HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 16 19991 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3 Special Work Session
4
5 November 16, 1999
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
8 Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Also Present: Absent:
11 Connie Hoag None
12 Barbara Brenner
13
14
15 COMMITTEE WORK SESSION
16
17 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.80,
18 SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, BUFFERS AND BUILDING
19 SETBACKS (PLANNING NO. 48- 98:ZT) (AB99 -376)
20
21 Sutter asked about the first bullet point on page seven of the ordinance,
22 page 210 of the Council's November 9t" packet. It should say, "...further than 18
23 inches into the side or rear yards setbacks. Such overhangs may extend six feet
24 into the front yard setback;..."
25
26 Hoag so moved.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 Sutter asked about the definition of solar access on ordinance page 10. They
31 will use a standard industry definition. She so moved.
32
33 Hoag asked what that standard industry definition was.
34
35 Goodwin stated they would get that definition at the next meeting.
36
37 Sutter stated the motion was to approve the definition, which staff would
38 bring forward later.
39
40 The committee concurred.
41
42 Sutter asked about ordinance page 13, section 20.80.255(2). It is confusing
43 the way it is written. She moved to amend language, "The separation between
44 residences not located on the same property and farm uses such as ... house or feed
45 animals en adjaeent ffepeFties, shall be 300 feet..."
46
47 Hoag stated it still doesn't say where the buffer is. Goodwin stated the
48 buffer could be on either property. If there is an adjacent residence, the use has to
49 be 300 feet away.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 1
1
2 Hoag proposed a friendly amendment to add, "...farm uses such as barns,
3 pens, milking sheds, or areas used to contain, house, or feed animals, or storage
4 for manure or feed...." There is another spot in the ordinance that talks about
5 manure lagoons and storage being 150 feet from a property line.
6
7 Goodwin stated that is a good change. She wondered whether they would
8 need a public hearing. They are increasing the setback of manure from 150 feet to
9 300 feet.
10
11 Hoag stated she had more recommendations.
12
13 Sutter stated they are talking about restricting farm uses. All it says is "such
14 as." In that context, it doesn't change the intent. The intent is to keep obnoxious
15 farm uses away from houses.
16
17 Knapp stated that was okay.
18
19 Sutter accepted the friendly amendment.
20
21 Hoag read the motion into the record, "The separation between residences
22 not located on the same property and farm uses such as barns, pens, milking
23 sheds, or areas used to contain, house, or feed animals, or storage for manure or
24 feed house or feed animals on adjacent properties, shall be 300 feet..."
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 Sutter stated there was a scrivener's error on the third line from the top of
29 page 14, "...stationary equipment e€ or storage areas excluding..." She so moved.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Hoag questioned language on ordinance page six. She didn't understand the
34 intent under (c)(iii). She questioned why buildings had to be more than eight feet
35 above the ground. Goodwin stated that someone driving in a car can see under
36 anything eight feet high or more. The support columns also have to be skinny.
37
38 Hoag stated the language is not clear. It makes it sound as if someone can
39 build something that is eight feet tall and is sitting on the ground. Goodwin stated
40 there is an "and" in the language that clarifies the intent.
41
42 Hoag stated less than two columns could also be zero columns. The language
43 needs to be in there that the structure not be sitting on the ground. The language
44 should say that the structure should be off the ground and allows vision beneath
45 the structure. That language isn't in there. Goodwin stated sections (a) and (b)
46 address that.
47
48 Sutter stated the language says the structure must be more than eight feet
49 above the top of the curb or street centerline and is supported by not more than
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 2
1 two columns. Goodwin stated the language says any portion, which includes the
2 bottom, must be eight feet above the ground.
3
4 Hoag asked about the last item, the existing setback table, on ordinance
5 page seven. That language is not in the existing code, but it is not marked in the
6 ordinance as new language. Goodwin stated that might be new language. They
7 would designate that language as new language. That is a change they want to
8 make. It is docketed for a change in the year 2000.
9
10 Hoag questioned section 20.80.220(3) on page eight. In all sections there
11 was language about setbacks being open. That language was stricken because it
12 was covered in the top sentence in the section. The language about keeping side
13 yards open isn't covered. It says all front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback
14 areas shall be open side -to -side of the lot. That won't work for side yards. She
15 moved to remove the strikeouts and leave the language as it is. Goodwin stated it
16 would be better to remove the language "side -to- side."
