HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 16 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 16, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Bellingham Public Library Lecture Room, 210 Central Avenue,
Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Sutter stated that they left off with the Lake Whatcom Development
Regulations.
Brenner requested to have a shorter meeting, since they are not under a
deadline.
Goodwin stated that they are not under any deadline.
The committee concurred to end the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Hoag stated that it was difficult to come to the meeting because she felt that
the people are doing an end run - around and not allowing a public hearing, after all
of the work that they've put into it. It is a waste of her time. She spent hours
studying the Garrett rezone to get up to speed. She tried to come up with items
that she believed would fulfill the requirements of the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan
and satisfy people's concerns. She has better things to do with her time.
Sutter stated that was an exceptional item. They don't ordinarily end up
wasting time on issues. They all spent a great deal of time on the issue. After
reflection, she decided not to vote on the public hearing, which she has a right to
do.
Brenner stated that the reason for the public hearing is so people can have
an opportunity to change their mind, if they receive new information.
Goodwin suggested going through the items to determine if there are major
concerns, bring them to the Council for a public hearing, and then go back to
committee for fine - tuning.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Hoag stated that is what happened last night and it is terrible. One cannot
briefly scan something to determine whether it needs a change, bring it to the full
Council, and try to persuade them they need a public hearing. Goodwin stated that
would save time for fine - tuning the language.
Sutter stated that this was a workshop and the time to do the work. She
spoke to legal counsel. At a workshop, they can't make recommendations. They
can talk about concerns and come to consensus, but motions and votes have to be
during a regular committee meeting with an agenda.
Brenner asked if they want to send it back to the Planning Commission.
Sutter stated that it has to come from County Council. It comes forward as
one item. To pull one item off for a public hearing, there has to be consent by the
Council.
Brenner stated that there is a proposal regarding the County property at
Smith and Northwest to allow any use. Two Planing Commissioners, Dick Gilda and
Bob Wiesen, stated that staff implied that this item came from the Council. They
were not comfortable with it, but thought the Council was recommending it. She
wanted to send it back to the Planning Commission for clarification. People are
upset that the County would change the conditional use permitting on public
property. It would preclude the public from any input on property that the public
owns.
Sutter stated that she would check the procedures.
Brenner stated that she didn't want to hold up items that make sense.
Goodwin stated that it was a suggestion by the administration. There are
several different ways an item can be initiated, by County Council, administration,
staff, or the Planning Commission.
Brenner stated that two Planning Commissioners believed that the County
Council brought this item forward. That was the only reason that Bob Wiesen said
he supported it. He did not feel comfortable with it. Goodwin stated that the
County Council doesn't have to forward the zoning docket. A suggested
amendment can be put on by staff or administration. The Council saw a list, but
didn't approve it.
Brenner stated that there was never a hint to anyone about this item.
Planning Commission is backed up. It seems unusual, if not sneaky, to stick in an
amendment that isn't time critical and could hold up items that are time critical.
She wants it to go back to the Planning Commission.
Goodwin suggested the County Council deny it and place it back on the
docket for next year.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Brenner stated that she wanted to know from the Planning Commissioners
why they forwarded it to the Council and whether they still feel that way.
Sutter suggested Brenner draft a memo to the Planning Commission, which
she would forward.
Brenner stated that it wasn't fair for administration to put items on the
Planning Commission docket without informing the Council of why they want it.
Hoag asked who in legal made the opinion about not being able to make
recommendations during work sessions. Sutter stated that it was Dan Gibson.
Hoag stated that the Comprehensive Plan was changed in work sessions.
Sutter stated that only committees made the recommendations and votes. They
will vote during committee on the items that they take care of at this meeting.
Hoag state that they need to check with legal because that is how it has been
done historically.
Brenner asked that all future legal opinions be given in writing.
Hoag asked for clarification on language in section 20.71.051 regarding
approved conditional uses subject to the most current siting criteria. Goodwin
stated that the on -site storage would have to be associated with either an outright
permitted use or an approved conditional use.
