HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 29 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
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 29, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Barbara Brenner
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.42, TO ALLOW MEETING FACILITIES FOR
NATURAL RESOURCE -BASED EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES; AND
RELATED USES INCLUDING RENTAL CABINS OR OTHER LODGING
STRUCTURES, COOKING AND DINING FACILITIES, RETAIL SALES OF
MEETING SUPPLIES AND GIFTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE, IN THE
FOOTHILLS SUBAREA, SOUTH FORK VALLEY SUBAREA, THE
NEWHALEM EXCLAVE AND THE BAKER LAKE EXCLAVE (AB99 -215)
Sutter stated this item was sent to the Planning Commission as an
emergency. They have made a few changes, and their recommendations have
come back to the Council.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated the changes from the Planning Commission include one sleeping units per
acre instead of five sleeping units per five acres; the density does not change. It
also added a maximum of 50 beds for the entire development. This was to address
concerns by the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED) and the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Each
cabin would have a maximum of three sleeping units. The vehicular access fronting
on a paved road or private road improved to County standards was added because
of the concern about dust and traffic on a gravel road. The setback is 75 feet, with
100 -foot side and rear yards. DNR was concerned there would be opposition to
forestry uses if developed next to a lot line. There is some lot coverage
requirements already in the zoning, but this makes it more restrictive. The uses
would be clustered on 50% of the property and would not exceed the 20% total.
The reasoning was that, if someone had a large parcel, they wouldn't want 40
cabins spread out throughout the entire parcel. Uses should be clustered to be
consistent with the intent of the rural forestry zone. There was some wording
change to educational meeting facilities and uses to clarify that commercial had to
be related to the educational facilities. It wasn't just the foothills area. The South
Fork valley and the exclaves in Newhalem and Mt. Baker are similar to the South
Fork. The Planning Commission felt it would be appropriate in those areas also.
Hoag asked what an exclave is. Goodwin stated they are the areas excluded
from the forest.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag asked about the areas that were added. Goodwin stated it includes the
Lake Samish and Chuckanut subareas. That would be the South Fork valley, which
is East of the freeway, south of Highway 9, and east of Lake Samish.
Hoag asked the definition of a sleeping unit. Goodwin stated it is a room that
has a bed. It could also be a room that has five beds.
Hoag asked if the language regarding total density and allowing three
sleeping units on one acre conflict. Goodwin stated that it does not conflict. The
idea would be that it not be a hotel.
Anthony Raab, Black Mountain Forestry Center, stated the setbacks were put
in by the Planing Commission to keep a pristine look for any affected properties.
That was discussed at length. The DNR also had a concern about rural forestry
areas getting too far up into the forest, next to the industrial forestlands. They
were concerned about limiting that access. Road improvements were discussed as
the mechanism to drive that concern. The Lake Whatcom watershed was excluded
from this. Also, he did a study on this to see how much acreage would be affected.
He determined that a relatively small amount of Rural Forestry zoned acreage
would be able to qualify for this. It won't open the door for cabins to be scattered
throughout.
Hoag asked how the Lake Whatcom Watershed was excluded. Raab stated
what is included is mentioned. Anything else is excluded. Planning has the maps.
Hoag asked if there is a buffer getting close to the commercial forestry.
Raab stated the setback was 100 feet from any commercial forest land boundaries.
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE
TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB99 -210)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated one had an inadequate forest management plan, so it was returned to the
applicant.
Sutter had a question regarding one of the applications in commercial
forestry. That is already timber. She questioned the effect other than the applicant
not paying taxes. Goodwin stated that is the only effect.
Sutter asked what the County gets for giving the applicant a tax break.
Goodwin stated she has to have an active management plan to show she is actively
managing it.
Sutter stated she was not sure the County was getting any return on the tax
dollars.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Brown asked if the designations open the property up to the public. Goodwin
stated it doesn't.
