HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 24 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 24, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Ahcant
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
FILE #58 -98:ZT
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, discussed the issue regarding the
Public Facilities. He was concerned about the flyer being distributed by the
Neighborhood Association. He went to the Planning Director to discuss building
buildings consistent with the County's operations. He felt it was more appropriate
to go directly through the Council every time they wanted to construct certain
structures, instead of going through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for
that type of work. He proposed the amendment to section 20.36.060. There is no
sinister intent.
Sutter stated that they added two words to the language, "...augment the
multi -use public and recreational character..."
Brenner stated that they struck "multi- use."
Wareing stated that it is a multi -use area.
Sutter stated that they left "multi -use" in the sentence because it refers to
the character of the area.
Brenner stated that she noted they changed "multi -use" to "existing use."
She gave the Neighborhood Association the amendments. The biggest concern is
eliminating public process regarding publicly owned property. She understood the
concerns, and there is a way to develop wording that would not allow a blanket of
permitted uses that may not be compatible with the neighborhood in the future, but
would still allow what the County needs.
Sutter stated that Brenner should submit her suggestions in writing.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Hoag stated that they began to make the changes, but gave the language to
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Manager, to work on. She suggested that the
administration put forward the concerns to Planning so the Council can put in
precise language that will solve that particular problem without opening up a
Pandora's box of problems. Wareing stated that the language is the documentation
provided by Planning and Development Services. They are trying to eliminate one
unnecessary step, but not the public process. Public process will happen through
the County Council.
Hoag stated that the wording that came forward allowed for almost any
governmental use and was too wide open. She would rather narrow it down to the
things that really don't need a Conditional Use Permit because people won't oppose
them. She couldn't support having open wording.
Wareing stated that the proposal is to permit putting in things that are
consistent with, and of a complimentary nature to, the use of the property.
Hoag stated that is a very unclear judgement call.
Wareing stated that it would come to the County Council to make the
decision.
Hoag stated that isn't where it belongs. If someone is applying for
something that may impact a neighborhood, then it is proper to go through the CUP
process, so the public can comment as it is coming forward, not at the Council
level.
Sutter stated that they should be careful not to leave the problem as it has
been. She didn't want to set a precedent that everything in the County has to go
through the CUP process.
Brenner agreed. On the new version, she was concerned that "government
office buildings" and other listed uses are too general. "Multi -use" opens it up to
anything that could be constructed. It is too broad a term. Expansion of the
existing uses to a certain point should be permitted. She had a problem with
anything that isn't already out there.
Sutter stated that they should bring to the committee their suggested
changes and a list of items that could be permitted or conditional.
Wareing listed the permits that have gone through the CUP process so far.
These items are appropriate uses for that area. The administration is as much the
trustee of the public interest as is the Council.
Sutter stated that she was unclear what Neighborhood Association's concerns
are, if the CUP process is removed. Wareing stated that the neighbors have been
told that the County may build a jail at the location, but the administration has no
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
interest in doing that. They are neither interested in siting a hazardous waste
dumpsite. The wording is appropriate as it is.
Sutter stated that the wording in the June 14 memo addresses the concerns
about the jail or hazard waste facility.
Brenner stated that the neighbors' issue is that the County should not create
a double standard, which requires citizens go through a CUP for major change on
their property, while the County does not have to. She explained to the neighbors
that the intent is for storage facilities and expansion of what is already out there.
The amendment proposed allows more than simple expansions. She wanted to
include "storage buildings or expansions" rather than the multi -use purposes. She
didn't want to guess what multi -use might come up in the future. She wanted
specific permitted uses.
Sutter asked about the regulations on other public facilities and whether they
require a CUP process.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated that it requires a CUP process in most zones. Outside a UGA, the
amendments can't be approved at all unless there are findings that it is the most
appropriate use. Certain park uses are allowed outright, but buildings need
approval.
Wareing stated that they are looking at a concern by the public that it takes
government too long to do things. The administration can continue to go through
the process. It is not a double standard. However, they are looking to include
these uses as appropriate uses. The administration is asking for a rezone that
would allow reasonable government uses. They want to recognize the area for
what it is and not make the County jump through a bunch of hoops. Ultimately, it's
the County Council's decision whether or not to go through the Hearing Examiner or
six -year capital improvement plan.