Hoag suggested "...permitted uses or associated with approved conditional
uses..."
The committee concurred.
Brenner asked about a conditional use that might have hazardous uses.
Goodwin stated that convenience grocery might sell antifreeze. A photochemical
processing lab might have to store chemical fluid. A beauty parlor may have to
store left -over permanent solution.
Brenner questioned whether allowing a conditional use hazardous waste
storage facility located at a conditional use business would water down the
regulations. Goodwin stated that there are different zones in the water shed, but
the most prevalent would be the rural zone. Conditional uses are public and
community facilities, such as a fire station, which would have to store fire fighting
equipment.
Brenner asked if they are watering down protection by allowing a conditional
use of a conditional use. Goodwin stated that they would have to get two
conditional use permits. It would not water it down.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that they could site a conditional use that used hazardous
chemicals, but didn't store the waste there. They may store it later. Goodwin
stated that an example would be an animal hospital with an associated kennel as an
associated conditional use.
Sutter stated that it is only hazardous waste. They may have to specify
hazardous materials, not just hazardous waste.
Hoag asked if the list of conditional uses is long. Goodwin stated that in the
rural it takes up a page and a half.
Hoag stated that she was not concerned about the public and community
facilities. She was more concerned about uses from which they wouldn't want
hazardous waste to be stored. She suggested instead getting rid of the second
section and just allow it if it is associated with an outright permitted use.
Brenner suggested removing the last part, "...or approved conditional uses..."
Sutter stated that they would restrict conditional uses that would have a
need to store hazardous wastes.
Brenner asked what the conditional uses are doing now. Goodwin stated that
they are accessory use and don't require a permit. It is less restrictive than what is
being proposed. Each zone section has its own uses.
Brenner stated that she didn't want to allow long -term storage of hazardous
waste. She suggested limiting storage to 24 hours as an accessory use. Goodwin
stated that they would have to look at other zones that place further restrictions.
Hoag stated that there are a lot of things that are allowed under cottage
industry, such as the fiberglass shop.
Brenner stated that cottage industry regulations specify that any industry
could be allowed.
Hoag suggested either deleting cottage industry as a permitted use or only
allow storage with outright permitted uses instead of conditional uses. Goodwin
stated that animal hospitals are now a conditional use, in section 20.71.153.
Hoag suggested getting rid of the approved conditional uses.
Goodwin suggested putting a time limit for storage.
Hoag stated that they are trying to avoid having waste there that could be
spilled. Limiting the time the waste is on -site doesn't solve the problem of having
the waste there. The real concern is the cottage industries.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter suggested adding criteria for the Hearing Examiner to follow when he
is conditioning those permits. He could restrict cottage industries that generate
hazardous waste.
Hoag stated that she wanted to restrict on -site storage of hazardous waste
related to a cottage industry. She suggested in section 20.71.151 "...or approved
conditional uses except cottage industries..." If the regulations don't allow storage
of hazardous waste, then the business owner won't use it.
Sutter asked if there is a definition of a storage facility. Goodwin stated that
there isn't a definition.
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated that the point is to get
hazardous materials out of the watershed, and how to best accomplish that. If
limiting storage to 24 hours, the inconvenience would make the industry relocate.
Hoag questioned how they would enforce it. They should instead restrict
cottage industries from having a hazardous waste storage facility.
Sutter stated that the key is to have a definition for a storage facility. A
cottage industry with a small storage space could be interpreted as a facility.
Hoag asked if a facility was a building built for the specific purpose. Frakes
stated that she would think so.
Goodwin suggested striking the word "facility." Hoag stated no.
Hoag suggested a definition, " a storage facility is a structure built for the
specific purpose of storage for hazardous waste."
Sutter stated that a structure could be just a barrel.
Brenner suggested doing it by volume.
Hoag suggested staff work on the specific language. Goodwin stated that
they couldn't. Volume wouldn't be good because different chemicals have different
levels of toxicity.
