HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Planning October 11 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
Special Planning and Development Committee
October 11, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 12:15 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE WORK SESSION
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAP 20, AND CLARIFYING THAT AREAS
DESIGNATED RURAL FORESTRY (RF) AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
(CF) ON MAP 20 ARE FOREST RESOURCES LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL
SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.170 (AB2000 -345)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this amendment was to
add a label on map 20, which shows the commercial forestry lands of long -term
significance. That was the intent. The text indicates that intent, but questions
came up about commercial and forestry lands within the urban growth areas. They
are not intended to be long -term commercially significant, because it would
probably be developed over the 20 -year period. This amendment simply adds
those lines to the map. The only other changes are the rezones that affected rural
forestry land. They updated the map to reflect those areas.
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag absent.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN GROWTH
AREA AND SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA POLICIES OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENISVE PLAN (AB2000 -344)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she'd brought additional
information for Councilmember Hoag. The information had to do with urban levels
of water and sewer service. There are six policies in the Comprehensive Plan
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
dealing with urban levels of service. There is no definition of "urban level of
service." Within the Land Use Chapter there us a policy to not extend a city's sewer
or urban levels of water service to serve areas of urban densities outside urban
growth areas (UGA's) unless there is an emergency or health hazard. Another
policy says that there is no sewer or waterlines extended for urban levels outside of
UGA's, except for health, vested rights, or regional supply needs. Another policy
discourages urban levels of water and sewer to rural areas unless there are
groundwater contamination or health hazards. There is no definition of urban levels
of service or density. There is a rural definition, which is two -, five -, or ten -acre
zoning. There is a policy to discourage extended urban levels of service to areas
not designate for growth or industry. Another policy is to ensure urban levels of
water service to areas designated for urban growth. The last policy is to discourage
sewers in areas not designated for urban growth. If the County Council wants to
take up the issue of urban levels of service, it is a much bigger issue than this
amendment.
McShane stated one policy is not to extend sewer unless there is a regional
issue. He questioned how that works with water lines. Goodwin stated there was a
discussion at the time about a water line from the Nooksack River or the Ferndale
water treatment plant to Blaine to serve the Loomis Trail golf course at Birch Bay.
The intent was to extend a regional transmission line, but not create sprawl by
creating connections along the line. It is possible to divert water from the
Nooksack River to serve the Lummi Nation, but they wouldn't put connections along
the line.
McShane stated they would be like a transmission water line.
Goodwin stated Councilmember Hoag's concern was whether or not this
would restrict a water association from serving infill development. It is not clearly
defined. It would exclude someone from doing an urban level new subdivision
outside of an urban growth area using water association water.
Crawford referenced page three of the Planning Committee minutes. There
was a proposed amendment to change language from "high quality" to "urban
levels."
(Clerk's Note: Hoag arrived at 12:23 p.m.)
Goodwin stated the term "high quality" was not in the document. Staff
recommended "high quality" development. Planning Commission didn't want to
require that a development be high quality. That term used to be in goal 21\11.
Crawford stated it might have been in policy 21\11 -2. Goodwin stated that
policy talks about high quality development.
Hoag stated she agreed with discouraging urban levels of water and sewer
service being extended to rural areas. Her concern with the language was that
other service providers do not provide urban levels of service to new areas outside
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
of a UGA. There are providers providing urban levels of service outside of a UGA,
and she didn't want to interrupt that. Goodwin stated the language is throughout
the code, including sections they are not modifying, such as policy 2R -2, which says
that waterlines shall not be extended to service urban levels of development
outside of a UGA.
Hoag stated it doesn't specify other service providers. Don't interfere with
water associations serving people who are already out there. That is the way the
majority of the people are being served in the unincorporated areas. Goodwin
stated that if the waterlines and trunk lines were already out there, then they
wouldn't be extended, just connected. This issue came up in Water District 10, who
said that new people could be connected along an existing trunk line, but a new
trunk line can't be extended outside of the UGA.
McShane stated he didn't have any concerns with that language.
Hoag stated they left off with policy 21\11 -4. The two changes they made
were to add the word "independent." Goodwin stated she hadn't checked with legal
staff to see if that amendment was a substantial change.
