HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 1 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 1, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
Sutter announced that they first would discuss Committee Discussion Item
#2.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Sutter stated that the process they will follow is that they would start at the
beginning and work through each item as they have been presented.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated that there are 21 proposed zoning text and map amendments. Only one is
a map. The remaining are zoning text. Some are code scrub items that have been
on the books for years. Some are in a response to an application or County
initiated request. She noted that, of the 21, there are a few that are controversial.
She advised that they separate the items to be changed from the remaining, if
there will be a new public hearing. There have been 40 -45 hours of public
hearings that have been held. They can do an ordinance sending on the items that
are not in question.
Hoag questioned whether the testimony was on the controversial items or
non - controversial items. Goodwin stated that some issues were controversial, and
no longer are, such as Lummi Island and Lot Consolidation.
Hoag stated that she is leery of pulling out some items and not others.
Sutter stated that they would make that decision when they come to it.
Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission testimony reflects the
discussion.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
49
50
51
FILE #45 -98:ZT — Resort Commercial Open Space Reservation
Sutter asked for clarification on language regarding the economic value.
Goodwin stated it is the value of the improvement of off -site amenities. 50% is an
amount they felt was fair. They didn't want to make it 100 %. They wanted to
include a dollar figure to gain some equity.
Brenner asked if it is designated where it could go off -site.
Nelson stated that it has to be in the same subarea.
Brenner stated that subareas are huge and people can move the Open
Space requirement to areas that are already nice and proceed to trash it due to
lack of proper care. Allowing it to be moved that far will not treat everyone
equally. She would rather allow more flexibility on how much of each property can
be set aside, and make the proponent justify why less should be allowed. Goodwin
stated that the proponent has to do that in front of the Hearing Examiner.
Sutter stated that they should keep in mind the purpose of Open Space
Reservation in Resort Commercial. Goodwin stated that the purpose is to draw
tourism. The two areas this affects are Pt. Roberts and Birch Bay. In both areas,
the area is very small. There aren't a lot of other areas zoned Resort Commercial.
Brenner questioned whether County staff met with Birch Bay and Pt. Roberts
residents. Goodwin stated that there was little interest or concern. It was
advertised in a regular public notice only. They didn't have a lot of comment.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that
there are Birch Bay and Pt. Roberts groups to which the staff could bring the
information. He met with Pt. Roberts citizens to hear their marketing survey
results. That would be a good forum to review this issue.
Hoag asked for clarification on section 20.64.502 on Council packet page
145. She questioned whether one would still set aside 10 %, but the value of the
exchange has to exceed 50% of the 40% that they would have had to do.
Goodwin stated that the 30% difference is compensated off -site. It is the value of
the 30 %. They have to meet the 40% one way or the other. 10% has to be on-
site.
Hoag stated that the wording in 20.64.503(3) is unclear. Also, she
questioned what brought this forward. Goodwin stated that the Cannery adjacent
to Lighthouse Park didn't have enough land to build like they wanted. They
originally requested to reduce the Open Space requirements to 10% countywide,
which wasn't consistent with the intent to attract tourism and improve amenities.
After several discussions, they agreed that this would be an alternate approach to
allow the improvements without having them purchase additional property or
effecting the entire County.
Sutter asked if there is an opportunity to set up a land bank instead if doing
improvements. Goodwin stated that would be possible, but the County would have
to have a staff member be in charge of the administering the improvement.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
49
50
Sutter stated that the County may end up having small, spot properties.
Instead, funds could be pooled and be available for the Parks Department or other
entities. The County would get a better quality of a public amenity. Goodwin
suggested that they go ahead, knowing the areas are Birch Bay and Pt. Roberts,
and then work with the Port and the Parks Department on such a program.
Brenner stated that her concern was that the County uses this to put more
money in the County coffers to do things that the private individual is supposed to
do. She would rather have the County do it on an individual basis. There are
properties that lend themselves to smaller open spaces.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Sutter stated that, if a property owner can meet the requirements of the
regulation by setting aside a piece of land, then they are not really contributing to
something that is meant to be a benefit to the public.
