HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 15 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 15, 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
Brenner stated that a year or two ago, they looked at zoning for Recreational
Vehicles (RV). The Council members believed that it would come back to the
Council in a Title 20 amendment. Property owners just received a notice of
correction from County staff. She believed that this had been taken care of.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that it
has never been on the docket. He would look into it.
Brenner stated that they asked that it be sent to the Planning Commission
for review.
Knapp stated that they would have to docket it for next year, unless they
want to declare it an emergency.
Brenner stated that they asked for Planning Commission review a year ago.
Sutter stated that it was never formally placed on the docket.
Knapp stated that he remembered it being discussed last fall.
Brenner stated that these are large pieces of acreage on the Nooksack River,
one is 17 acres. Her recollection was that it go through the Planning Commission
and recommended changes be brought forward to the Council. She believed that it
should be based on acreage of the parcel.
Sutter stated that she would add it to her list of items to be docketed. They
discussed it prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, when they did not have
this docketing process.
Goodwin stated that they also need to deal with Mrs. Pellaboer's request that
the Council initiate her changes. That should be done during the next meeting.
Sutter stated that they would reverse the order of the items on the agenda
to finish the shorter item, regarding cottage industry regulations. The committee
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
requested information on the nature of the complaints being received. Planning has
provided that information.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING COTTAGE INDUSTRY REGULATIONS
(AB99 -220)
Knapp stated that in 1998, there were six complaints filed against cottage
industries. The complaints included noise and nuisance. When going into an
agricultural or low- density residential zone, the nuisance usually is about traffic,
odor, or a lumberyard. Uses typically outside of what is allowed in the zone
typically creates a problem, especially for a residential neighborhood. Sometimes
the complaints are valid.
Sutter asked if he meant that they are not valid in relation to the regulation
or because the complaint is not substantiated. Knapp stated that they are valid
complaints, but there is no violation.
Sutter stated that they want to make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. This is going to have to be docketed. In the future, when the Council
sends items to the Planning Commission, they should also send information on why
the item should be addressed. The Council should give direction to the Planning
Commission on the Council's concerns.
Knapp stated that there have been four complaints to date in 1999.
Regarding the Conditional Use Permits (CUP) that were issued in 1998, there were
two complaints, and two so far in 1999. The Planning Department answers 4 - 6
calls per week regarding cottage industry. There is a lot of public misconception
about what this is and why someone can do it.
Sutter suggested keeping track of the information from now until it goes to
the Planning Commission.
Brenner questioned what happens to those industries that are in violation.
Knapp explained that they either needed a CUP process or there is some other
issue related to a violation. The ones that are indicated as not being in violation
were legal upon inspection.
Brenner questioned whether the boat repair item was the one that went
before the Hearing Examiner. Knapp stated that that it might have been.
Hoag stated that the information was listed on the next page of the handout
(on file).
Brenner questioned whether the boat repair owner is also handling fiberglass.
Knapp stated that the business probably does both. Beacon Battery initially had a
violation. They were given instruction on how they must operate.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
51
Hoag stated that one document she read indicated that the cottage industry
must not generate more impacts than the residence would. A fiberglass company
would generate more impact.
Sutter stated that those are questions for the Planning Commission to
answer.
Hoag stated that apparently the law was there, but it was not being
interpreted or enforced.
Knapp stated that was not correct. The way it has historically been
interpreted is if one is in the middle of a forested area, then he or she is not
impacting the surrounding residential neighborhood. That may not be the case in
actuality. The fiberglass business never got a CUP, they just started their business.
Many owners aren't aware of the regulations.
Hoag stated that he was given a CUP to do it. Knapp stated that it went
through the Hearing Examiner, who reviewed the impacts and determined that it
was okay, based on the regulations. He read the definition of cottage industry into
the record. The definition specifies that it must not create any off -site impacts.
The on -site impacts are what the neighbors are concerned about, such as the traffic
generated.
Sutter stated that is why they need to make the Council's intent clear to the
Planning Commission.