17
18 Hoag stated the "side -to- side" language is in the old code. That wouldn't
19 work.
20
21 Sutter stated they are talking about the setback area. They wouldn't have a
22 house there anyway. Goodwin stated it would be inconsistent grammar, but it
23 would be clear.
24
25 Hoag restated the motion to amend section 20.80.220(3), "A Side yard
26 setbacks must be kept open; provided that..." and to amend the language in section
27 20.80.220, "...All front yard; and rear yard and side yard setback areas..."
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 Hoag stated the language in number (3) at the top of page ten is existing
32 language. It says setbacks must be 20 feet from the perimeter of the park for side
33 and rear yards. She questioned whether staff felt that left enough room for proper
34 screening.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 1:30 p.m.)
37
38 Hoag suggested adding, "...from the perimeter of the park for side and rear
39 yards and shall be screened from neighboring uses." Goodwin stated 20 feet would
40 be enough if the area was planted.
41
42 Sutter asked about page ten, sections (b) and (c) at the bottom of the page.
43 She questioned whether there were no setbacks for front yards for multi - family,
44 condos, and mobile home parks. Goodwin stated there is a chart in the code. The
45 front yard setback depends on the road they are on. It ranges from five feet to 30
46 feet.
47
48 Sutter stated they need to say something about front yard setbacks being in
49 compliance.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 3
1
2 Hoag stated it refers to that earlier in the code. Minimum setbacks must be
3 in compliance with the setback table. These are exceptions.
4
5 Goodwin stated section 20.80.300 deals with landscaping. Section 20.80.345
6 deals with screening.
7
8 Hoag stated they would be better off just adding language. They should just
9 say "screened from neighboring uses."
10
11 Sutter stated that doesn't tell what kind of screening they need to have.
12
13 Hoag stated she didn't care what the screening is. She didn't want to
14 legislate that.
15
16 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, suggested the
17 language "solid screening."
18
19 Hoag asked if vegetation would be solid screening. Knapp stated it would.
20
21 Hoag moved to amend language in section 20.80.251(3), "...perimeter of the
22 park for side and rear yards and shall be solidly screened from neighboring uses."
23
24 Sutter questioned whether a neighbor of a mobile home park could argue
25 that trees are not a solid screen. Goodwin stated they could reference the chapter
26 on screening that would give them the option that it is a screened buffer or a fence,
27 with accompanying standards. Otherwise, "solid" could mean that it is totally filled
28 with trees.
29
30 Sutter stated "solid" to her means a brick wall.
31
32 Hoag withdrew the word "solid" from her motion, "...perimeter of the park for
33 side and rear yards and shall be screened from neighboring uses."
34
35 Brenner stated they need to put something in that defines screening.
36
37 Sutter stated there are screening requirements in the code.
38
39 Hoag stated the code says the screening could be a row of trees similar to
40 what is required along a right -of -way. That is not what they are looking for.
41 Goodwin stated that screening requirement would call for a fence and a row of trees
42 together.
43
44 Brenner stated the word "screened" does not mean completely blocked from
45 view. It means that there is something in between that limits the view. Goodwin
46 stated they could reference the language on buffering, which would provide options.
47 It is specific and there is not ambiguity. It is in code section 20.80.345. If they
48 don't want to reference the section by number, they could add that section's
49 language.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 4
1
2 Hoag amended her amendment to section 20.80.251(3), "...perimeter of the
3 park for side and rear yards and shall be screened from neighboring uses in
4 accordance with WCC 20.80.345."
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 Hoag asked about page 11, the section marked 20.80.286(2 ))(iv). The
9 language is unclear. It sounds as if the light sources are shielded from other
10 properties.
11
12 Sutter proposed amending the language in section 20.80.254(1)(d)(iv),
13 Adjoining properties will
14 be shielded from light sources."
15
16 Hoag so moved, and questioned whether it is clear that the shielding will be
17 done on this property.
18
19 Sutter stated it is. The instructions are to the person doing the development.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 Hoag stated the old language in section (3)(d) on ordinance page 12 said the
24 County regulations would apply unless state and federal regulations are stricter.
25 She questioned whether they need to make it clearer that it is the County's Heavy
26 Impact Industrial District, not a state or federal Heavy Impact Industrial District.
27 The previous language made it clear that the requirements would follow this
28 ordinance.