Hoag suggested they specifically allow a cabinet.
Sutter stated that, instead of discussing what they would allow, the
committee may have to discuss what they would restrict. They are trying to be
clear about what constitutes a storage facility.
Wells suggested that they contact the Washington Toxics Coalition on a way
to create that section. Their phone number is 800 - 844 -SAFE.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter asked why greenhouses are prohibited in section 20.71.200. Goodwin
stated that they are allowed if they operate chemical -free. The Planning
Commission wrestled with what is considered chemical -free.
Sutter stated that they could be organic.
Hoag stated that would allow manure application.
Brenner suggested it be a conditional use.
Hoag stated that the findings are trying to prohibit the use of the
phosphorus, which is prevalent in commercial nurseries and greenhouses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Sutter asked if the natural plant and wild plant nurseries use fertilizers.
Hoag stated that they do. They don't use the same kinds, though.
Sutter asked if the committee wanted to make them conditional uses.
Hoag stated that she would recommend that they condition it to be
phosphorus free, otherwise it should be prohibited.
Goodwin suggested that they require they be certified organic.
Hoag stated that there are other places to have them, not in the watershed.
Goodwin stated that application of chemicals and fertilizers is the same reason that
golf courses and cemeteries are a conditional use.
Sutter stated that she was not comfortable with that.
Brenner stated that greenhouses should be conditional and golf courses
should be organic and shouldn't be allowed to use chemicals.
Hoag questioned whether they would allow the Sudden Valley Golf course if
they were willing to have a pesticide and fertilize management program to establish
and insure that chemical and pesticide quantities in the stormwater runoff don't
exceed standards. Goodwin stated that this regulation is for only new uses. They
can't shut down what is already there.
Sutter asked why they can't make commercial nurseries the same use as the
golf courses and cemeteries.
Hoag stated that there is a difference. Golf courses and cemeteries provide
open space.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that it is also a larger area for dumping chemicals. She wanted
to consider allowing commercial plant nurseries and greenhouses and sod farming,
but make them a conditional use with the same caveat as the golf courses and
cemeteries.
Hoag stated that they should not allow sod farming, who have to have that
grass beautifully green, or it won't be purchased.
Sutter stated that a sod farm would then not locate in the watershed, if they
had to follow the restrictions.
Hoag stated that, in terms of taxpayers' money and staff shortage, she would
rather just prohibit it, than make it go through the process.
Wells stated that there are not State water quality standards for all
hazardous chemicals that are used.
Brenner favored prohibition section 20.71.154 and the cemetery, but had a
problem prohibiting commercial plant nurseries and greenhouses. They should be
limited.
Sutter stated that they could make it a conditional use.
Hoag asked the difference between a commercial use and a home
occupation. Goodwin stated that a home occupation with a business license would
be commercial.
Hoag stated that a home occupation does not allow employees outside of the
family. Goodwin stated that it isn't defined, but a commercial is a business that
one can make money off of.
Sutter favored making them conditional uses and restricting the size and
chemical uses.
Hoag asked why they want the greenhouses and commercial nurseries to be
allowed.
Brenner stated that she had seen some very naturally done greenhouses that
wouldn't be detrimental. She suggested prohibiting the golf courses and
cemeteries instead.
Sutter stated that they are going to prohibit cemeteries and golf courses, and
condition the greenhouses and nurseries.
The committee concurred.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Goodwin stated that they must already operate chemical free. There must
also not be any outside storage of fertilizer or aerial application of chemical
products. The greenhouses and nurseries are prohibited, excluding retail nurseries
operating chemical free, which are allowed. That issue came up at the Planning
Commission when discussing Lummi Island. The question was how they define
"chemical- free."
Sutter stated that they might want to put on more conditions.
Brenner stated that they should have a management and monitoring
program to insure that stormwater run -off is okay.
Hoag suggested that contaminate levels and stormwater run -off levels do not
exceed standards. Goodwin stated that is already law.