Hoag stated that it might not be the wording that needs to be fixed, but how
the wording is interpreted and applied to enforcement that needs to be fixed.
Sutter stated that they will be docketing this item later. She is keeping a list
of items to docket and they will be discussing them at a later date.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Sutter stated that they have to adopt the Gateway Industrial zoning
amendment at the Council meeting in two weeks. They have to decide at this
meeting whether or not there is going to be a public hearing on the night of the
29th. If so, then they also need to adopt on the 29th. The committee would need to
decide whether or not they will recommend having a public hearing, and then have
the full Council vote on that recommendation at the evening meeting.
Brenner moved to recommend holding a public hearing on the Gateway
Industrial zone on June 29th at the regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Motion carried 2 - 1 with Sutter opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
52
There was discussion about whether or not to work on the Gateway Industrial
zone.
Sutter stated that she did not want to accept public testimony at the
committee meeting, in anticipation of a public hearing on June 29th. There has
already been extensive public testimony and input on this item to the City and the
County.
Hoag protested shutting off public comment. She came to the meeting with
proposed changes.
Sutter stated that she would have discussion with the committee, but would
not take comment from the public.
Council Member Nelson stated that the committee was supposed to look
through all of these and deal with these at a public hearing. There are nine
members on the Planning Commission who represent the public and go through the
public process. If the Council goes through substantive changes, the public expects
that.
Sutter agreed that the people available at this meeting are advocates and
have been through the process.
Hoag stated that the Planning Commission is to make recommendations.
The County Council is supposed to look at the recommendation and review it, not
rubber -stamp their decision.
Brenner stated that the Planning Commission members have a different
understanding of from where the recommendations came. The only way to ensure
that what the County Council requests goes to the Planning Commission is by
asking the specific questions for which the Council wants answers.
Hoag moved to work on the Gateway Industrial zone item.
Sutter stated that they don't need a motion to do that.
Hoag stated that the letters from both the Tull and Ellingson offices reference
bike and pedestrian routes being appropriate, but didn't see anything in the zone
that references that. She requested staff input on bike and pedestrian routes.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated that the 100 foot buffer between residential and commercial uses
encourages bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Hoag stated that is in section 20.65.550.
Goodwin stated that the County also has a bicycle plan, and there is a route
going through that area.
Brenner questioned whether a change from "is required" would
be a substantive change.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
52
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it would be
substantive.
Goodwin stated that there is nothing in the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) that says a change has to be substantive. It says the Council will either
accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing and
adopt their own findings. If it changes the intent, then it is a change needing a
public hearing.
Hoag stated that the staff report had different options and exhibits. On
Exhibit 2, there is a discussion about conditional uses, page five of the staff report
dated November 3, 1998. Goodwin stated that it was an option recommended by
Roger Ellingson.
Hoag stated that the reason they wanted a conditional use process was to
have some assurance that there would be mixed uses in the area, and they wanted
to carry out the intent of the Gateway Zone to be primarily light industrial, with
commercial allowed where it was more appropriate. She wondered if that could be
accomplished without a CUP. There isn't any language in the Code that establishes
specified criteria.
Sutter questioned whether there could be criteria used for an administrative
decision. Goodwin stated that they could be used either way. They could add
those as a qualifier on the commercial uses in the permitted uses, but how would
one determine if commercial use is clearly more appropriate than a light industrial
use.
Hoag read from the Ellingson letter, which listed suggested criteria. The
problem is that the current criteria are vague and people are fitting them into what
they want. They need to carry out what the subarea plan calls for, and is clear in
the criteria that the Council is looking for, but doesn't place an undue burden on the
people that are trying to locate there. If there is a way to accomplish this by
incorporating it into the criteria, then it should be done. Goodwin stated that they
could put that same language into the criteria of the permitted uses, but it would be
difficult to administer, which is why she didn't recommend it. If someone has a
PUD to develop on 100 acres, then it could be said the property is clearly more
appropriate for industrial. However, if someone has one small piece of property,
then she questioned how they would determine which use is more clearly
appropriate.