Hoag stated that it is dangerous to write law based on the intentions of who
is currently in administration. The language about compatibility is helpful, but
doesn't accomplish the goal. Phrases like "compatible" require too much of a
judgement call. She preferred the language "expansion of current uses does not
require a CUP, provided they are compatible with the character of the existing
facilities and surrounding rural residential neighborhoods," and that anything
beyond that is proper to go through the CUP process for public comment. That
preserves the integrity of the intent and allows the neighbors to comment.
Sutter asked how often a County request is conditioned, opposed, or denied.
Wareing stated that he did not know if there has ever been a denial or significant
negative comment. The administration is trying to streamline activities to do a
better job of serving the public. They are always sensitive to the neighbors' quality
of life and try to preserve the integrity, safety, and feeling of well -being in the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
neighborhood. The administration sees the Smith and Northwest location as
becoming a major government service center. It will not always be a rural area.
Hoag moved to adopt the language,
"20.36.060 Public uses associated with government office buildings,
public works maintenance yards and storage buildings, and athletic
fields and associated facilities if located within the current county
complex at Northwest and Smith Roads. Other government or quasi -
government uses of similar or complementary type would also be
allowed if such uses augment the multi -use character of the county
complex at Northwest and Smith Roads and are compatible with the
character of existing facilities and the surrounding rural residential
neighborhood."
Sutter asked that anyone put their suggestions in writing and bring it forward
to the County Council Planning Committee at the Tuesday meeting.
Wareing stated that the administration will work with Planning and
Development Services to address the issues that are of concern. They are not
trying to suppress the public process.
(Hoag's motion was not voted upon.)
Hoag will submit language to Planning and Development Services.
Hoag questioned whether someone must get a new CUP if he or she wishes
to expand a use that already has a CUP. Goodwin stated that they do.
Hoag questioned whether it would eliminate a person from having to get
another CUP if the committee added the expansion language on existing uses.
Goodwin stated that was correct. The Search and Rescue (SAR) building would
have required a new permit.
FILE #61 -98:ZT
Sutter questioned section 20.71.303 and stated that it is confusing. Goodwin
stated that she suggested they change the language °... epen spae-e impervious
surfaces..." She was directed to split the two sections.
Sutter asked if it refers to the reserve tract for a cluster subdivision.
Goodwin stated that it does.
Sutter suggested, "...that portion of the epen space reserve tract which is..."
and it is a term they already use. Goodwin agreed.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether the reserve tract is to be undeveloped. Goodwin
stated that it is, depending on how it was set aside. She suggested it be counted
toward impervious surface area requirements instead of open space.
Sutter stated that the only other thing is to change the first "open space" to
"reserve."
The committee concurred.
Sutter questioned section 20.71.401 and asked for clarification regarding
minimum standards for road rights -of -way. Goodwin stated that an arterial or
collector area that is smaller than the maximum wouldn't be a good place to
approve a setback of only 10 feet, where the house would be built next to the
arterial, where they would need to expand at some point.
Sutter asked if the County is trying to change the road standards, since they
are trying to discourage impervious surfaces in the watershed. Goodwin stated that
they are to an extent.
Sutter stated that this is a good place to develop based on what is there
instead of anticipating more impervious surfaces in the watershed. Goodwin stated
that was covered in another section, a rural road standard may be approved for
urban density residential areas. They've worked with the Public Works Department
who is concerned about making roads narrower, because of parking needs.
Development standards could be changed separate from this area.
Sutter stated that they need to look at how to reduce impervious surfaces in
the watershed.
Hoag agreed with narrower roads in the watershed. This provision is a wise
one. Because it allows for future development, and if businesses are sited further
back, then it is safer. Businesses further back from the road are not unfriendly to
pedestrians, and the impervious surfaces would not be next to each other.
Sutter stated that it allows for expansion of impervious surfaces. They need
to be discouraging sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
Hoag stated that the language leaves space there, but it doesn't mean that
the right -of -way widening would be done. Encouraging people to build in a right -
of -way doesn't make sense.
Sutter stated that there isn't a right -of -way there currently, so they should
discourage widening it.
Brenner agreed, if they prohibit the expansion in the future. If they do allow
the expansion, then she agreed with Hoag.
Sutter stated that the number one goal is to reduce impervious surfaces.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Goodwin stated that in the other classes, the setback is adequate. They are
only talking about the Urban Residential - Mixed URMX zones. They were
concerned about the 10 feet. One option would be to leave the language as is, but
provide direction to the Public Works staff and the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) to work on a modified road standard for the Lake Whatcom watershed. They
were concerned with reducing roads in the watershed because of a need for parking
and safety. Most people have two spaces, but the requirement isn't enough for
most people with teenagers or additional recreational vehicles and boats.