Wells stated that there are no standards for many things, such as
phosphorus.
Sutter stated that, if they require the run -off to be chemical free, then the
owner would have to control the application of the fertilizer so there is no run -off.
The County can put its own standards in. The conditions can prohibit phosphorus
and nitrogen, or set appropriate levels.
Hoag stated that would require monitoring and enforcement.
Sutter stated that they have to be reasonable. Composting is part of the
natural process. It is the same thing they require of the farmers, that they monitor
the soil conditions and run -off.
Hoag stated that the Conservation District does that for them.
Goodwin suggested that they go through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and do a Best Management Practices Plan.
Sutter suggested that they do their own monitoring.
Brenner suggested specifying a size limit and that they be chemical free.
Hoag suggested restricting the distance to a stream or body of water.
Sutter asked the committee members to come up with ideas and put them in
writing. The ideas so far are distance from bodies of water, size of the use, and
application of fertilizers and chemicals.
Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission asked why they differentiate
between commercial and residential. If they limit size, then they should take out
the word "commercial."
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Hoag stated that if someone is raising food for the family, it is different than
a business.
Sutter stated that they would make it a conditional use, and leave in plant
nurseries and green house. They would leave off the rest for storage propagation
and culture, which is more of a commercial operation than a retail operation.
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that they will come up with a size later.
Wells stated that they look at the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for
setback requirements when setting the distance from bodies of water.
Goodwin stated that allowing those as a conditional use would allow an
underlying use of a wholesale business. All of the underlying uses are allowed
except those that are specifically prohibited. They need to prohibit wholesale.
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that they need to make retail conditional and prohibit wholesale
plant nurseries and greenhouses.
Sutter asked about the aquaculture section. Goodwin stated that there was
the same concern. Issues are the waste generated exceeds that of sewage
treatment plant, and also growing a foreign species of fish.
Brenner suggested adding "commercial aquaculture." Goodwin stated that
there is a new definition in the docket, which is that aquaculture is commercial.
Hoag suggested the State's setback of 250 feet from streams for the
nurseries and greenhouses.
Wells stated that State's setbacks are suggested buffers for development.
Sutter stated that they are stream buffers for the highest type of
development.
Wells stated that wasn't true. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
the use of best management practices when making legislation. She read from her
letter.
Hoag stated that the concern was regarding the run -off. Rather than trying
to meet a variety of standards, they should require that they all are far enough
away from the lake. 250 feet is not that far.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that they did not talk about which zoning nurseries would be
allowed in. Goodwin stated that they would only be allowed if the underlying
zoning would allow them, then they would be further conditioned.
Sutter stated that the buffer is too unreasonable if they are allowed in a
higher density area.
Brenner stated that it should be about size.
Hoag stated that there should be a buffer.
Sutter stated that 250 feet is too big, and the size of the buffer should be
about the size of the garden.
Wells stated that would require enforcement.
Sutter asked how it is different from the manure ordinance.
Brenner suggested 100 feet, or they could specify a maximum size of a
garden that would not be restricted.
Goodwin stated that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) already has a 100
foot setback.
Brenner stated that a bigger garden should be farther than 100 feet away
from a stream.
Sutter stated that the committee would look at the potential of making
buffers relative to garden size, just at one level or threshold.
The committee concurred.
Wells suggested talking to Jim Johnston, the State agent regarding the
watershed.
Sutter asked about the open space uses in section 20.71.300. She
questioned the differences between sections 20.71.301(1) through (3) with sections
20.71.301(4) and (5), regarding reserving a parcel in open space in Resort
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zones. She questioned the difference.
Goodwin stated that there are already open space requirements in Resort
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and are intended for public recreation
or aesthetics.
Sutter asked about the difference of keeping them free of structures and
impervious surfaces. Goodwin stated that the open space definition is different.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Hoag asked if the open space requirements are different than in the
underlying zones. Goodwin stated that they are. The difference between the two
definitions is that one sets aside land dedicated for active or passive recreation,
visual enjoyment, or developed limitations on unsuitable land areas.