McShane referenced policy 2R -1, bullet one. He was concerned about how
long to allow the cities and County to work toward an agreement on land use and
development standards. Goodwin stated all cities except Nooksack and Everson
have interlocal agreements. They recently approved Blaine. Nooksack and Everson
are the last two. All the rest have been approved.
Hoag asked about policy 2R -1, regarding short -term planning areas. She
questioned the general effect of the changes to the zoning overlay designation
instead of administration by a development regulation. Goodwin stated they are
the same things, except it had been unclear what they mean by "administered as a
development regulation." They've always treated them as a rezone. A
development regulation is a zoning regulation and is treated as a rezone. If it is a
rezone, call it a rezone. They are not changing anything.
Hoag asked about bullet two. Goodwin stated it was written for Birch Bay
and Columbia Valley. All of the previous language talked about the County and the
City having worked out these service issues, but they haven't decided how to
address Birch Bay. They've got another 300 -acre application to go from long -term
to short -term in Birch Bay. They don't know if there is water capacity in Birch Bay.
They don't want to put in 1,200 more houses in the short -term UGA if there is no
water. The County must work with district before that rezone comes up. The staff
wants to get these policies done before treating that request because it makes most
of the rest of the Birch Bay UGA a short -term area. The idea was to phase it in
over time.
Hoag asked the affect of the language in the middle of the page, bullet point
six. Goodwin stated that if there is a short -term and long -term planning area next
to the city, the city limits have to move out to the edge of the short term planning
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
area. If most of the short -term planning areas have been subdivided and
developed, then they know they need to expand into the long -term planning area.
In Birch Bay, there won't be annexation since there isn't a city to annex it to. Since
they aren't going to annex, they don't know now when they are running out of land.
With the amendment, they will know when it begins to infill.
Hoag asked what the County requires as a threshold for infill. Goodwin
stated they don't have a requirement. It is still a subjective requirement. If land
was in five- or ten -acre tracts that were vacant, it hasn't in- filled. It is in- filling if
there is a pattern of approved subdivisions.
Hoag stated they discussed earlier having a requirement to not rezone all the
areas in five years instead of the planned 20 years. She questioned whether there
is a mechanism to include language that requires phasing of rezones so they will
have orderly development in the UGA. When the entire 20 -year UGA is available
for development, they don't end up with the infill they want to see. Goodwin stated
that is a possible policy, and this is the place for it. However, this is dealing with
criteria for short -term versus long -term planning areas in unincorporated UGA's, it
isn't related to what they are talking about now. They put that issue as an item to
consider for a Comprehensive Plan amendment this year, but there was not enough
time to deal with it. They could put it on as a docket item for next year if the
County Council still wants to look at it. There haven't been many rezones within
the UGA since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. One rezone is in the Ferndale
UGA, and there is the Sandell rezone in Bellingham.
Hoag stated there is a lot going on in the Lynden UGA. They were about to
rezone 300 acres when they ran out of water. There was concern about rapid
expansion in the UGA. Goodwin stated the entire Blaine UGA is already zoned UR-
4. There won't be any rezones there. Ferndale expressed strong opinions that they
don't even want the R5 as part of their UGA, let alone serve or develop it, so there
won't be a problem with Ferndale. Lynden might be a problem, but there is a water
moratorium. Some Bellingham areas along Yew Street Road have RR2 zoning,
which isn't appropriate in an urban growth area. The County may want to rezone
those before they are developed as half -acre lots, or the urban density will never be
in.
McShane questioned whether sewer was installed out there. Goodwin stated
she didn't know. Muljat did a rezone there four years ago to put some of the land
in UR -4. Other areas are being rezoned. They need to update that entire subarea
plan for the south part of the UGA. Half -acre zoning isn't a good idea.
Hoag asked if there is a deadline to initiate the UGA phasing. Goodwin
stated no. If they want to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment for that area,
they would do it by the end of the year. It is a matter of staffing and priorities.
