weeks.
Hoag questioned whether there is a better way to address this.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
49
Brenner stated there isn't. There are plenty of people who are in lots that
are substandard compared to the zoning. These were lots that were platted before.
It isn't fair to punish people, other than for the environmental reasons and direct
health and safety reasons. If the services are there, they are there. If they are
not, they are not. She didn't know how many lots like this were in the rural area,
but didn't think it was a huge portion of the thousand. The reason she worked on
this was to separate out the environmental issues that have legitimately been
brought up from the rest of the issues about how they want things to go. She
wouldn't support that change.
Hoag stated some of these were created in the 1890's. Thousands of lots
were created in the middle of nowhere and don't bear a relationship to existing
towns. Those plats were not purchased for investment purposes. They are lots
that are just sitting on the record. If they are unconsolidated, they are opening a
can of worms.
Brenner stated the lots wouldn't change if the owner didn't buy them for
investment or doesn't expect to build on them. Very few people are going to build
a decent size house in the county without a yard. It will devalue their house.
Hoag stated she would table this discussion until later in the meeting and
address the first item scheduled on the agenda.
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INEZ HOYT
AND S.P.I.E. OPEN SPACE APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -088) (JOINT
HEARING /MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE BELLINGHAM CITY
COUNCIL.)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner I, stated there are two open space /open space
applications. In the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section 84.34, land in an
incorporated area has to have approval from three councilmembers each from the
city and the county. The Hoyt property is on 32nd Street in Bellingham. It does
have an agreement with the City of Bellingham Parks Department and is used as a
community garden. The request is for open space /open space tax status. They will
have to put up an open space sign. There are rules and regulations for behavior on
the land. The rating score is high. One of the reasons it has a high score is
because it is already public land. It forms a good walkway from 32nd Street to the
Connelly Creek trail system.
Crawford questioned whether they would check to make sure the sign was
installed. Olsen stated they would.
McShane questioned the minimum score that is needed. Olsen stated the
minimum score needed is 45 points.
Bornemann stated the property has been used for community gardens and
links with the Connelly Creek corridor. It serves a good public purpose. He
recommended they move forward with this.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
48
49
50
Crawford agreed. It is clearly of great public benefit.
Crawford moved to approve the application.
Bornemann seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6 -0.
Olsen gave a staff report on the Society for Photo - Optical Instrumentation
Engineers (S.P.I.E.) application. When the S.P.I.E. organization put its offices on
this land, they and the public around them wanted to do as much benefit for the
neighborhood as possible. They allow people to use the grassy area to the east and
south of their office buildings. People use it for picnicking or recreation. University
students live in the area. Everyone goes there for lunar eclipses. It is generous of
the S.P.I.E. organization to allow this. Although they just managed to reach the 45
points, the area used for the public should have a tax benefit. It is used for a
community park area in an area where there are no open parks.
Richardson stated this is a special area. There are two different kinds of
areas. One is densely wooded for the wildlife, and the other is the grassy area.
She suggested a sign be posted that says it is allowed for public use. This is a
unique view. The tax benefit is based on the amount of points. It is well worth it.
McShane moved to approve the application.
Richardson seconded the motion.
Hoag questioned why the S.P.I.E. application barely earned enough points.
Olsen stated there are no streams or shorelines. The promotion of conservation
principals in this situation doesn't meet any conservation efforts. There is no
historical archeological significance, and there is no open space abutting the
property. It is a close residential area. The conservation principles criterion
specifies that the people have to put in a public display of a good conservation
principal, such as a ditch diking. It does not fit this application.
Motion carried 6 -0.
McShane moved to approve the resolution.
Ryan seconded the motion.
Motion to approve the resolution carried 6 -0.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 20.83
AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT
CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075A)
(Continued from above.)
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
49
50
51
Hoag questioned whether there is any way for them to determine the number
of lots in the rural areas that would be affected. She did not want to create new
communities out in the middle of nowhere, particularly mobile home parks.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, listed the areas the lots are
located. There are 333 in Birch Bay. They are mostly in critical areas. There are
205 in the Birch Point area. There are some wetlands in that location. There are
80 in the Blaine area. Some of those may be in critical areas, such as the city's
aquifer recharge area, which is a critical area. In Lake Whatcom /Geneva, there are
628 that would be consolidated. There are 110 in Point Roberts. Those are not
zoned Agriculture or Forestry. There are 950 in the Yew Street area. A good
number, maybe half, of those are probably in the Rural Forestry zone. There may
be 1,000 or more total that are not in wetlands, critical areas, forestry, or
agriculture areas.
Hoag asked about other areas such as Acme or Sumas. Goodwin stated they
didn't count the other areas. The best they could do would be to count them map
by map.
Hoag stated she wasn't concerned about the areas that Goodwin named
because they closer to the urban areas. She is more concerned about areas that
are more rural. She questioned whether there is anything that prevents an 1890's
platted area from being turned into a mobile home park if they pass this as it is
now. Goodwin stated it could be developed into a mobile home park or small lot
residential development if it had road access, sewer, and water and if it didn't have
wetlands or critical areas. If one is in a very rural area, septic tanks could not go in
unless there is approximately an acre. They could do a community drain field if it is
approved.
Hoag questioned whether a mobile home park would typically do a
community drain field rather than individual septic tanks. Goodwin stated it would.
They could do a high density residential development under this ordinance.