Goodwin stated that open space in a commercial area is different than open
space for taxation. One is about the underlying zoning and one is an additional
impervious surface requirement added to the zone.
Hoag asked if the percentages were the same. Goodwin stated that in
certain zones, there are not percentages that have to be left pervious.
Sutter asked if Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX) allows certain commercial
uses. Goodwin stated that it does. The underlying zoning has some requirements
for landscaping.
Sutter asked if it has percentage requirements for non - impervious surfaces.
Goodwin stated that it doesn't for non - impervious surfaces.
Sutter asked why Commercial and UR -MX is being treated different from the
Neighborhood Commercial or Resort Commercial, regarding percentages of
impervious surfaces. They are still commercial. Goodwin stated that there is no
percentage requirement of impervious surfaces in the UR -MX currently, so this
language is added. The UR -MX does have buffers and landscaping. Those would
still apply, but they are not open space.
Wells stated that the Purpose section of the regulations in 20.71.010, should
be the focus of discussions. Regarding open space, the research shows that there
is significant damage to streams at the development level of one home per acre.
She questioned the level in which they actually protect the watershed, which is
what they are supposed to do. Dr. Richard Horner is a resource and she gave his
background.
Hoag stated that the Neighborhood Commercial zone is one that is more
concentrated. They can't expect to achieve the impervious surface levels one
would expect in the watershed. Some of it applies and some of it doesn't. It is
worthwhile to see how Wells' recommendation looks in terms of the watershed and
in terms of the data. Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission looked at that
extensively. The average amount of the watershed in Commercial or Rural Forestry
makes the percentages much lower.
Hoag stated that including the forestry in the average is misleading because
it is farther from the lake. Only the area around the lake, not the property further
back, should be included in the average. She would like to see the percentages of
currently developed land in the zones, and where they are located on the lake. This
regulation addressed future development. There may be areas that are already too
saturated, where they need to increase the limits of impervious surfaces in those
areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Wells stated that the Open Space language as written doesn't encourage the
buffering or impervious surface to be in the most distant location from the water.
Sutter stated that brings up other items, one is road standards and the other
is impervious surface standards. They need to find ways to get people to use
alternative paving methods. On the next docket, they could look at alternative
surfaces.
Brenner stated that the longer one uses gravel, the more impervious it
becomes.
Hoag and Sutter disagreed. It becomes less pervious, but not impervious. It
is better than asphalt.
Goodwin stated that in R5 or R10 zoning, in which only 10% of the lot could
be impervious, there must be a driveway that should be gravel instead of paved. It
is the same with recreational vehicle (RV) or boat storage.
Sutter asked why they would include any water, such as streams and the
lake, in the percentage for the open space requirement, under section 20.71.302.
Goodwin suggested striking the section.
Hoag stated that they don't want to count the water in the open space
percentage because there would not be any protection for the water, but the un-
buildable land areas should count as open space.
Sutter stated that they are already requiring them to do the setback, which
would result in a certain percentage of the property being left in open, and then
requiring another percentage for the open space requirement.
Hoag suggested not more than a total of 50% of the required open space for
a parcel may be provided..." and then reference the water. They should be able to
count the setback and unbuildable land areas. Goodwin stated that they should
strike section 20.71.302(1).
Hoag stated that they still need open space there to protect the water.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Sutter stated that water is already considered open space, as defined in
section 20.97.275.
Goodwin stated that it doesn't include tidelands or shorelands.
Sutter stated that a pond in the back of the yard should be counted.
Hoag stated that water shouldn't be included, because the purpose of what
they are doing is to protect the water.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that setbacks and unbuildable areas should be allowed only on
50% of the open space. They need to strike that.
Hoag stated it should say, "Not more than a total of 50% of required open
space of a parcel may be provided in water."
Wells stated that the definition of open space references that the open space
is dedicated to a public use. Goodwin stated that it is not a residential parcel.