Hoag stated that the Subarea Plan makes it clear that it is supposed to be
light industrial, but also allows for commercial uses.
Goodwin stated that it is supposed to be a mixed use.
Hoag stated that is not the wording in the Subarea Plan.
Knapp stated that the only way they could effectively do that is to do a
master plan for the entire area, and identify how much industrial and commercial
would be designated. There would need to be a lot of detail. That has been done
to some degree in Barkley Village. There is a mix of uses. Going parcel by parcel
would not work. That's the difficulty here.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
50
51
Hoag read the wording in section 4.21 of the Subarea Plan about the desired
uses of the land. That is the language from the Plan that they are trying to
implement.
Sutter stated that the Urban Fringe Plan does not define what is meant by
"clearly more appropriate." Therefore, the Council can either not use the language
or must define what is meant by "clearly more appropriate."
Hoag stated that her suggestion was to define that language. In the
Development Regulations, they need to adopt language that carries out the intent
of the Plan. What they have before them, it is clear that the majority of the land
will go commercial just because of the market. With the recommendations before
them, they will not carry out the intent of the Plan. It is supposed to be light
industrial with some commercial uses allowed. Unless criteria are added, they will
end up not carrying out the Plan by default.
Brenner stated that a master plan would not be a bad idea. One of the
arguments brought up by a proponent of the Gateway Industrial property was that
the County needs family wage jobs. Another point was that there should not be so
much congestion that people are going to have a hard time getting to and from the
airport. It was titled Gateway Industrial for a reason. It was not titled Gateway
Commercial. If there is no way to insure a balance of industrial with commercial,
then she questioned why they should bother calling it industrial at all. The
proponent should not be able to proceed unless they submit a master plan. It
seems logical that would be the ideal solution, and then let the owners within the
master plan work it out themselves. They would come up with better solutions
than the Council could, parcel by parcel.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A.)
Sutter stated that this is a different situation than in Custer, where the
Council was specific about the development that could go into the area. It had to
be an intermodel facility. She questioned whether the parcels involved in the
Gateway Industrial zone were big enough for a master plan.
Knapp stated that there are quite a few smaller parcels. That is why, to
some extent, the industrial designation doesn't work well. The parcel sizes do not
accommodate the industrial user.
Sutter stated that they don't need to make things a conditional use if the
County can place criteria on the determination. The criterion which requires that a
vast majority of the parcels be already developed as industrial is not a good
criterion for determining appropriateness. They need to come up with some
appropriate criteria.
Hoag suggested that the criterion could require that the vast majority of the
developed parcels be industrial. Goodwin replied that the vast majority of it is
already commercial, about half. They would have to have a lot of industrial
development in the area before they could allow any more commercial uses.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
52
Knapp stated that they also need to look at the parcel size of the remaining
properties to determine if it is feasible to make them be industrial. There is a need
to have a condominium style facility that is one large building. The economy
dictates that there must be certain size buildings to make the industrial
development work.
Sutter stated that they have to look at the current parcel sizes available.
They need to tailor what they are talking about to what is actually there. They
should keep in mind that the property on the other side if the freeway is not
included. It is already City -owned property. They need to insure that the two are
compatible.
Goodwin stated that area is commercial.
Brenner stated that the property was zoned Gateway Industrial. They should
not tailor zoning to what the property owners want. There can be lots of light
industry on smaller parcels. If they do a master plan, then they should let the
property owners work it out. The Council should work on how the area ends up, to
impact the public the least and be most efficient.
Sutter stated that there is always a property owner that disagrees.
Hoag stated that a PUD might be worth exploring, but would make it harder
for people to come in with a use. They need to direct it so that they are fulfilling
what they are looking for in that area. A master plan may also be worth exploring,
but might make another hoop someone has to jump through. They can accomplish
the same thing by implementing development regulations that implement the
zoning. She read from the Urban fringe area, section 4.22, regarding the intent of
the Gateway Industrial zoning. The commercial is an allowed use, but the intent is
to allow for industrial uses.
Brenner questioned whether the master plan could be general or specific.