Hoag questioned how difficult it would be to get the number of lots that are
in the rural areas in the county. She wanted to know if they are creating a monster
or a few nuisances. Goodwin stated it wouldn't be difficult, it would be time -
consuming to go through all several hundred maps. She could delegate that
project.
McShane questioned the consequences if this isn't approved. Goodwin stated
it stays the way it's been. A person would have to go to the Hearing Examiner each
time he or she wants relief. The only other consequence is the load on staff from
people who call wanting to know when this will be approved. There are no serious
consequences.
Crawford questioned when a person could request consolidation relief.
Goodwin stated that when someone's lots have been consolidated, the owner could
request relief any time after that, even years. Eighty percent of the applications for
consolidation relief are approved. There is a $350 fee and it takes three months for
Hearing Examiner approval.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
50
Crawford stated he agrees with the original vote to move this forward to the
full Council.
Hoag stated she would find out from other councilmembers about whether to
gather more information.
McShane stated not happy with the way it is written, but should have an
administrative relief process.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -071 REGARDING THE
PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA FOR THE DRAYTON
HARBOR AREA OF THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2000 -126)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are two options in
the packet. The first option, beginning on packet page 142, would remove the last
sentence on item two, page 144. The map would be left the same. The second
ordinance would remove that language and would also change the map boundaries.
Hoag stated citizens came forward and requested that this area be changed
to a short -term planning area. It went through the Planning Commission. The
recommendation was that the change to a short -term planning area be provisional
upon the creation of a local improvement district (LID) within two years. At this
level, the committee looked at what the boundaries of that LID would be because
the Council has to set those boundaries. Muriel Terry supplied a map of the area.
Goodwin stated there is one person in that area that doesn't want sewer.
Hoag asked about the total area that is currently included but may be
excluded.
Goodwin stated the area they are talking about is along Lincoln Road. There
is only one person with a very small lot that does not want sewer. Everyone else
either didn't answer or said they wanted sewer at a low cost or at no cost.
There was discussion about the boundary.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
There was continued discussion about the boundary.
Hoag questioned how the assessment was done. Goodwin stated it is either
based on front footage or the area.
Brenner stated she was told it is always based on front footage.
Hoag stated the letter Muriel Terry sent out was not clear. It asked if a
person would rather have reasonably - priced sewer or sewer at no cost. The people
who said they wanted sewer at no cost are also included in the boundary.
However, the owner has not said he or she is willing to pay for sewer.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
50
51
Discussion about the boundary continued.
Goodwin stated the decision is to leave the area in or leave it out. If the
committee chooses to leave the area out, it needs to redraw the boundary lines
around it. Earlier, they included the area because the final boundaries are drawn
by the sewer district based on the cost feasibility and citizen input. They are also
elected people who listen to their constituents.
Brenner stated that wasn't accurate because the district doesn't represent
those people until after the landowners have made their decisions. The district is
making a decision for people who have not been within their jurisdiction. Goodwin
stated these people are all in the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District.
Brenner stated being in an area that can be served is not the same. The
district manager said they would do what is in the best interest of the district. He
didn't say they would necessarily do what the people would want. Goodwin stated
the district's board is still voted in by the district members. If the people don't like
what the district does, the board members won't be in office long.
Brenner stated the amount of people who would be impacted is not large.
The lines are very expensive. She is concerned about people who don't need it and
can't afford it. Some of the people just installed new septic systems. She didn't
want to indiscriminately shove everyone in the district if they don't want it, don't
need it, and can't afford it.
Hoag stated they looked at changing the area to Urban Residential four units
per acre (UR4) at the same time they looked at lot consolidation and the water
resource overlay. There are a lot of little lots that, under the new lot consolidation
ordinance, are going to develop unless there is a wetland. Goodwin stated that
almost all of those lots have wetlands. They would be consolidated to one acre.
The committee also added that the area is a stormwater special district.
Hoag stated she was not inclined to include the area in question. Some of
the people said they didn't want in. Others didn't respond or said they only wanted
the line if it was free.
McShane stated he would rather put the entire area back in long -term
planning.
Crawford questioned the ramifications of not including the northeast corner
of Lincoln and Harborview. He questioned whether part of the issue is that the cost
of the sewer would become more costly because it is not spread out among as
many people. Goodwin stated that is correct. It may kill the project. The district
needs to get the sewer line up to Blaine Road. If they cannot connect those people
and have them pay for the line, it will make the entire thing unaffordable. The
other variable is that they don't know what will happen with the City of Blaine now
that they've decided not to expand the sewage treatment plant on Semiahmoo.
They may put a line in this area to Cape Point Whitehorn. In that case, the cost of
sewer may then become more affordable because the City of Blaine would pay for a
good portion of it.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, 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
Brenner stated it behooves the district to work this out if they want a direct
route. They shouldn't force people into it if they don't want to be included.
Hoag agreed. She was concerned about including people who haven't
responded or said they only want to be included at no cost. It is not a legitimate
argument to include people so they can share the financial load. Physically, those
people don't need to be included because they are not contiguous.
Hoag moved to exclude the residents of the area in question who said they
wanted sewer for free, not at all, or who didn't respond, with exceptions as noted
on the map.
Brenner stated only five or ten properties were excluded. It will not make or
break the LID feasibility.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Planning and Development Committee on
September 12, 2000.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/21/2000, Page 9