Goodwin stated she has to pay the back taxes if it is rezoned. Also, the
County gets to be in compliance with the State laws that require the County to have
a taxation program. The whole Open Space taxation and Timber taxation predated
Growth Management and was intended to be incentive to keep land in agriculture,
forestry, or open space uses. Now that there is Growth Management, and its
attached zoning, the Planning Commission has the same concerns. If someone has
five acres and one house, then the question is why would they get an open space
credit when they have to do that anyway. The only way it makes sense is that
there are virtually no County services to Commercial Forestry.
Hoag asked what stops all forestry from going to open space. Goodwin
stated that a good portion already is, and agricultural land is already in agricultural
open space.
Brenner stated there are many times the County doesn't get anything from
it. She was not sure how they would decide not to allow it.
Hoag asked about the law for denying an application. Goodwin stated there
are several categories of Open Space set up by the State. If the County denied it,
they would be on shaky legal ground. The Planning Commission suggested a
zoning amendment to take a closer look at Open Space.
Brenner stated that the problem is with the State. The County Council
should write a letter to the state requesting re- evaluation of the items in light of
Growth Management.
Hoag stated the request should focus on Commercial Forestry.
Hoag asked for clarification on transfers. Goodwin stated there are different
types of forest, such as classified and designated.
Sutter asked about the ratings scale for Huizinga. Goodwin stated the
original rating was the staff rating, but it was amended by the Planning
Commission.
The committee concurred to hold in committee for two weeks.
Sutter stated that she will put together a letter to send to the State. They
will seek approval from the full Council to make the letter from the Council.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Hoag referenced the memo from Sylvia Goodwin dated June 24, 1999
regarding the Lake Whatcom development regulations. At the last meeting, the
committee decided that they don't want sod farming, in section 20.71.204 -
Conditional Uses, of the memo's attachment. It should be back in prohibited uses
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
under 20.71.204 - Prohibited Uses. Retail plant nurseries and other uses in
20.71.203 - Conditional uses should become section 20.71.154.
The committee concurred.
Hoag questioned the reference to section 20.80.325 on the next page of the
memo's attachment, section 20.71.301(4) and questioned whether it allows for bike
trails. Goodwin stated that it would.
Hoag asked about the front page of the memo, the last two paragraphs. She
asked for more clarification on what they are asking for from the Committee.
Goodwin stated the setbacks were recommend as outlined from the State
Department of Fisheries. The discussion was only on greenhouses. She didn't
know if it was intended to apply to other uses besides greenhouses and nurseries.
Hoag stated they were talking about greenhouses. She questioned whether
the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) covers the other uses. Goodwin stated the CAO
covers a 100 -foot setback. Planning tried to list all the uses that have water quality
impacts in the Lake Whatcom development regulations, FILE #61- 98:ZT, are
listed as conditional uses.
Brenner suggested they allow them at 250 feet, if possible, unless a
developer demonstrated they don't have the room. Then, it could be less.
Sutter questioned whether they need to do anything other than what the
CAO orders.
Brenner stated they should allow people to build further than 100 feet away,
unless there are site constraints.
Brown stated they have already banned the all use of organic and inorganic
fertilizers containing nitrates or phosphates. They have already protected
themselves.
Sutter stated they don't need to make setbacks further than the CAO
because they've already banned the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Hoag asked how they would regulate and enforce the prohibition of
chemicals. It is easier to determine and enforce how close the building would be
from the body of water.
Sutter stated that it is more likely that there will be successful greenhouses if
they don't restrict the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Hoag asked about section 20.71.051, regarding horticulture and floraculture.
She questioned whether horticulture and floriculture are greenhouses. Goodwin
stated they could be open fields.
Hoag questioned what they are doing to prevent open field chemicals from
ending up in the water. Goodwin stated they are requiring them to have a
Conservation Plan for over 2 acres. Less than that, they could do whatever they
want.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Hoag stated she would like to see a setback from a stream for those
properties under 2 acres. Also, farming in the watershed concerns her. There
should not be farming in the watershed. They should ensure that the farming, if
done, is kept away from the creeks. She suggested they impose the buffers from
the Wildlife Service in section 20.71.051. She was open to other suggestions. She
questioned whether the CAO prevents someone from raising crops. Goodwin stated
it does within a wetland or critical area. A creek or the lake would be a critical
area, so there is a 100 foot buffer.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin continued to state that the landowner would have to work with the
Conservation District to create a best management practices plan that will prevent
chemicals or sediment from getting into the water. They could raise crops within
100 feet, as long as they have an approved best management practices plan.