Brenner stated that if someone can set aside 10% on their property, then
that is the purpose.
Hoag was concerned about the 50 %. It should be higher. Also, when Open
Space is on a location site, it is obvious who will take care of it. She questioned
who takes care of the long -term maintenance of an off -site location. Goodwin
stated that is covered in item #6. There is a mechanism to ensure there are
maintenance agreements.
Hoag mentioned that section should change the spelling from "insure" to
"ensure."
Knapp stated that there are a number of individuals in Pt. Roberts that have
not been able to do projects because of the present regulations. This was an
attempt to help that and other projects.
Hoag stated that item #6 only addresses a permanent exchange. There is
nothing about the obligation of maintenance. Goodwin stated that it specifies a
maintenance agreement is needed if the Hearing Examiner so determines.
Sutter stated that it depends on where the property is located.
Goodwin stated that a natural wetland would not need a maintenance
agreement. It would be looked at on a case by case basis.
Brenner stated that this is specifically for aesthetics. If that can be provided
on 10 %, then they shouldn't have to contribute money to something else.
Sutter stated that it is not just for aesthetics. It is for the utility of land for
recreation and open space purposes, unique or culturally significant habitat, and
other reasons outlined in section 20.64.502.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
50
51
Brenner stated that the purpose is to allow those reasons to exist on a
property to look and feel better. She questioned how a property can look and feel
better if that can't be done on the property and is done somewhere else. Goodwin
stated that this is a commercial area.
Brenner stated that it is a commercial resort area, and it needs to be
attractive. She suggested that it be evaluated on a property -by- property basis.
Sutter stated that it allows for more than one - size - fits -all. This proposal
allows for predictability.
Hoag stated that Brenner is talking about general commercial uses. It is
only open space. She questioned whether it is specific for areas that are Resort
Commercial Open Space. Goodwin stated that it is the Resort Commercial zoning.
Hoag stated that this is a classification for open space. Goodwin stated that
relates to any commercial development in the Resort Commercial zoning. It is all
private property that is zoned for commercial development. Right now, everyone
has to provide 40% on their own property. It is a requirement for commercial
development.
Knapp stated that Ginger Essex has been working with the Point Roberts
people.
Ginger Essex, 2505 Cedarwood, Suite 1, stated that she has been working
with the County to resolve issues in Point Roberts. They did the commercial
cannery project and found that every tenant had requirements before they would
lease space. They have lost five tenants because they cannot meet the tenant
requirements. They are losing tenants due to open space requirements. They
have no problem setting aside funds. She questioned, however, when the open
space will be installed if funds are set aside. If it is a condition of the use permit
that they meet and maintain the amenities that improve their area, then they have
no problem. They would like walkways and pathways to the shorelines and a bike
trail.
Sutter stated that setting aside funds as an option only, not a requirement.
Essex stated that this does not do away with the landscaping requirements,
which are all still in place. The point is that there must be something developed
that is aesthetically pleasing. No one is going to Pt. Roberts.
Hoag proposed a change to item 3 on page 146, section 20.64.503, "...must
exceed fifty (50) percent of the value of the land being exchanged that weUld have
been set aside to meet the 40 percent..."
Goodwin stated that would work, but need a public hearing. They could
correct the spelling of "ensure," but this would need a hearing.
Brenner called for a legal opinion.
Knapp stated that it would just be a clarification.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
51
Hoag moved to amend the language of section 20.64.503(3), "...must
exceed fifty (50) percent of the value of the land being exchanged that WOUld have
been set side to meet the 40 percent..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked if Resort Commercial was only in Pt. Roberts and Birch Bay, or
whether there is also an area in Maple Falls. Goodwin stated that Maple Falls is no
longer zoned Resort Commercial. It was recently rezoned as Small Town
Commercial. There is one other Resort Commercial parcel in Sudden Valley.
Brenner questioned whether there is a way to state that the exchange would
be done within a certain area.
Sutter stated that they could stay in the same Resort Commercial zone.