Knapp stated that the range of specificity is from Ellingson's proposal to a PUD,
which is very specific.
Brenner questioned whether the master plan could outline the area, and then
identify the percentages of the various uses to be allowed. Goodwin stated that is
outlined on page 32 of the Findings and Recommendations.
Brenner questioned whether there is anything that prevents the County from
doing a master plan with the percentage designations. Goodwin stated that it can
be done, but the task is to get the cooperation of the property owners.
Nelson gave background on the intent of the Gateway Industrial zone. His
concept of the Gateway Industrial zone was, since there has been no interest in the
area for industrial uses, to allow some commercial uses. The intent was to give
some flexibility while preserving the integrity of the industrial uses in the
interchange areas. If they go into it, whether a PUD or a master plan, then they
can't get too specific.
Brenner stated that the concern is that it is left as is and everything is
developed commercial.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
Nelson stated that they need to establish the criteria of what is commercial.
Not all of the property will be developed commercial. It is not advantageous to the
property owners to have commercial.
Hoag stated that commercial property sells for more. It is more
advantageous. She suggested specifying that the "bulls eye" area around the
interchange could be commercial provided that it serves the traveling public and
meets the size criteria. Everything else would be light industrial unless it was more
appropriate to be commercial or it was a retail use associated with a light industrial
use. That way, they would end up with a mix, but don't have to deal with
percentages. That bulls eye area would not be restricted to commercial, either.
Sutter questioned whether any industrial uses would have to meet certain
criteria as more appropriate than commercial within the "bulls eye" area.
Hoag stated no. Within that area, commercial property sells for more. Light
industry is already an outright permitted use. They are trying to protect the
remaining area from going commercial. They still want to have the commercial
uses that the Subarea Plan calls for, which is to serve the traveling public, where it
is more appropriate than a light industrial use, or as an accessory use to a light
industrial use.
Sutter stated that was what was said in the regulation.
Hoag stated that Y4 mile takes up the whole zone, which was the problem.
The bulls eye area would have to be smaller.
Brenner questioned what would prevent a "bulls eye" area from creating
more traffic congestion. Goodwin stated that there are already two provisions in
the Code that they can't cause traffic congestion. They have to either do mitigation
or put in the infrastructure. There is already the concurrency provision of the Code
that would address the idea of the traffic. By restricting commercial to a smaller
area, they would have to decide how to encourage industrial development in the
other area.
Brenner stated that everyone is saying that companies are not relocating
here because of a lack of light industrial with services. Knapp stated that the
demand is for large parcels. These are small parcels.
Hoag stated that they could purchase several parcels. Goodwin stated that a
proponent could, but last year the Council rezoned the properties from light impact
industrial to Gateway Industrial so they could go commercial. If they are going to
change the uses back to industrial, then it would be a rezone.
Sutter stated that combining smaller parcels into one larger parcel could only
work with a commercial use, because it is higher value. It would be more difficult
to purchase from a bunch of property owners if the property were priced at light
industrial. She was not interested in restricting commercial use. They are trying to
get a mixed use, not a segregated use.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
Hoag stated that it is supposed to be industrial use, not mixed. It allows for
other uses, but the intent was for industrial use.
Sutter stated that it also allows for a mixed use.
Hoag stated that they are talking about retail, and calling it commercial. The
concern is with retail, not all commercial uses. Office buildings are commercial and
are less of a concern. They should limit the retail to the "bulls eye" area, then they
would accomplish what the zoning is for. In addition, Frakes issued a legal opinion
that was cited in the Tull letter that says the mixed use area should be evaluated
within the entire district, not just in the "bulls eye" area.
Brenner agreed that her use of the phrase commercial is intended for retail.
Hoag suggested a change to limit the retail shops to 770 feet within the
freeway interchange in section 20.65.055 of the Planning Commission Draft
Findings. The other items in that section would be limited to Y4 mile in a section
numbered 20.65.056, and then all the items in section 20.65.056 would be
renumbered to section 20.65.057.
Sutter stated that she was concerned that they would concentrate everything
that generates traffic into one small location, and create congestion.