Hoag questioned Knapp about how difficult it was to enforce the CAO in the
watershed, and asked his suggestions.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it is not
hard to enforce if there is enough staff to enforce it.
Sutter stated that it is no more difficult to enforce a 100 -foot buffer than a
200 -foot buffer.
Goodwin stated there is existing development that must be retrofitted.
Knapp agreed. That is the most serious problem.
Hoag stated that was especially true in terms of stormwater. However, when
they are talking about fecal coliform, it comes from animal manure.
Sutter stated she was not in favor in putting in any more restriction than the
CAO already has.
Knapp stated they should look at individual situations and make
determinations.
Hoag addressed the last paragraph on page one of the memo. She
supported that comment regarding pesticide use associated with all residential and
commercial activities in the watershed.
Brenner questioned whether the use of ladybugs to get rid of pests would be
considered pesticide.
Hoag stated it would not. It is integrated pest management.
Brenner questioned whether Dr. Bonner's soap would be considered a
pesticide. The term needs specific definitions.
Sutter stated they would then hold off on a decision until they receive the
ordinance from Vermont.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Goodwin stated an enforcement issue would be if they try to outlaw
household chemicals and pesticides on an individual's lawn.
Brenner stated they still need to do it.
Knapp stated they could do it, but it would be difficult to enforce.
Brenner stated it would be enforced by people making complaints.
Goodwin stated she would bring the ordinance forward when she receives it.
Also, she questioned whether her interpretation of the committee's intent in the
section regarding Impervious Surfaces, 20.71.302, was correct.
Hoag stated they also added under the new section 20.71.302(1) -
Impervious surface requirements, the exception that lots larger than 10,000 square
feet in the Urban Residential zones need to be at least 60 %. Goodwin agreed.
Sutter stated she noted they scratched the entire concern regarding water
being counted as open space.
The committee concurred.
Hoag questioned section 20.71.151, on page three of the memo. They asked
for a definition of hazardous waste, which Goodwin brought forward. They also
talked about not approving the storage facility at a cottage industry. It would be an
exception to the Conditional Uses. Goodwin stated they talked about new wording
to prohibit hazardous waste and define it. Looking further in the Code, it is already
defined.
Hoag stated they asked for a definition and that it not be approved for
cottage industries, so they wouldn't be allowed to store hazardous waste associated
with their industry. Goodwin stated they had a discussion about prohibiting cottage
industries that use hazardous materials. She noted that the committee agreed
small amounts would be okay. Both Council members Brenner and Sutter said
small, incidental amounts would be acceptable.
Hoag stated it went back to the storage facility thing. A small amount of
paint in the cupboard wouldn't be considered an on -site hazardous storage facility.
Goodwin stated that wouldn't meet the definition in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) of a hazardous waste facility.
Hoag agreed and stated that is why they prohibited the storage for cottage
industries. They wouldn't have to get a conditional use for a hazardous waste
facility because it wouldn't be a hazardous waste facility. They want to keep
cottage industry from getting a conditional use permit for a hazardous waste
storage facility. Goodwin stated a cottage industry that stored major amounts of
hazardous materials would meet the criteria for a hazardous waste facility, and they
would want to regulate it. However, if it was a cottage industry that had only a
token amount of hazardous material, then it wouldn't meet the State's definition for
a hazardous waste facility, and would be automatically exempt.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Hoag stated that is the point. They don't want the cottage industries to be
able to get a conditional use for a hazardous waste storage facility in the
watershed. Under conditional uses, section 20.71.151, they need to make cottage
industry an exception.
Sutter questioned why they would except cottage industry and non others.