Hoag stated that there is a need to have the area open in case they need it
in the future.
Sutter agreed on giving the TAC and Public Works direction on specific road
standards for the watershed.
Sutter questioned whether other "architectural features" in section 20.71.402
is defined. Goodwin stated that would be things like bay windows that cantilever
out. If a structure is low, not more than 36 inches high, then it is considered not a
part of the structure.
Sutter stated that the phrase needed clarification.
Hoag stated that the "overhang" and other architectural features need to be
more clearly defined.
Brenner stated that there are steep pitched roofs that are better for exposing
less area to impervious surfaces. They need to talk about the footprint of the roof
compared to the structure.
Hoag stated that the wording addresses Brenner's concern by saying the
overhang projects into the yardway.
Goodwin stated that architectural features are not defined.
Hoag suggested other "overhanging architectural features." It would include
a roof over a deck.
Sutter stated that they need to stress that a deck should not have a solid
surface. Goodwin stated that is covered in the definition of impervious surfaces.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated she would like to see the restriction on the overhang be such
that the homeowner could mitigate a larger overhang by building a smaller house,
for example.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Hoag stated that the pitch of the roof and lateral projection creates more
impervious surfaces.
Brenner disagreed. The amount of impervious surface has more to do with
how high up the roof is and the amount of wind. She suggested a different
standard for roofs over open porches.
Sutter stated that these are the things the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) should take up. Goodwin stated that this language was modeled from a code
in another area.
Sutter requested that the TAC look at development and road standards in the
watershed, with the primary goal of reducing impervious surfaces.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that the Planning staff will look at building roofs on open
areas.
Serge Slagle, 1200 Harris Ave. Suite 207, Bellingham, spoke on behalf of
Chet Lakey, and drew the committee's attention to the Open Space section. He
questioned the open space percentage for the rural residential (RR) zones,
specifically RR2. The 80% open space requirement would make available 3,600
square feet of buildable area on a lot with 18,000 square foot lot. This works to a
disadvantage in the Urban Residential (UR) zone where there is only a 50% open
space requirement, and 5,000 square foot of buildable area would be available on a
10,000 square foot lot. In effect, a smaller lot could have more buildable area than
a lot twice its size.
Sutter stated that the lot owner could increase their non - impervious surfaces
by using alternative surfacing methods for driveways.
Slagle stated that there is a limitation of 35 %, defined in subsection .302
Sutter stated that does decrease the amount of property allowed as an
impervious surface.
Brenner stated that is the nature of the beast because the lot is smaller, and
it is urban zoning.
Sutter stated that is typical and more desirable to have more open space on
a rural lot. Slagle stated that a 3,600 square foot buildable area allows for the
footprint of the house.
Sutter stated that would be a very big house, especially if it was a two -story
house. On those kinds of lots, the owner wouldn't build a rambler. An owner
should buy property where they can build a house that they want. The purpose is
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
to reduce impervious surfaces in the area. They could reduce impervious surfaces
by using alternatives.
Slagle stated that on any delicate site conditions, the pervious surfacing
would not be applicable.
Sutter stated that people are going to have to do things differently. It will
take creative thinking. She suggested that the limitations to benefit the watershed
will encourage creative thinking about building in the watershed.
Hoag stated that a fragile area does not need more impervious surfaces.
Slagle stated that they need flexibility in design. Also, the 3,600 square feet must
also take into consideration the decks, patios, tennis courts, and swimming pools.
The 80% restriction deprives the property owners of building any such things.
Sutter stated that happens all over the place. If they are going to
accomplish the goals in the watershed, then they need to accept those changes.
Slagle stated that in the UR zones, small lots are allowed a larger buildable area
than the larger lots in the rural zones.
Sutter stated that is appropriate. In rural areas, they need to preserve the
open space. They are doing what is required by the State Growth Management Act.
Slagle stated that they are asking for the pervious surfaces to be reduced to
a smaller percentage. Sutter stated that they have created analogous
requirements in the agricultural areas. The County is not asking any more of the
people in the watershed than they are asking of the people in the Agricultural
Protection Overlay.
Slagle stated that this percentage is the most restrictive in the County.
People will feel very limited in the use.
Brenner stated that it is very limited, but some people have requested an
outright moratorium. This is a compromise.
Hoag asked Goodwin to define whether an pervious deck surface would be
considered in the percentage. Goodwin stated that pervious decks and patios
wouldn't count, but swimming pools and basketball courts would be considered
impervious.