They could wait until the five -year review of Comprehensive Plan in 2002. Once
they have census data and a better geographic information system (GIS) with
current parcel layers, they can begin to do infill analysis of all the cities to see how
much buildable land they have.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
Hoag stated it isn't something they should put off. She would not be inclined
to lump it in with the entire Comprehensive Plan.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as amended with
the word "independent."
Crawford asked if the adoption of this affects the Drayton Harbor people, or if
they are already established in a provisional UGA. Goodwin stated it does not
affect them. They are already approved. It may affect the new application for the
Blaine request for 300 acres. Staff would use it as guidance.
Crawford stated they are now formalizing the provisions that they were
wrestling with at that time. Goodwin stated both the County Council and the
Planning Commission would have approved this. That approval would be the
expression of everyone's intent, and it would be fair to use that intent to judge this
new application.
Crawford referenced policy 2R -1 and its accompanying bullet points. This is
a considerable amount of criteria to meet to become a short -term planning area.
The last new sentence of policy 2R -1 is regarding designation or modification
possibly being made. No one is going to go through the process of collecting
interlocal agreements on water and sewer without knowing it would result in the
designation. He questioned whether the language in that sentence should be
changed, "...Planning Area boundaries shall be made when the following...."
McShane stated they could be faced with a situation where there is a
compelling reason that the councilmembers would not want an area to be
designated a short -term planning area. It leaves an option open for the County
Council and Planning Commission to look at other, overriding concerns.
Crawford stated that they should not keep that element of uncertainty. The
County development standards should award the designation if all the criteria have
been met. An interlocal agreement requires a lot of time, money, and negotiation
with the cities. It also requires analysis of water and sewer issues. Goodwin stated
that they could go either way on it.
Hoag stated Councilmember Crawford raised a good point, but she wasn't
comfortable changing the language. The item doesn't just talk about initial
designation. It is also talking about subsequent modification. The word "may" asks
for permission. The word "shall" may lock the Council into something it doesn't
want to be locked into.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO REVISE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS
ZONING DISTRICTS (AB2000 -251B)
McShane stated the Council had a hearing on the staff's substitute ordinance
during the previous night's Council meeting. The Councilmembers have the
Planning Commission recommendations. Given all of that information, he was
inclined to proceed with the staff's substitute ordinance. They won't be able to get
through this during this meeting. The Council should look at this in light of what's
going on with agriculture. The Council could end up conflicting itself. He suggested
that they work from the staff's substitute ordinance, and insert Planning
Commission language where appropriate.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, discussed the differences
between the Planning Commission recommendations, the staff recommendations,
and the current regulation, as specified in the chart she distributed at the previous
evening's Council meeting.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Dick Gilda, Planning Commissioner, asked if the councilmembers read the
information from Jefferson County and the state Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development (CTED). It is important to take a look at that
information. There are certain things that they've overlooked that CTED allows
them to do. The County is allowed more flexibility than it has been taking. As they
go through the ordinance, about 1/3 to half of the people who testified at the
previous meeting's hearing fit into the home -based business category, where they
do not do any manufacturing but just base out of their home. Some of their
employees never see their place other than when they have to repair equipment.
Goodwin questioned whether that would be a new category in addition to
cottage industry, or that could reword cottage industries and call it home -based
industry instead.
Gilda stated they could do that. They talked about it in the Planning
Commission.
McShane stated this was new information for him, and they wouldn't go into
that right now. They would focus on home occupation and cottage industry
definitions, which would take some time. They would not finish this item during
this meeting, and would continue the item.
Crawford moved to amend Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.97.087 by
striking all the new language and using the Planning Commission definition.
Goodwin stated the definitions are identical, except that the standards are moved
to a separate section in the Planning Commission recommendation.
Hoag stated that she preferred to have the standards in the definition.
Goodwin corrected her earlier statement and said the sections are not exactly the
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
same. The Planning Commission language, "...means a small light
industrial... operations, in an accessory structure on ..."
Hoag questioned whether the conditions are the same. Goodwin stated the
standards are different.
Hoag opposed the motion. They've had the hearing on the staff version. If
they want to adopt the language from the Planning Commission version, then just
include it into the staff's version.
Crawford restated his motion to adopt the language in WCC 20.97.087 from
the Planning Commission version.