Essex stated that would not work. The Park is not a Resort Commercial
zone. The reason that they said subarea is that it was the only thing everyone
could agree on. The reality is that the developers want something that is close to
the project.
Hoag moved approval of this item as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin clarified that there are only two amendments: the spelling of
"ensure" and adding language to 20.64.503(3).
FILE #46 -98:ZM — Freeman /Kickerville area, Birch Bay
Goodwin gave background information. It included a larger area. The
Planning Commission recommended a smaller area because the surrounding
properties were larger.
Sutter asked about the State Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development's (CTED) comments on the changes. Goodwin stated that
they were looking at the same packet of information. Their concern is about the
agricultural soils on the property. In reality, this isn't good agricultural land. It is
marginal pastureland. The parcel sizes are an average of 5.6 acres, so it is not
subject to the agricultural overlay zone.
Brenner questioned why they don't leave it the way it is. Goodwin stated
that the applicant who requested this isn't one of the landowners with a five -acre
parcel. He wanted to further subdivide. A lot of the other areas are already
subdivided
Sutter questioned whether it is in the Birch Bay UGA. Goodwin stated that it
is not. It is on the edge.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether it required a Determination of Non - Significance
(DNS). Goodwin stated that it did not, and doesn't require a Comprehensive Plan
change.
Brenner stated that she had mixed feelings. Even moderate farmland is
important.
Hoag questioned the agricultural overlay. Goodwin stated that there are not
any parcels over 20 acres. Most are 10 -acre parcels.
Hoag questioned the soils. She also questioned vacant pasture and
woodlands. Goodwin stated that there is a variety of old pastureland that is not
being used. There are some lands that have hay fields. Because the sizes are
small, it is not cost effective to mow a 10 -acre parcel.
Brenner stated that she wanted someone to talk about this. They don't
usually do this without extenuating circumstances. She questioned whether
anyone besides the proponent spoke at the public hearing. Goodwin stated that a
number of neighbors were in favor.
Sutter asked about the increase in density. Goodwin stated that it is not a
large number.
Hoag asked why they would want to increase density outside of a UGA.
Goodwin stated that it is a policy decision. The applicant has surrounding
neighbors with smaller lot sizes.
Brenner stated that her larger concern is that there are planning problems in
the future if they are divided into five -acre parcels. She wanted strong support of
why it should be done. Goodwin stated that there is no strong reason why it
should be done. They looked at the placement of the smaller parcels. Another
option is to leave the whole area at 10 acres.
Hoag questioned whether different size zoning exists all over the County due
to pre- existing zoning. Goodwin stated that it is quite a few areas of the County.
That was a big issue in the Central Road areas. The difference is that the average
parcel size is smaller and this is a paid application. It met the criteria, so they
recommended approval. It is an issue that will happen across the County.
Knapp stated that there are no strong criteria to make a change. The
negative side of reducing the area to five -acre parcels is that the County precludes
future subdivisions that are reasonable subdivisions. 10 acres is better because it
can be divided into a more reasonable division of smaller parcels.
Hoag questioned whether it makes more sense until the area is designated
as an UGA, then have it be a planned development. Knapp stated that it depends
on how many parcels are already divided. If most parcels are already five -acre,
with only a few at ten - acres, then there is already a pattern of five -acre parcels.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
51
Hoag stated that the majority of the land area is in ten -acre parcels. There
are a number of smaller ones. Knapp stated that the majority of parcels are five -
acre, but not much.
Hoag stated that land area and number of parcels are different.
Brenner asked if there would be a way to restrict how it would be developed,
so that a higher density zoning development would fit into the area.
Sutter stated that is called shadow platting and was discussed during the
Comprehensive Plan process.
Brenner stated that she didn't want to preclude denser subdivision.
Goodwin stated that it would have to be conditional zoning.
Knapp stated that a surveyor would divide it into a subdivision, and then a
house that is built would have to fit into one of the lots.
Sutter stated that she would like to see that done in all of the UGA's.