Brenner suggested allowing retail within the 770 feet, and the other mixed
uses anywhere.
Hoag stated that the use can be anywhere, but it is only limited in size.
Sutter stated that the items (2) through (7) in section 20.65.055 should be
moved to section 20.65.056.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that it might be a problem to have hotels and motels away
from the intersection.
Hoag stated that they are allowed, but they are only restricted.
There was discussion about the distance from the interchange being 1/4 mile
vs. 770 feet.
Sutter asked what happens between 770 in feet and Y4 mile.
Hoag stated that all of the uses in section .056, including the items that they
moved into that section, but anything beyond has to be smaller. Within the Y4 mile
is the 35,000 square feet.
Sutter stated that language was moved.
Brenner suggested making another section.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
Sutter stated that they are looking at three areas instead of two. One area is
within 770 feet, one within Y4 mile, and one outside of Y4 mile.
Hoag asked if there was an agreement on the footage of the industrial uses.
Goodwin stated that the light impact industrial uses are not restricted to size.
Brenner stated that retail only has the size restriction.
Sutter stated that it has to either be 770 feet or Y4 mile in both sections.
Hoag stated that there would not be a size restriction within the Y4 mile
Sutter stated that it seems appropriate that post offices, banks, and
recreation facilities are more appropriate beyond the Y4 mile and should not be
restricted from 6,000 square feet. If they force them inside the Y4 mile or the 770
feet, then they are creating a traffic problem.
Hoag stated that the traffic would still be there, it will just be brought farther
into the neighborhood.
Sutter stated that there will not be enough parking for the new traffic.
Hoag stated that the items in the first 770 feet create a lot of traffic.
Sutter stated that the rest also create a lot of traffic.
Sutter questioned whether bakeries, drug stores, hardware stores, and
markets are also retail. They are subject to the 6,000 square feet restriction.
Goodwin stated that those are the uses that were intended to serve the
neighborhood or the industrial.
Hoag stated that all they are doing is restricting the big retailers to within the
770 feet.
Sutter asked why certain specific retail operations were delineated. Goodwin
stated that is the way the original Tourist Commercial was originally drawn up.
Hoag stated that these items listed have always been listed. Just saying
Alretail" can open a Pandora's box of problems.
Brenner stated that there is probably a reason that they are very specific.
Hoag moved to change section 20.65.055 to "...the following uses within 770
feet of a freeway interchange, except that..., " and also remove items (2) through
(7) in section 20.65.055 and place them in section 20.65.056.
Sutter asked if professional offices, such as doctors and dentists, are allowed
within the Gateway Industrial zoning. Goodwin stated that they are allowed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
50
51
Sutter asked if they can focus public testimony during a public hearing only
on the proposed changes.
Frakes stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to address that
change.
Nelson asked if they addressed the standards for parking and buffers.
Sutter stated that they haven't. There are two more work shops planned.
One meeting is Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side B.)
Hoag stated that the intent for the zone was to have light industrial uses.
She didn't see that language in the documentation. Goodwin stated that option
three is almost the same as option two. It is administrative approval instead of
conditional approval.
Hoag asked the difference between the two processes. Goodwin stated that
administrative approval is a process of an applicant coming to the County, paying a
fee, and having an administrative staff person review it. If there is an appeal, then
it goes to the Hearing Examiner. The difference between an administrative
approval process and a building permit process is that it goes through the Land Use
Division, has to have a staff report, and an approval before they can get a building
permit.
Knapp stated that there is no staff report on a building permit, but there is
review.
Hoag stated that language should be clear that the intent is for light
industrial.
Sutter suggested that she draft language to look at during the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Goodwin stated that the memo she distributed is the staff's answers and
responses to questions and requests for information from the County Council.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE
TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB99 -210)
Sutter stated that this item will be tabled to the next meeting.
Goodwin stated that, when they discuss it, she would like information on
what information the Council and committee would like to look at.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, 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
Hoag stated that they like the information on the people, the criteria, the
Planning Commission minutes, and the staff reports.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/99, Page 12