Sutter stated that people are going to have to think differently. It is not
about the property owners anymore. It is about the watershed.
Brenner suggested language to allow a property owner to prove that they
can't build on the limitation. Goodwin stated that may be covered by getting a
variance.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Hoag asked about the topography of certain areas around the lake. Goodwin
stated that it can be steep.
Hoag suggested that they increase the impervious surface limit in the UR
zones to 60% to allow for the impervious surfaces kept to be to the minimum. That
would afford better protection of the lake. Those areas are right on the lake.
Sutter stated that area is Geneva, which is in the Bellingham UGA.
Goodwin stated there is already a system of platted lots that are smaller than
10,000 square feet.
Hoag stated that they could specify that lots larger than 10,000 square feet
would have to have 60% of pervious surfaces in section 20.71.301, by adding an
additional subsecton, "For uses in the UR zone districts on lots of greater than
10,000 square feet, then at least 560% of the parcel shall be kept free of..." She
was concerned that they were not doing enough to protect the lake in those areas.
She questioned whether 10,000 square feet was a reasonable cut off point.
Goodwin stated that it would allow for 4,000 square feet of buildable area. Some
people do, in those areas, have very large houses. It would have to allow for a
driveway, or they would have to modify their home.
Sutter suggested an exception to section 20.71.301(1), "Except lots in the
UR zone with lots larger than 10,000 square feet,..."
The committee concurred on both Hoag's and Sutter's suggestions.
Goodwin stated that the variance procedure is allowed for undue restrictions.
Slagle stated that they are also concerned with section 20.71.302(1), and
suggested that the term "water" be defined, since they removed "shore lands ",
which is water, from being allowed as open space.
Hoag stated that they can't count the lake as open space. It is intended to
count the water on the property, such as a pond or creek.
Goodwin suggested striking the entire section.
Brenner stated that it should depend on the size of the body of water.
Hoag stated that only 50% of the water can be counted as open space, to
allow for protection of the body of water.
Goodwin stated that the direction from the County Council at the last
meeting was to split the requirement for the open space and the impervious. She
struck this section altogether, because she thought it was the direction given to
her. The Open Space requirements only now apply to the Neighborhood
Commercial and Rural Resort Commercial zoning. That is in a section on Open
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Space. The other impervious surface requirements apply to the residential areas.
There is no open space requirement for residential areas. This section wouldn't
apply to those impervious surfaces. It is not a problem on the residential lots.
The committee concurred to strike section 20.71.302(1).
Goodwin stated that the substitute language splits into two sections. Some
deal with open space and some deal with pervious surface. She referred the
committee members to her changes to address their concerns.
Slagle stated that they are concerned about section 20.71.601 regarding
compact automobile parking spaces. They may not want to require that 50% of the
spaces be compact because it may create problems.
Sutter asked what zoning this applies to. Goodwin stated that it applies to all
zones, even residential.
Slagle stated that it addresses developments with six or more required
parking spaces.
Goodwin stated that is a minimum under the Code currently.
Hoag questioned whether that includes the parking in the driveway.
Goodwin stated that it does not include the driveway, but does include the parking
areas at the end of the driveway.
Sutter stated that isn't clear. She suggested, "except for single family
residential, all dimensions shall be exclusive of..."
The committee concurred.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Slagle stated that the concern with 20.71.604 regarding vehicular access is
that it forces a redesign of single family lots.
Sutter stated they are trying to encourage shared driveways to limit
impervious surfaces. Slagle stated that, in order to create a 400 -foot area that is
going to be shared by one common driveway, then each lot has to be 200 feet
wide. They are doubling the length of roads because, to meet the requirement, the
lot dimensions must be 200 feet wide instead of 100 feet wide.
Goodwin stated that the intent of the Planning Commission was the access to
arterial and collector roads. It doesn't serve the purpose of the overlay zone to
reduce impervious surfaces if it is interpreted to mean each driveway. It was a
recommendation to keep from having a lot of driveways coming off of the arterial.
Sutter stated that it is referring to arterial roads and collector roads.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Slagle suggested that they limit the last sentence to only cluster
subdivisions.
Sutter read from the section, which covers clusters. Slagle stated that
clusters are five or more lots. A short -plat division of four lots wouldn't be required
to cluster. Therefore, the County would be compelled to build longer roads to
satisfy the requirement.
Sutter stated that it specifies new developments, which must orient
driveways to the internal parking and driveways.
Hoag asked how often they have two -lot developments along arterial and
collector roads. Slagle stated that he didn't have the numbers.