Brenner asked if it can be done by a concomitant agreement. Knapp stated
that the County first needs to change the regulations.
Brown stated that, if the area meets the criteria for a rezone, but the County
is not happy about the rezone, then they should change the criteria.
Hoag agreed that they need to look at the criteria. She asked how to handle
this if the Council doesn't support it. It is currently being used for open space and
is wide open. She didn't want to lose the agricultural uses that are out there. In
terms of development, it makes sense to wait until the UGA is out there and have
planned development.
Hoag moved to recommend denial of this item.
The committee concurred.
Brown commented that the record shows that Hoag believes that there is no
open space and everything will be developed. However, most of the County
cannot be developed because 70% of the County can never be subdivided. It lays
in large sections surrounding Bellingham. Hoag should not mislead the people to
think that everything is going to be developed.
Brenner stated that her concern is that this looks like a good place for
density in the future. There is no strong reason to take that big chunk out of R10
zoning.
Sutter was concerned that, if this meets all the criteria for a rezone, then
the County does not have a basis for denying it.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that they would be
open for an appeal.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Goodwin stated that it is on the edge of meeting the criteria. If they want to
make the case that it doesn't meet the criteria, then there are ways to draw up
findings to support that.
Sutter stated that she wanted to hold this item until they find out how
closely it meets the criteria for a rezone. She didn't want to get into legal
problems by denying it. Goodwin stated that they would bring forward more
information.
Sutter recommended that it be left open for a public hearing and more
information, instead of denying it at this point.
The committee concurred.
Hoag stated that the County benefits from that area being open space and
agricultural. In all of the Smart Growth planning meetings, they were told how
important open space areas are for filtering out the pollutants that are associated
with subdividing, transportation, and other similar uses. If they subdivide now,
they will not have the planned development that they would like. They will also
have more people that need services.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Sutter stated that there are legal constraints on what they can and can't do.
They need to wait for more information. They also need to find out about the
criteria and the liability of denial if it meets the criteria. This will be held for public
hearing. It opens up the issue of looking at the rezone criteria.
Goodwin stated that the criteria for the Birch Bay subarea states that, if the
property is being used or has the potential for use in agriculture, then it can be
justified for leaving it in R10.
Hoag withdrew her motion to recommend denial and requested the legal
staff to clarify their discretionary powers.
Brown stated that there would be less development if the Planning staff
could guarantee the same zoning into the future. There is a rush to get
development done now. Problems would be eliminated if they could guarantee
zoning.
Sutter asked Goodwin to find out how closely it meets the criteria for a
rezone and also asked Frakes to determine the discretion of the Council to deny a
request.
Frakes stated that they have a certain amount of discretion, but have to act
within the criteria. Regarding liability, a rezone is a quasi - judicial method that can
be appealed, but it is not a matter of financial liability to the County.
Hoag stated that they will recommend holding this item for more
information and a public hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
51
FILE #47 -98:ZT — Pt. Robert Taxpayers
Goodwin stated that the Pt. Roberts Taxpayers brought forward a number of
amendments after discussion. The Planning Commission felt that most were not
appropriate. There were very little recommended changes.
Sutter pointed out that section 20.72.652 refers to a provision #6 that has
expired. She requested clarification. Goodwin stated that she would research the
history. It could be corrected as a scrivener's error. The change to section
20.72.653 only refers to the fact that the Character Plan has been adopted.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Sutter had a question on Council packet page 191, section 20.72.262. The
County no longer gives density bonuses for clustering. Goodwin agreed that the
County doesn't, outside of a UGA. Unfortunately, that wasn't one of the suggested
amendments.
Sutter suggested that amendment.
Goodwin stated that this is an overlay zone. In the underlying zoning, that
density bonus has been stricken. As a clean up, this should have been stricken
also. Since it hasn't been, it would still default to the underlying zone.
Sutter stated that it is referred in both sections 20.72.262 and 20.72.263.
Both need to be stricken. She so moved.
Goodwin stated that she would research the best way to strike that
language.
Sutter stated that it is a code scrub, and questioned whether it would need a
public hearing.