29
30 Knapp stated the issue is that the strictest requirements will kick in.
31
32 Goodwin stated the last portion of the section specifies that the strictest
33 requirements will apply.
34
35 Hoag stated the previous language made it clear that the regulation follows
36 the handling requirements of this ordinance.
37
38 Knapp stated the greater setback would be used no matter what happens.
39
40 Sutter stated there is only one Heavy Impact Industrial (HII) District that this
41 could apply to.
42
43 Hoag asked if the state has any HII districts. Goodwin stated they don't.
44 The language is clear.
45
46 Sutter moved to recommend approval to the full Council as amended.
47
48 Brenner stated she would abstain because she missed the first part of the
49 meeting.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 5
1
2 Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner abstaining.
3
4 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
5 REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
6 PLAN AMENDMENTS (PLANNING NO. 69- 98:ZT) (AB99 -331)
7
8 Hoag questioned the new language that makes an exception of site - specific
9 rezones in section 20.92.245 on ordinance page five. She questioned whether the
10 Hearing Examiner would decide on the site - specific rezones instead of the County
11 Council. Goodwin stated the Hearing Examiner, instead of the Planning
12 Commission, would make a recommendation to the Council.
13
14 Hoag questioned why. Goodwin stated it is because the rezones are
15 associated with a project. It doesn't make sense for the Planning Commission to
16 consider the rezone at the same time that the Hearing Examiner is considering the
17 project.
18
19 Hoag asked if it changes anything in terms of the review or the ability to
20 deny a project if it is not in the best public interest. Goodwin stated there are
21 detailed criteria the Hearing Examiner has to find.
22
23 Knapp stated the Planning Commission charge is to focus on policy. The
24 Hearing Examiner links the project to the policy.
25
26 Hoag asked about page six and a recommendation that came forward but is
27 not included in the draft. In section (1)(a) there was a suggestion for criteria for the
28 extensions. The committee suggested language be added.
29
30 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
31
32 Hoag continued to say the extensions would be based on significant progress
33 toward completion. She moved, "...extensions based on demonstration of hardship
34 or significant progress toward completion, after which the resolution..."
35
36 Sutter stated she remembered discussing that, and it didn't get adopted.
37
38 Brenner stated they need to decide what hardship is allowed. The word
39 hardship is too vague.
40
41 Hoag stated "hardship" is the same language used on the conditional use
42 permit extensions.
43
44 Brenner stated they ran into the problem of hardship on the last project that
45 came forward. The applicant just wanted an extension because he hadn't been
46 doing what he was supposed to be doing. He created his own hardship.
47
48 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to remove the word "hardship."
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 6
1 Hoag did not accept the friendly amendment.
2
3 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
4
5 Hoag moved, "...extensions based on demonstration of significant progress
6 toward completion,..."
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Hoag moved to change the allowed number of extensions. When she
11 originally proposed two extensions, she was concerned about a binding
12 commitment on the Council. Regulations can change dramatically in six years. She
13 would rather see the project come forward. She would rather amend the allowable
14 number of extensions to three.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Brenner stated she wanted to remove "significant" in section (2)(b) on page
19 seven.
20
21 Sutter stated they included the word significant so that very small negative
22 impacts would not cause a denial.
23
24 Brenner stated she wanted something in between significant and not creating
25 any impact.
26
27 Sutter stated significant is used throughout the regulations. It is a standard
28 term.
29
30 Knapp stated significant is a good term.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether a homeowner next to a proposed new use could be
33 considered for not creating a negative impact. Knapp replied that it depends on
34 how great the negative impact is.
35
36 Goodwin stated they are only talking about a site specific rezone; a use
37 consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation.
38
39 Hoag asked if it would it cross the threshold of significant if it would have an
40 effect on only one person. Goodwin stated it would fit into the definition of
41 surrounding neighborhood.
42
43 Sutter stated this goes to the Hearing Examiner. If someone has a problem
44 with a project, that is the venue for bringing up a significant problem.
45
46 Brenner moved to amend section (2)(b) on ordinance page seven, "...and will
47 not adversely affect the surrounding neighberheed properties." A neighborhood
48 can be a much bigger area than the surrounding properties.