McShane offered a friendly amendment to move the conditions into the
definition section, WCC 20.97.087, for the Planning Commission version as they are
in the staff's version.
Crawford asked why the Planning Commission chose to move the standards
into the specific uses of the cottage industries. Goodwin stated she did it. It was
getting too complicated to have all the standards in a definition. Normally
standards are in a separate section in WCC 20.80, which is the section of the code
that has the development standards. Since there were so many more and they
added the new category of rural business, they were repeating themselves and it
became too wordy. It does get complicated because some of the standards are in
the definition, the standards, or the zoning code. The standards are in three
different sections. There is a valid argument to repeating the standards in all the
different sections. The Planning Commission didn't ask her to do it, she just did it
and the Planning Commission liked it.
Gilda stated he liked the standards in the definition, but he was neutral on
the issue. There was only a brief discussion in the Planning Commission.
Hoag stated that if they are not going to do the rural business, it helps to
have the standards in the definitions. She suggested that they go through it word
by word.
Crawford stated he would defer often to the Planning Commission decision.
He did not accept the friendly amendment.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
McShane moved to amend WCC 20.97.087, staff version, "Cottage industry
means a small light industrial..."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated his concern was if they have a situation in which a residence
becomes subservient to the cottage industry. He questioned whether he should be
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
concerned about that. Goodwin stated the difference is that the home occupation
has to be within the dwelling unit, but a cottage industry is not attached. If they
left out the words "in an accessory structure," someone could have a cottage
industry within the residence. That would not be a problem. A home occupation is
a lighter use within someone's structure.
Hoag stated that if they leave out the language "in an accessory structure," it
is more flexible. She questioned whether there is a need to require that it be in an
accessory structure. Goodwin stated there is not.
Gilda stated the Planning Commission talked about fencing and screening,
not being in a building. They don't need a requirement that it has to be in an
accessory structure.
Dave Ernst, resident, stated the issue of being in an accessory structure
leads him to the question of whether there could be two employees and it must be
in a home. Two employees in an accessory structure is a cottage industry, not a
home occupation. They should be clear about the controlling difference.
Hoag stated it is who the employees are, such as family members or non -
family members. A cottage industry could have employees that are not family
members. She questioned whether it matters whether or not they are in the
garage.
Ernst stated some home occupations are not, by nature, suited to be in the
home, such as raising rabbits. That would disqualify them from being a home
occupation. They should be clear about the difference between a home occupation
and a cottage industry.
Goodwin stated they could then combine the two categories. Raising rabbits
would not be home occupation, but would be an agricultural use. The difference
between the two is that a home occupation is something that a person wouldn't
mind having under the roof of the house, and is less noisy, toxic, and smelly. A
cottage industry would be more industrial. Home occupations are allowed on the
smaller lots, down to 1/4 acre. A cottage industry is in a separate structure
because they could be bigger and have a higher impact. They are not allowed in
those little residential lots. There is a difference.
Hoag stated they should keep the two categories separate. They don't need
a requirement for a separate accessory structure.
Crawford agreed.
McShane moved to amend 20.97.087(1) "the size and scale..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
Crawford stated the Planning Commission language went further and added
language, "building size and lot coverage and the number of employees shall be
consistent with the standards of each district." Goodwin stated it was a good
addition. The definition doesn't try to define the number of employees because the
number of employees differed by zoning district. This just gave a cross - reference
so they would know that the code wasn't silent, but they had to look at the zoning
district to see how big the building and lot is.
Hoag stated that in the staff's version, they restrict the size of the floor area
and building sizes, based on the district it is set up in. This language makes it
sound like the agricultural zone would allow a 50,000 square foot cottage industry
because the zone allows a 50,000 square foot barn. It becomes unclear to put the
building size in this portion of the document. It is better referenced under the
criteria of each zone.
Goodwin suggested, "...the standards for cottage industries in each district"
to make it clear. Or, leave it silent.
Hoag stated that putting it there makes it unclear.
Crawford agreed.
Goodwin stated it just adds a cross - reference for people who aren't familiar
with the code.