Brenner questioned the next time they would revisit density bonuses and
cluster subdivision. Goodwin stated that it is not docketed on the list. The Growth
Management Hearings Board overturned them. Administration would not
recommend that they ever be revisited. If they allowed density bonuses, they
would again be overturned.
Brown stated a concern on Council packet page 190, section 20.72.152. He
questioned whether it was legal that they only allow mining extraction to be used
in Pt. Roberts. Goodwin stated that legal opinion was that it would be a violation
of commerce laws if logged timber were only allowed to be used on Pt. Roberts.
She didn't know if mining has been challenged. Because gravel is more difficult to
transport, there may have been a provision for doing that.
law.
Hoag stated that this is existing code.
Brenner stated it is not right, even if the existing code violates the federal
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
51
Brown stated that it should be looked into.
Brown questioned Council packet page 191, section 20.72.350. This is
regarding building setbacks and buffer areas. Anytime a treed buffer is left, the
winds create a hazard. He questioned whether there should be a provision for
safety concerns.
Sutter questioned whether they are stream and wetland buffers, or other
types of buffers.
Brown stated that he believed it was only a buffer from development and
traffic. Goodwin stated that was correct. There is a lot of concern in Pt. Roberts
about maintaining the treed atmosphere. That is what this regulation addresses.
It is more of a character issue.
Sutter suggested adding the word "aesthetic" to indicate they are not
buffering streams or wetlands.
Brown suggested lower growing varieties of buffering, instead of the large
natural trees that eventually causes problems.
Sutter questioned the zoning referred in section 20.72.271. Goodwin stated
that she assumed it was zoned UR -4 or R -10A. The section didn't make sense, so
she would look into it.
Hoag asked if these changes were requested by the Pt. Roberts Taxpayers
Association. Goodwin stated that they were not. This is existing code. There was
a subarea plan process in the late 1970's. This is the result. There are a lot of
different groups and opinions in Pt. Roberts.
Sutter questioned section 20.72.654 on page 193 and suggested a language
change, "...handicapped accessible public restrooms and for trash disposal."
The committee concurred.
Sutter questioned sections 20.72.656(1) and 20.72.656(2) about whether a
single - family house can be on a commercial lot. Goodwin stated that it sometimes
can, but it would be considered residential development on a commercial lot. That
language is probably not needed. She suggested capitalizing "commercial."
Sutter stated that, further down in that section, they should review the need
for that much impervious surfaces, because in certain locations they are trying to
reduce the amount of impervious surfaces that are created. These days, she
always questions the need for impervious surfaces. There may be a need to
change engineering standards and requirements.
Hoag suggested striking " and
replacing it with suggested street improvements. Goodwin stated that they would
begin by revising the road standards, which are adopted as a separate document.
There should not be any vague language in these regulations. There may be areas
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
where storm drainage and sidewalks are needed because it is a commercial area.
They are only talking about commercial areas.
Sutter stated that she has wanted to look at road standards. This language
should be changed concurrent with the road standards. Goodwin stated that they
cannot do road standards this year.
Hoag suggested, "...may include curb, gutters, and sidewalks..."
Goodwin suggested, '...and land use regulations, unless a lesser standard is
approved by the County Engineer." The Council can then direct the County
Engineer to reduce impervious surfaces where appropriate.
Sutter stated that they will work on this language and get back to it later.
Brown stated that he wanted different requirements for open space, safety,
and other things. He questioned whether any of this is on the deed or title report
when it is sold. Goodwin stated that some of it is required. She expected that
someone buying property would do research and read the zoning regulations.
Sutter stated that section 20.72.652, items one through seven, look like
what ends up on covenants.
Hoag stated that counties have been trying to stay away from putting
something on the deed because it may be unconstitutional.
Sutter stated that they can put a covenant on deeds.
Sutter stated that changes have been made. She questioned whether this
should be held until they get the language back that they requested. Goodwin
stated that she will let them know at the next meeting if any of those are
substantive. They will also bring back the answers to various questions.