Brenner stated cottage industry is already a conditional use.
Sutter stated that would be appropriate.
Brenner stated they don't want a cottage industry in the watershed if it
generates enough hazardous waste to qualify as a facility. Goodwin stated they
should go back to the original motion and add, as a prohibited use, cottage
industries that produce hazardous waste or requires a hazardous waste facility, as
defined.
Sutter didn't understand why they would prohibit a hazardous waste facility
for a cottage industry, and allow them as a conditional use.
Brenner stated she didn't want them at all in the watershed.
Hoag stated a repair garage was mentioned as an example. One way or
another, it needs to be covered in the language.
Sutter stated they need to look at the permitted uses in the underlying
zoning.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, suggested they
put it under prohibited uses for cottage industries.
Hoag moved to add language under prohibited uses, "Cottage industries
which require hazardous waste storage facilities."
Brenner disagreed. She preferred, "New hazardous waste storage facilities."
Existing industries are already grandfathered in. This is for new industries.
Sutter stated Brenner's suggestion would not allow a current cottage industry
to have a needed storage facility.
Brenner stated an existing conditional use industry would have a plan that
includes how they are dealing with hazardous waste. She questioned what future
on -site hazardous waste storage facility could exist that isn't already there.
Goodwin stated she could only think of a gas station that would need a better
storage facility.
Brenner questioned whether a garage could legally be storing hazardous
materials in a barrel outside. Knapp stated they could legally. They would need an
attorney's opinion.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Brenner suggested, 'zany on -site hazardous waste storage facilities associated
with any new uses." That would go beyond cottage industries. Knapp stated they
should protect existing facilities.
Knapp suggested amortizing negative land uses. They have to make sure
there is enough time and return for that owner to recoup their loss.
Motion to add language under prohibited uses, "Cottage industries that
require hazardous waste storage facilities" carried unanimously.
Sutter stated they need to review section 173 -303 of the Revised Code of
Washington to determine if it covers the areas the committee is concerned with.
Sutter stated the committee left of on page 61 of the Draft Planning
Commission Findings and Recommendations, dated April 22, 1999.
Hoag moved to add language to section 20.80.633 regarding Large
development controls. They should add, "...drainage facilities, water quality, and
neighboring property."
The committee concurred.
Hoag asked, regarding section 20.80.632, if there were requirements for
residential stormwater. Goodwin stated they do not currently.
Sutter stated they've mostly exempted from stormwater runoff and control.
Goodwin stated that was something the Lake Whatcom Action Team stormwater
committee. There is a consultant also working on that. The Planning Commission
recommended the Council hold off on that issue until the committee's work is done.
Sutter stated they should look at requirements for on -site stormwater
detention. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission also looked at that. If they
want, the County Council could add something as an interim measure, but it
shouldn't conflict with what they would come out with.
Hoag suggested they include language that is not specific, "New residential
development should incorporate on -site stormwater detention facilities."
Brenner preferred they use "shall" instead of "should."
Sutter stated they don't have the criteria in which to approve.
Knapp stated most people won't follow the recommendation if they just say
AA should."
Sutter stated there are no design standards to guide people in creating a
detention facility.
Goodwin stated that is already a recommendation on page 62. Residential is
included as a suggested amendment, but doesn't currently exist.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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 50% of a remodel is too high. Goodwin stated that is a
commonly used measure.
Knapp agreed that 50% is a common measure. It has been a break point for
new requirements.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner stated she was concerned about people remodeling in increments.
Knapp stated that is common. People will phase their project. There is no way to
deal with that.
Sutter questioned whether the committee was comfortable with the on -site
detention in the Lake Whatcom watershed for single - family residents.
Hoag stated they are, until the new language comes out.
Sutter questioned whether the conformance requirements under 20.80.635
were in the works. Goodwin stated those are the same. They didn't change any
other than #6.
Sutter questioned whether a special district is the same as a special
management area, as referenced in section 20.80.730. Goodwin stated they are
not the same.