Hoag moved to add language to 20.97.087(1), "...Building size, lot coverage,
and number of employees shall be consistent with the cottage industry standards of
each district."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that farmers need to be able to generate at any time. They are
not out there 365 days per year. She was concerned about language suggested in
section WCC 20.97.087(1), " offsite impacts... allowed in the zone." They are saying
that, in the agricultural zone, a cottage industry could have tremendous offsite
impacts to residences in the area. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission agreed
with that. They questioned why a cottage industry should have to be quiet in an
agricultural or forestry zone when other machines are allowed to operate. No one
would notice them being loud.
Crawford suggested, "...comparable duration and intensity... generated by
„s a4 existing uses...."
Hoag stated that is too vague for enforcement. She suggested that they
limit the impacts to those hours.
McShane stated they can't nail it down in this location, but can in the steps
below when it talks about the noise levels. Goodwin stated noise is covered in WCC
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
9.40 regarding Disorderly House. They wouldn't have any latitude to deny a permit
for someone operating a business that is likely to be loud. They would have to wait
until the business was loud, and then arrest them.
Hoag stated it is reasonable to limit the impacts to normal working hours.
She suggested they do that. Goodwin stated that if they are going to have daylight
hours, it should be addressed in the section that deals with hours of operation.
Hoag stated that section is different because it deals with customers and
clients. She was thinking about someone who would build furniture, for example, in
the middle of the night. That would be a problem.
McShane stated they need a substantial change further down in the
standards section.
Hoag stated that if it isn't fixed in this section, it would create a conflict. She
moved to amend language in WCC 20.97.087(1), "...in keeping with uses in the
surrounding areas and ... impacts are limited to daylight hours and are comparable
in duration and intensity to those generated..."
McShane stated he was not supportive of this. It should be addressed in the
hours of operation, and there should be a noise section.
Ernst stated the subject of that paragraph is size and scale. Size and scale
do not necessarily refer to light or noise intensity. Those subjects would be in
another paragraph. He didn't think it would be confusing to the Hearing Examiner.
Hoag stated she had a problem with the language "offsite impacts." Ernst
stated that size and scale can have offsite impacts. If the building is much bigger
than anything else in the neighborhood, then it would have offsite impacts.
Hoag stated the language also talks about keeping within uses of the
surrounding area.
McShane called for the question. He was happy with the language as it is.
Hoag stated the rules of order forbid cutting debate short, and the person
who makes the motion has the final word. She wanted the committee to take this
seriously. She lives in this zone and gets many complaints from people who are
affected by noise at odd hours. The problem is that the law is there to protect the
farmers, which they need, so they don't want to change the law that is governing
the farmers. That is what would end up happening if they don't address impacts
caused by other things. She has a neighboring farmer who lives across the street
from a shingle factory and is being subjected to 70 decibels at night because it is
allowed in the agricultural zone. Even thought the shingle factory is running 365
days per year, 24 hours per day, this farmer has no protection and cannot sleep in
his own house. This is an important matter and she wanted the committee to take
it seriously. It is something they need to address. The language in the first part of
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
the sentence regarding size and scale is fine. Where the language talks about
offsite impacts, it talks about what is traveling to the neighbors.
Goodwin questioned whether they could deal with that in subsection (6),
which talks about noise and other offsite impacts.
McShane stated Councilmember Hoag was implying that the committee is not
taking what she is saying seriously. That is not at all true.
Crawford suggested that they move on and Councilmember Hoag could work
on that item for consideration later, since she didn't have the specific language that
she wants to propose.
Hoag stated that the language in subsection (1) regarding the offsite impacts
sets up a conflict between that item and subsection (6). Subsection (1) says that
the impacts have to be comparable to the intensity generated in the zone.
Subsection (6) says that nothing can go off the lot. Those are two different things.
That is why they can't rely on subsection (6) to cover the issue. Goodwin
suggested striking the words "offsite impacts" from subsection (1).
Hoag amended her motion to amend section 20.97.087(1), "...the
surrounding area
geneFated uses allewed On the zone."
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Hoag stated that she withdrew her first motion regarding the duration, and
made this motion instead.