Sutter stated that the language refers to access points from the new
developments. The language says that it should not "normally" be closer than 400
feet, which allows for some leeway.
Hoag stated that, if the problem is rare, then she would prefer to leave the
language as it is. If it is prevalent, than it should be changed.
Goodwin stated that they could remove the last sentence regarding access
points being closer than 400 feet.
Hoag asked if there is a way to accomplish the same purpose, without
creating a problem for the homeowner. Goodwin stated that the language
regarding "normally" allows for variations. They might want to further clarify that it
refers to access to arterial and collector roads.
Hoag stated that the clearer the law is, the less time the staff has to spend
dealing with people on it. She suggested, "...than 400 feet apart, except where lot
size and topography would make closer access more desirable."
Brenner suggested also removing the word "normally."
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that staff should come back to the committee with exact
wording. The intent should be clear. The problem is that, in some places, it may
not be possible to put access driveways 400 feet apart because of a limiting factor.
That would be the only time they would be allowed closer. Normally, the arterial or
collector road already exists.
Slagle stated that, in reality, properties fronting the arterial must be
configured differently. It would compel the developer to build another road in the
back to benefit the maximum density. While they haven't impacted the impervious
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
surface area of the arterial, they are compelling the developers to create more
impervious surface simply to meet the allowable density.
Sutter stated that they are requiring them to do that anyway, because they
are saying that they have to be oriented toward internal driveways and parking
areas. It doesn't matter if it is 100 feet wide or 200 feet wide. They still have to
have that internal access. The language should simply say "physical restraints,"
which is the language in the variance regulations.
Slagle stated that the last comment related to section 20.80.525(4)
regarding parking spaces. He suggested that they do not use the word
"resolution."
Sutter stated that it should be "ordinance."
The committee concurred.
Hoag questioned section 20.71.602. Goodwin stated that parking is in
section 20.80 of the Code. It is not in this ordinance, because they are not
proposing to change the parking requirements for the houses. The parking chart is
in section 20.85.080 of the Code. A single - family dwelling requires 2 parking
spaces, minimum.
Sutter questioned whether it was necessary in a residential development to
require a minimum. Goodwin stated that she believed it is. When they create
smaller lots and narrow roads without on- street parking, they should allow a
developer to put in enough parking so that there isn't overflow on the street that
would create a safety issue. For multi - family units, the requirement is three spaces
for every two units.
Sutter questioned whether they can require alternative surfacing for overflow
parking areas. Goodwin stated that they could.
Sutter stated that, in those cases, they are allowing extra space to park in.
They should have a caveat that it should be impervious. Goodwin stated that it can
be a double -edged sword. People with gravel or cinder blocks often treat the
surface with Roundup to keep the grass from growing in- between, which may hurt
the watershed.
Sutter questioned whether they want to encourage or require pervious
surfaces for fringe and overflow parking. However, that also includes emergency
parking, stopping lanes, private roads, and fire lanes. She would like to see the
requirement that pervious surfaces are used whenever possible. She asked how
they are going to encourage the use of pervious surfaces.
Hoag stated that they would be encouraged because, alternative surfaces
could be counted as open space.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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 questioned whether the encouragement was strong enough. Goodwin
stated that they don't want to go higher than 35 %, and they don't want to have the
whole lot paved with pervious surfaces.
Sutter stated that it was perhaps enough.
Goodwin stated that they are treading a fine line between allowing people to
live and develop in the watershed and protect water quality. They could certainly
make the impervious surface requirements tighter or stronger, but then they would
get to the point that people would resist this enough that it won't get adopted or
there will be a lot of public opposition. They are trying to take small steps to allow
more environmentally friendly development.
Hoag stated that she was concerned about small steps attitude and instead
people should look at what they need to do, and be reasonable in what they
request. Requiring driveways to be pervious, unless there are physical constraints,
is a good idea.
Sutter stated that the items mentioned are appropriate areas in which to
have alternative surfacing.
Hoag suggested changing language in section 20.71.603, '...light commercial
zones; or bike paths, walkways, and pa If someone wants to build a patio as
a part of their impervious surface area, then it should be allowed. It will be far less
impervious than asphalt driveways. She would strike that language since they are
talking about a requirement, rather than an encouragement. Or, instead of striking
it, they could only require it on the previous items, then encourage bike paths,
walkways, and patios to be pervious.
Goodwin clarified that the direction was to require pervious surfaces on all
the items in section 20.71.603, except it will only be encouraged on bike paths,
walkways, and patios. They would also add a caveat about site constraints making
use of such materials detrimental to water quality.