Sutter suggested they work on the terminology. Goodwin agreed, but it
would be a more global change. A special district deals with stormwater and a
special management area deals with land clearing. There is also a term the Health
Department uses that is very similar. It would be a good thing to do when
rewriting the stormwater regulations.
Hoag stated she didn't understand the section on runoff control, section
20.80.635(2). It may not cover enough in the Lake Whatcom watershed. She
questioned whether one has to match the pre - development peak rate. Goodwin
stated the peak rate for a two -year event would have to match the peak -rate for
the previous two -year event. Similarly, the peak rate of a hundred -year event
would have to meet the previous hundred -year event. They have to meet all of
them.
Hoag questioned whether one has to have the pre - development rates if they
can prove there is no significant adverse impact. Goodwin stated that was correct.
The stormwater controls generally deal more with quantity than quality.
Brenner suggested that a landowner mitigate elsewhere any runoff that goes
into the water. Goodwin stated they could do something like that. This is an area
the stormwater program is looking into, which is why the Planning Commission
didn't do much with this issue.
Hoag suggested the addition of language on page 63 of the Planning
Commission's Draft Findings and Recommendations, section 20.80.730(13)(B.i.a),
"...5,000 square feet or greater, or if they are within 1,000 feet of a shoreline." It
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
52
doesn't prohibit anything, it only requires County review and approval. In the
watershed, it only is required on 5,000 square feet or greater.
Brenner stated the Washington Toxics Coalition was even talking about 500
feet, not 1,000 feet. 1,000 feet sounds really far.
Hoag stated that, in addition to the 5,000 square feet designation, there
needs to be something about how close it is to the stream. It all just says 5,000
square feet. Knapp stated they currently do it within 200 feet of the shoreline.
Sutter stated other sections address the distance the activity must be from
the streams.
Hoag stated she wanted the County to review all proposed land- clearing
activities and remove the 5,000 square feet threshold when any part of the activity
is proposed to take place within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management
Program. Knapp stated they currently review anything within 200 feet.
Hoag stated this is land clearing.
Brenner stated anything within 200 feet of a shoreline is required to go
through a shoreline management review.
Hoag stated this language only requires the review if it is 5,000 square feet
or greater. That is not enough. She suggested removing that language. She
questioned the jurisdiction of the Whatcom County Shorelines Management
Program. Goodwin stated it is 200 feet. They will provide Hoag with the Shoreline
Management Program and show what requires a substantial development permit.
If it is just a land- clearing activity of less than 5,000 square feet, it is unlikely it
would require a substantial development permit.
Hoag stated she didn't want to exempt it, she wanted to increase the
scrutiny. If it is within the Shorelines Management Program, the County should
review it, no matter what the size. Knapp stated if it is over 250 cubic yards of cut
and fill, the County reviews it. It triggers the clearing and grading permit.
Hoag stated the language doesn't ask for a clearing and grading permit. It
just says they must review and approve the clearing activity. Knapp stated that is
a fill and grading permit.
Goodwin stated the concern now is that the fill and grade permit doesn't
trigger all the erosion control activities, and they want it to.
Knapp stated 5,000 square feet includes driveway, footprint, and maybe the
yard. It is not a lot.
Hoag stated someone may have a house with timber in the back and they
decide to clear it out. If they are near the water, then it will have a big impact.
Knapp stated they still need to have erosion control.
Sutter stated it would also still be in the buffer.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
52
Knapp stated some people don' t erosion control. They're having trouble
enforcing that issue.
Goodwin stated there are no current requirements for anything under 5,000
square feet. That is what this was trying to address.
Knapp stated other regulations would kick in.
Hoag stated there should be something that says clearing within a certain
distance of the shoreline will be reviewed and approved by the County. One
doesn't have to clear much to end up with a lot of sediment during the winter.
Sutter stated there are other regulations that apply.
Knapp stated there are laws that require silt fences and hay bales to be used
for erosion control.
Hoag asked when those must be used. Knapp stated they must be used for
any activity.