Crawford stated this is very clear for the average person who walks in and
looks at the regulation.
Hoag stated that if they don't make this change, there will be conflicting
regulations and they will create a problem instead of solving a problem.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Crawford questioned why the Planning Commission eliminated item (2) in the
cottage industry section that was proposed by staff. It is not in the Planning
Commission recommendation at all. This item seems to define the intent of cottage
industry. He questioned what was discussed at the Planning Commission. Gilda
stated he didn't realize item (2) was not in the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Crawford stated that the staff recommendation on that was good because
they are still defining cottage industry as not existing primarily for the sake of
business, but existing for the sake of whatever that area is zoned for. The cottage
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
industry is not the primary reason that people are there. The primary reason
people are there is because they live there. He was happy with that item.
McShane read section 20.97.087(3). Goodwin stated the Planning
Commission draft puts the signage limit in that section rather than have it
elsewhere. The allowed signage in each applicable district is four square feet. If
the limit is the same in each area, she thought that they could put the limit in this
section instead of having the people look for it elsewhere.
Hoag stated they also a caveat that the owner could have a larger one with a
conditional use permit (CUP), and it should be addressed separately in each district.
What an owner can and can't do depends on the district. Goodwin stated that it is
the same right now. The language in all the districts allow four square feet or
larger by CUP. There was much public testimony about allowing larger signs in
certain areas. In that case, it would make sense to leave the language as it is.
McShane stated he heard testimony that larger signs in agricultural areas for
agricultural products may be appropriate. Goodwin stated those are not cottage
industries. Agricultural products are an outright use in the agricultural zone, so
that is a separate issue.
Hoag stated that if a cottage industry is in a small rural residential area, the
sign should not be any bigger than two feet by two feet. However, she didn't have
a problem allowing signs that are four feet by four feet in areas such as the Mt.
Baker Highway. She didn't like the 32 square foot, full size signs. She wanted the
language to be left separate in the zones.
Crawford stated he didn't mind leaving the language as it is as long as they
can address it in each zone.
McShane read subsection (4). He suggested a language change, "...by such
cottage industry...." It is a scrivener's error.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to add Planning Commission language in section 20.97.087(4),
"...be expected in a residential neighberheed in the applicable zoning district of the
dwelling or use of the...." If logging trucks usually go by, then it isn't appropriate to
require that only residential traffic be allowed.
Crawford stated he would endorse that motion.
McShane agreed with the motion.
Ernst stated they are generating in rural and rural residential zones the
potential for traffic and development such as exists on the Guide Meridian when
they allow cottage industries to generate the traffic like the Guide Meridian
generates.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
McShane stated the language allows a traffic level as it is expected and
applicable to the zoning district, not the road.
Ernst questioned whether they dropped the appropriate road classification.
Hoag stated she would address that in a separate motion. She had a
problem with the appropriate road classification, but wanted to get this done first.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned subsection (4), "...or is appropriate for the road
classification which serves the property." If someone is on the Hannegan Road,
then the language says that the traffic generated by this one cottage industry isn't
a big deal. That would cause a problem for the neighbors. The traffic going by on
the Hannegan Road isn't a big deal for the neighbor, but the traffic pulling into the
yard for the cottage industry is. Goodwin stated that if there is truck traffic on the
road anyway, they are not going to limit it, as the existing code does, to one one -
ton truck per month, which means one couldn't get a UPS delivery. If the industry
is on the Guide Meridian or the Hannegan road and it needs to have a semi -truck
drop off or pick up equipment they wouldn't restrict it to one one -ton truck of semi -
trucks are going by on the road anyway.
Hoag stated the language is saying that the volume of traffic generated by
the cottage industry would be whatever is appropriate for the road classification,
which means that it is okay for that many cars to drive in and out of the cottage
industry. That is not okay.
McShane questioned the effect of striking that language. Goodwin stated the
reason that language is in there is because of the "or." They are still not having a
greater volume than expected in a zoning district, but if one is in a Rural Residential
zone on a local access road, they don't want semi - trucks in there. Whereas, if the
cottage industry is located on the Guide Meridian, it might not be a problem.