The committee concurred.
Sutter suggested, "...in residential or 4g-h-t commercial zones;..."
The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that the TAC should work on changing the minimum standards
in section 20.71.700.
Goodwin stated this is the next thing that the TAC wants to work on, after
the subdivision standards.
Regarding section 20.80.521 on drainage, Sutter questioned where surface
water goes, if not on adjacent roadways and walkways.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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
Hoag stated that is why they added language about water quality.
Sutter asked about the specific requirement to regulate proper drainage.
Goodwin stated that there is the stormwater requirement in the stormwater section
of the Code. This deals specifically with parking and loading areas, so they aren't
paved where the water runs off. The added language would require that drainage
be treated instead of run off into a ditch. Goodwin stated that they need to work
on stormwater regulations, which is with a consultant right now, who is doing a
study and creating recommendations. They didn't do a lot of work on stormwater.
Sutter suggested in section 20.80.525(5) "...parking locations and standards
be established..."
Hoag asked about the first requirement under section 20.85.525(1)
regarding location of parking spaces. She questioned whether they added language
to encourage people to share parking. Goodwin stated that they did. It would be
appropriate to modify this section.
Sutter suggested, "...on the same lot as the dwelling(s)..."
Hoag also suggested "...on the same lot(s) as the dwelling(s)..."
Goodwin suggested that shared parking spaces are encouraged. Section
20.80 applies to all zones. That section is not in the overlay zone specifically. She
suggested, "Within Water Resource Special Districts, use of shared parking spaces
is encouraged."
Hoag suggested that they should be located on the same lot. The language
very specifically talks about two owners, whose lots abut each other.
Sutter stated that they currently require two parking spaces per residence.
She asked the difference between placing the two spaces next to each other or not
placing them next to each other. She didn't get the point of the shared spaces,
because two spaces per unit is still required. They should be as near to the home
they serve as possible.
Goodwin stated that a lot of people put in more spaces than they are
required to. If the neighbors could share extra spaces, then they each wouldn't
have to put in extra spaces.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Sutter stated that they were talking about shared driving, not parking.
Goodwin stated that they did talk about shared parking. The intent was for extra
overflow parking.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, 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 suggested leaving as is and adding a section in which overflow
parking, in addition to that required, should be shared.
Hoag asked Goodwin to look at that language.
Sutter discussed section 20.80.632 regarding Small Development Controls
for stormwater controls. She questioned whether there are requirements for on-
site detention, for example water from a gutter being attached to a cistern.
Goodwin stated that is one of the things that the stormwater committee is
looking at it. The Planning Commission will recommend that the County Council put
the stormwater in the work plan.
Hoag asked for a better title for that section.
The committee concurred.
Brenner stated that they received a memo from Dave Grant, Senior Civil
Deputy Prosecutor, regarding the Gateway Industrial zone, FILE # 60 -98:ZT and
71- 98:ZT. The committee should consider agreeing with Grant's recommendation.
They are allowing indoor and outdoor commercial and recreational facilities. The
wording couldn't stop the proposed casinos.
Goodwin stated that Grant would include an emergency definition of
indoor /outdoor recreation.
Brenner stated that they could do either an emergency amendment or reject
the proposal until it is fixed.
Hoag stated that the memo said the Council could have a public hearing
within 30 days when the emergency ordinance was adopted.
Sutter stated that the simplest thing would be to amend the proposal to not
allow that use. Goodwin stated that they would want to define it, because they
don't want to exclude the climbing wall at the Outlet Mall. They could do that by
emergency.
Hoag stated that they need to make the two Gateway Industrial zones
separate. She questioned whether removing the language would make it a
conditional use.
Goodwin stated that she didn't think so.
Sutter stated that they could make a specific restriction on card rooms and
casinos, or create a definition for indoor recreation. They need to decide which is
going to most efficiently accomplish the goal, then do an emergency amendment.
Goodwin stated that it could be done as a separate ordinance.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/24/99, Page 15
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
Hoag stated that defining it and not allowing casinos might allow another use
that they haven't thought of.
Brenner stated that the amendments brought forward from the Planning
Commission are new amendments.
Sutter asked staff to bring forward the appropriate language for an
emergency amendment and also an outright prohibition of gambling, and then they
would have 60 days for a public hearing.
Hoag stated that if it can't be outright prohibited, then they should see if it
can be a conditional use.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 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, 6/24/99, Page 16