Sutter stated that they are using one phrase, open space, for two different
meanings. Definitions are defining open space as the taxation classification of open
space. However, in other places, such as the Neighborhood Commercial and Resort
Commercial zones, where they require percentages to be reserved as open space,
they are not talking about them in the same terminology.
Brenner stated that there are open spaces where they don't have to allow
public use.
Sutter stated that they don't have to allow public access in industrial areas,
where open space only means uncovered areas. Goodwin stated that the open
space must provide either active or passive recreation, visual enjoyment, or
developed limitations. For example, Arco has open space that has chain link fenced
for visual enjoyment, but people can't walk on it.
Sutter asked what zones are subject to the section. Goodwin stated that
there are Resort Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Urban Residential, Rural
Residential, Rural Forestry and Rural in the watershed.
Sutter stated that it would apply all zones in the watershed, including
residential. She didn't want to dedicate a part of her yard for public use. They
need a different term. They will have to split the terms and call it something else.
Goodwin suggested looking to see if subsections (4) and (5) are the same as
the underlying and, if so, skip those and call the section "Impervious Surface."
Hoag questioned about the businesses that want to count water as a part of
their open space.
Sutter stated that they need a different term in the residential zones. There
needs to be a section for Residential that is called something other than open
space. There needs to be one section that talks about impervious surface levels in
Residential, and call it something other than open space, and then a second section
called open space that addresses actual open space in non - residential zoning.
Goodwin stated that in the underlying zoning of neighborhood commercial,
only 15% has to be open space.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that is why they need to two sections.
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that subsections (1) through (5) should be in a different
section.
Brenner wanted to ask Karen Frakes about the work session and referring
items to the Planning Commission. She wanted to know if the committee can refer
items back to Planning Commission for clarification, without going to the entire
Council.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she guessed the
entire Council should make the referral.
Brenner asked if the committee, from a work session, can make
recommendations to the Council. Frakes stated that she thought they could.
Sutter stated that she was told that any action has to be on an agenda of a
regularly scheduled meeting.
Frakes stated that she would find out.
Hoag asked if they have to have a public hearing to deny the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Frakes stated that it can be denied without a
public hearing. They only need a public hearing if they are proposing changes to
the recommendation.
Sutter stated that this item comes forward as one ordinance. If they pull
something out, then they are changing it.
Hoag stated that they should have a public hearing on the whole document.
Frakes stated that they are making separate recommendations, so they
probably could pull an item out.
Brenner stated that she wanted to find out who in the administration brought
forward the amendment about the Smith and Northwest property. Goodwin stated
that it came from the Public Works and Parks Departments, because it was
inconvenient to come forward every time they need to build a snack bar or do small
modifications.
Brenner discussed her objection of the proposal. Goodwin stated that she
submitted proposed substitute language.
Hoag stated that the problem is that the public cannot have any say as to
what is going on. If what they want to build is not objectionable, then it wouldn't
be a problem.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, 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
Sutter stated that there should be a way to make certain uses permitted and
others conditional if they could be objected to.
Hoag stated that the uses should be run through the Conditional Use process.
Sutter asked the cost of obtaining a Conditional Uses Permit (CUP). Goodwin
stated that the costs include a filing fee and staff time.
Brenner asked about the permitted uses of the area currently. Goodwin
stated that they are agriculture and residential.
Brenner asked if they need a CUP to do interior painting. Goodwin stated
that she did not know, but they may if it was an expansion. If they want to build
an addition, snack shed, or baseball diamond adjacent to the soccer fields, then
they would need a CUP.
Brenner suggested that the permitted uses are attached to the existing use.
Hoag stated that it could be interpreted differently. They need to find out
what the County is having a problem with, then bring only those items forward for
fixing.
Goodwin stated that the Public Works Department can come before the
committee to tell them what the concerns are.
Sutter stated that would be discussed at the meeting on Thursday the 24th
at 9:45 a.m.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 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, 6/16/99, Page 15
Planning and Development Committee, 6/16/99, Page 16