Hoag stated the language should get at the fact that a small feeder road may
be in an agricultural zone that allows big trucks, but there aren't big trucks on that
particular small feeder road. They need language that only allows whichever
volume is less so they don't create a volume that didn't exist before.
McShane stated Councilmember Hoag could propose language and it could be
revisited. On any of the changes, the committee should move on with the intent to
revisit an issue if there isn't specific wording.
Hoag stated she would like to solve the issue in committee if they can. Also,
if they are going to ask for things to be revisiting, the issue should be put back in
committee.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, 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
43
44
45
46
47
McShane stated this issue would be back in committee already. They won't
finish during this meeting. They will revisit section 20.97.087(4) at the next
meeting.
Goodwin asked that the language not be too specific because there are no
specific standards for volume. Don't write it tight compared to the standards,
because there aren't any.
Crawford agreed. This language doesn't infer that the number of cars
allowed on the Hannegan Road per day is what is allowed to go to the business. It
infers a compatible use with the zoning that is exists. That is very clear and they
should leave it the way it is.
Hoag stated that is not what the language says.
McShane stated they would revisit section 20.97.087(4). He read subsection
(5). He moved to add language to section 20.97.087(5), "...non- resident on -site
employee." Some employees don't work on -site, but just come by to pick up
equipment.
Crawford offered a friendly amendment to language in that section, "...here
eeeupatie r cottage industry...," which is another scrivener's error.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag questioned whether the term "on- site" could be misinterpreted to mean
someone who lives there. Goodwin stated they could say a "non- resident working
employee."
McShane restated the motion to amend section 20.97.087(5), "
...here
eeeapati cottage industry... non- resident on -site employee."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane read section 20.97.087(6). He had a real problem with that
language. Goodwin stated this is current language.
Hoag stated it is not enforced.
Crawford moved to substitute section 20.97.087(6) with the Planning
Commission language from section 20.80.750(5), "Noise emissions shall not exceed
the levels established by WAC 173 -60- 040."
Hoag opposed the motion. The language that exists has some problems.
However, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is deficient in protecting
neighbors from impacts.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Gilda stated the goal of this one is for the Sheriff's Office. By the time the
noise is over, the complaint comes in and it is checked three days later, when the
noise is gone. If they go with the Jefferson County one, there is no level set. It
only is what is irritating to the person.
Goodwin stated that Mr. Gilda is talking about WCC Chapter 9.
Crawford stated he agreed with testimony that the County layers regulations
on top of regulations. Throughout the Point Roberts recreational vehicle (RV) issue
he heard complaints. Much of WCC Chapter 9 addressed the complaints. His
concern was that there seems to be a lack of enforcement of WCC Chapter 9 in
many ways. He questioned whether Mr. Gilda suggested referencing WCC Chapter
9 instead of the WAC. Gilda stated he was. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff's
Office.
Crawford stated this is something he's never heard the County Council talk
about. The title of chapter nine is Health, Morals, and Welfare. This chapter is
antiquated. They ought to do something about chapter nine. It is ancient and
probably indefensible. That is why he didn't bring up chapter nine during the Point
Roberts issue.
Hoag called for the question.
McShane stated it is a worthwhile discussion to think about.
Hoag stated she has a motion that has to do with his comments.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
Hoag moved to insert language to section 20.97.087(6), "...which creates
nuisance noise, vibration...." The word "nuisance" enables other laws, including
chapter nine. The word "nuisance" is defined in state law.
Goodwin questioned whether the Northwest Air Pollution Authority enforces
nuisance noise.
Hoag stated they were making a change in a law, and the description of
"nuisance" came up. They had a legal discussion about the term. They do not
enforce a noise ordinance.
Goodwin stated that if the staff who look at this doesn't have any definition
of nuisance, then they wouldn't have any idea of what this is talking about.
Hoag stated that the word is defined in state law.
McShane stated he was under a time constraint. He was opposed to the
motion right now because it is too gray and not very enforceable. He had other
suggestions, but not the time to bring them forward.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Hoag withdrew her motion to bring it up later when there is time to discuss
it.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2000, Page 16