The committee concurred to hold this item.
(Clerk's Note: The committee moved to Other Business.)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING STANDARD REVIEW
(AB99 -172)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, discussed the
history of the business Beacon Battery. A neighbor was concerned with the
cottage industry. There were problems with access and parking. Staff visited the
site a number of times. There are no parking signs at the location. Batteries were
stored inside the building. The biggest problem at the location is the quantity of
tires behind the building. This is a non - conforming use that has been there a long
time. There is a fire issue with the tires. The owner has been given instruction to
rearrange the stacks of tires in the next 60 days.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether he is recycling tires. Knapp stated that he is, but
he is unsure how extensively. This is a separate issue. The cottage industry
section of the Whatcom County Code doesn't have parking requirements, however
in the past parking has been administered based on the use going in. The
Agricultural district is the most permissive regarding cottage industry.
Sutter asked if the County is getting a lot of complaints from neighbors of
cottage industries. Knapp stated that they are getting a huge amount of
complaints.
Sutter asked for a synopsis of the complaints. Knapp stated that the
general complaints regard visual impact and having an industrial use in the
agricultural zone.
Brenner stated that they are not getting complaints just in the agricultural
zone.
Sutter asked that Planning staff put together a synopsis of the nature of the
complaints so the committee can review cottage industries regulations. Knapp
stated that most of the uses would not be allowed in other areas of the State.
They have gone beyond the intent.
Sutter agreed.
Knapp stated that the home occupation use could be liberalized. It could
allow one or two employees other than family members. The County needs to
rethink the cottage industry use. Parking for Beacon Battery is not an issue. They
would be classified as General Business Commercial, which is one parking space
for every 300 square feet. Four spaces would be required, and they have six.
Parking is not in the access driveway. It isn't the issue in this case, but there is no
parking requirement in the agricultural section.
Sutter stated that this issue will be put into terms of Cottage Industry
regulations. They will look at the nature of the complaints that they are getting.
Cottage industry has gone beyond what was intended.
Hoag asked for clarification on Home Occupation uses versus Cottage
Industry uses. Knapp stated that home industry is family only. Cottage industry
allows outside employees. The number of outside employees allowed is different
in different areas.
Brenner commented that an amendment to Home Occupation stated that a
second dwelling could support a Home Occupation use. Some of the regulations of
Home Occupation got absorbed into Cottage Industry uses. She would like that
researched. Knapp stated that they would look at the nature of the complaints
and the history.
Sutter asked if this had to be scheduled for the Planning Commission.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated that June 30 is the deadline for the next batch of zoning amendments.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
50
They could put it on the list of suggested amendments. It would be a year unless
they found it to be an emergency.
Sutter stated that this will be held in committee for two weeks, to be
discussed in the context of Cottage Industry uses.
The committee moved to the PUD item.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY JOEL
TARRIDA FOR "SQUALICUM PLATEAU" (PUD98 -0002) (AB99 -187)
Rob Ney, Jones Engineers, stated that they didn't oppose any of the
conditions applied by the Hearing Examiner.
Sutter asked about the conditions of the traffic engineering study. Ney
stated that they have been working with the State Department of Transportation
(DOT), and they will do whatever the DOT requires.
Sutter asked if the Council members know where it is going in and the
nature. Ney stated that it is a low- density project adjacent to Squalicum High
School. The developer had an option to go with more lots, under the zoning, but
wanted to make it more compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. The lots are
larger than what could be platted, but they wanted to make it more consistent with
the areas people would have to drive through to get to the development.
Hoag asked if it is in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area (UGA). Ney stated
yes. They were the target project for their new water and sewer service zone
extensions. The City of Bellingham is in favor of the project. It took 9 months to
get water and sewer through this new process.
Sutter asked if they are west of the power lines. Ney stated yes.
Knapp stated that the County is in favor of the project because they are
within the UGA, however there is pressure on these projects to reduce the density
when a project goes into the UGA. Yet, this is where they need to focus the
growth that is occurring. There is neighborhood and political pressure to reduce
the number of lots. When they do that over and over, the projected allocations
will push the UGA out much more quickly.