Hoag stated she understood the 5,000 threshold, because the staff can't be
reviewing every single thing. However, the closer that 5,000 square feet gets to a
stream or anything else, the less important that 5,000 square foot threshold
becomes. A smaller area can do more damage. There still needs to be some sort
of language that specifies a distance from the stream or lake so the smaller areas
also are covered. Knapp stated, in the early 1990's the County had such
regulation. People protested.
Sutter asked how small an area. The more important thing is the gradient.
Flat land with good drainage will not have runoff into the streams. It is the slope
that is important, not the distance from the stream.
Hoag stated this breaks out the slopes. They could easily insert the language
in those areas that have slopes.
Sutter questioned whether there is any work being done on this section.
Goodwin stated not currently, but that is what the stormwater committee and
consultant will do.
Sutter suggested they hold off on this item until they get the
recommendations back.
Hoag stated the last portion of subsection (a) only requires County review,
not a permit. Knapp stated any County review results in a permit.
Sutter questioned why this section was added about Lake Whatcom, rather
than letting it fall under what was already there. Goodwin stated the Planning
Commission was concerned about the ability to clear up to two acres without any
review or approval. It reduces the threshold down to 5,000 square feet.
Hoag questioned whether the committee would be willing to look at language
that staff would bring forward about adding a review requirement, if the activity is
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
not associated with a development permit. She suggested review if the activity is
greater than 2,000 square feet on a 20% or greater slope within 500 feet of a
stream or lake. Knapp stated they need to think about the Critical Areas
Ordinance, because that would create two different standards.
Hoag stated they need stricter standards in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Knapp suggested they revise the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Hoag suggested a 10% slope would have to bee 100 feet away, 20% slope
would have to be 200 feet away, and 30% slope would have to be 300 feet away
from the stream. The size would be between over 2,000 square feet.
Sutter stated she was not in favor of the 2,000 square foot threshold. Knapp
stated that is the road.
Hoag stated they would only review that size on slopes within those
distances.
The committee concurred to look at possible language.
Sutter questioned whether the definition of Open Space still meet the intent
of their earlier discussions regarding open spaces in residential. Goodwin stated it
does.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
OTHER BUSINESS
The committee agreed they don't need to schedule any more special work
sessions.
Goodwin distributed the list of items for the next year's 1999 zoning
amendment docketed items for the Planning Commission. It was a list of
everything submitted by staff, the County Council, or the Planning Commission.
They don't have to approve the docket, however she would like them to review it
for accuracy. They are expecting some citizen applications. They added cottage
industry, right -to -farm, number of recreational vehicles, and several others.
Goodwin also brought forward the Planning Commission's recommendations
on the Urban Fringe revisions, associated with Gateway. For the evening meeting,
the Council never re- introduced an ordinance separating out the Gateway zoning
from the rest of the docketed items. She prepared a revised ordinance that would
do that. Right now, the ordinance on the agenda for the evening meeting includes
all the items. She brought forward a substitute ordinance that was different
enough that they should not take action, but introduce it instead.
Sutter asked how that would affect the agreement. Goodwin stated it will
mean the Council will miss the deadline they agreed on with Roger Ellingson by two
weeks. She expected the Growth Management Hearings Board would understand
they are two weeks behind.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/99, 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
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the cleaner way to do
this would be to introduce a substitute that properly reflects what they are going to
work on.
Hoag questioned whether, if they delay it two weeks, and they have an
agreement with the Growth Hearings Board that the County would approve the
ordinance by this date, that makes the County violate its agreement. Frakes stated
the agreement is with the Birchwood Neighborhood Association.
Hoag suggested they go to the Association and tell them it needs to be
delayed for two weeks. Regardless of whether the ordinance is approved, if the
County shows a good faith effort to work with them, then the County will be in a
better position when they go to court.
Goodwin suspected they would be at the evening meeting.
Hoag stated the courteous thing to do would be to contact them and tell
them they plan to delay the item for two weeks. Goodwin stated they could try and
call Roger Ellingson, their legal representative, but not until they had a Council
decision.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 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, 6/29/99, Page 13