Brenner questioned whether that argument was made when the PUD went
before the Hearing Examiner. She liked the project, but it should have been
denser. It could have still been in keeping with the area. It depends on the
quality of the development, not the size of the lot. Ney stated that County staff
did not make that argument. The City of Bellingham would not have given the
project water and sewer if they wanted more density.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
48
49
50
51
Brenner stated that the staff should put this on the record at the Hearing
Examiner level. Knapp stated that it is in the record. It is in the staff report.
Brenner stated that it is important to make the City of Bellingham say
something like that, because at some point the County will be in negotiations with
them over this type of issue.
Sutter questioned whether the zoning was Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX).
Ney stated that they could have gone all the way down to 4,000 square foot lots.
They had to negotiate quite heavily to get 22. Their rationale was that, in the UR-
MX, it is consistent with their cluster zoning, which is about four dwellings per
acre. They have criteria that have to be satisfied to get additional density. To get
the one extra lot, they had to provide the 25 foot treed buffer around the project.
Knapp stated that there are two violations of the Growth Management Act
(GMA) in that act by the City of Bellingham. One is that it violates the provisions
for affordable housing, and the other it is that it doesn't meet the growth
projections.
Hoag stated that they are approving their UGA's based on GMA, and the
cities are filling them very differently. Knapp stated that the policy is where that
needs to be dealt with, in the Comprehensive Plan.
Sutter stated that they may need to draft a letter of concern to the City
specifically to this issue. In the future, the Council needs to make it clear to the
City that they don't like their policy.
Hoag stated that it is not just the City of Bellingham that is doing it. The
City of Lynden is also doing it.
Sutter stated that this proposal seems like a good project.
Ney stated that the UGA is the most difficult to develop, from a developers
standpoint.
Knapp stated that there should be a very speedy process.
Brenner stated that, if this keeps continuing with the less density, then they
end up putting in bunches of developments. It will create slums because it is ugly
visually. Knapp stated that design review can be incorporated into the process.
Many jurisdictions have design review.
Sutter stated that interlocal agreement is for common design standards for
a smooth transition between the County and City. They have not accomplished
that in the Urban Fringe. Knapp stated that there has been discussion regarding
standards, but nothing has been formalized.
Sutter stated that needs to be done soon.
Hoag stated that the County can ask for boundary review when there is
annexation, but there are limits on what the Boundary Review Board can look at.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
49
50
51
It doesn't allow for issues such as infill or density. That may be process where the
County can broaden what the Boundary Review Board can look at.
Sutter stated that this is not an annexation.
Nelson asked if the UR -MX includes commercial. Ney stated that there is a
multitude of things, primarily residential. One can have an accessory use in
commercial. Theirs is fully residential. They abut the Mt. Baker Highway.
Sutter stated that they need discussion with the City of Bellingham.
Dawson asked how the Growth Hearing's Board would respond to a
complaint about this.
Sutter stated that she would rather discuss this with the City instead of filing
a complaint.
Nelson asked if this is annexed. Knapp stated that it is in the County.
Nelson stated that, through the Interlocal agreement, this is supposed to be
approved as agreed by both City and County, so that neither the City nor County
impact each other.
Brenner stated that the County is letting the people down who live in the
UGA's. Once the County goes through the interlocal agreements, they are giving
up a lot of their jurisdiction to the cities. The people living there are not annexed
yet, but their elected representatives don't have much oversight.
Sutter stated that she would start a dialogue with the City.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Committee moved to the first item on the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
Goodwin stated that they have committed to resolve the Gateway Industrial
item by the end of June.
Sutter stated that they will have extended work sessions in the next two
weeks. They will have to schedule more workshops if the currently scheduled
workshops end at noon.
The committee agreed to one work session on June 4 from 9:45 a.m. to
2:00 p.m., with a lunch break, and another work session on June 10 from 9:45
a.m. to 12:45 p.m.
Sutter stated that language should be prepared for any suggested changes.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 16