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 7
1 Sutter stated the impact might be larger than the surrounding neighborhood.
2
3 Brenner stated "neighborhood" is too large. She changed her amendment to
4 °...and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborsheed."
5
6 Knapp stated it is covered either way.
7
8 Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
9
10 Brenner questioned whether they need to take out the word "surrounding."
11 Knapp stated, because of the notice requirements, they are going to notify
12 everyone that will have a direct interest.
13
14 Brenner moved to amend the language, "...and will not adversely affect the
15 surreundft neighbors." Goodwin stated "neighbors" generally mean those
16 immediately next door.
17
18 Brenner withdrew her motion.
19
20 Hoag moved, "...and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or
21 neighborshood."
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether section 20.90.040 is the current language and
26 whether staff will come forward with changes to this section. Goodwin stated they
27 had a public hearing before the Planning Commission to further amend this in the
28 annual process. They did not follow through because they couldn't amend an
29 ordinance that was halfway mended. They've pushed that back on the agenda to
30 some time next year. They are going to approve this section the way it is and they
31 will propose to amend it next year.
32
33 Hoag asked about the new language on pages 12 and 13. Goodwin stated
34 there are no new changes made by Council. It just sets procedure and submittal
35 requirements for doing a major project permit. They've had major project permits
36 processed by the Hearing Examiner for years, but there were never any specific
37 standards.
38
39 Hoag questioned what a major project permit is. Goodwin read the definition
40 of a major project permit. It just means there is more review, additional submittal
41 requirements, additional fees, and it goes before the Hearing Examiner. They are
42 trying to clear up procedures for plan submittal.
43
44 Brenner questioned whether all major project permits require an
45 environmental impact statement (EIS). Knapp stated they wouldn't all necessarily
46 require an EIS. There could be mitigation. A mitigated determination would
47 identify all the mitigation measures and would not kick in an EIS because they
48 would be mitigating the major impacts.
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 8
1 Brenner stated she believed a mitigation determination occurred as a result
2 of an EIS. Goodwin stated a project could have a mitigated determination of no
3 significance.
4
5 Knapp stated there are three types of determinations: a determination of
6 significance, which is an EIS; a mitigated determination, which would be impacts
7 that are mitigated, and; a determination of non - significance. The mitigated
8 determination is done without going through an EIS process.
9
10 Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
11
12 Brenner asked if the developers commented. Goodwin stated they didn't
13 testify at the public hearing.
14
15 Sutter stated she has heard that the developers would like to see this
16 ordinance go through.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
21 20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
22 USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
23
24 Hoag questioned finding seven on ordinance page two. The focus of lot
25 consolidation is for things that do not match zoning and are owned by the same
26 person. It protects resources better if lots are consolidated. If they consolidate
27 lots down to a size of two acres in rural areas, will have problems providing public
28 services. The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
29 (DCTED) said the proposed changes will make it less effective. Also, the Council
30 has always said, in areas outside of UGAs, leaving areas in larger parcels makes it
31 easier to plan orderly development. Consolidating up to two acres is going the
32 wrong direction. She moved to delete finding seven.
33
34 Brenner stated the opposite is true. It is outrageous that they decide to
35 downzone people who could have bought their property before changes occurred.
36 Hoag's proposal removed the smaller zoning areas.
37
38 Hoag stated that was not true. It would only be consolidated in areas not
39 matching the surrounding zoning. It doesn't change the surrounding zoning.
40
41 Brenner stated when a person bought their lot, it was a lot of record. It is
42 highly discriminatory to force people who own two lots in the same name have to
43 consolidate those lots, while two lots held by a person but are not in the same
44 name don't have to consolidate. It has created a loophole and punishes people for
45 not looking for a loophole. It is taking away their right to develop.
46
47 Hoag stated Brenner was talking about the people who bought two
48 properties. The majority of what she has seen regards people who have owned one
49 parcel and split it up. They cannot do that now, anyway. These were things that
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 9
1 were done before zoning existed that are not in the best interest of the public. It
2 doesn't work because of the ability to supply police and other public services.
3 Platting in some areas will create problems if developed.
4
5 Sutter stated she had a problem taking something away that was legally
6 created. She wouldn't support it.
7
8 Hoag stated law supports it
9
10 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
11
12 Hoag moved to delete findings 15 and 16 on page three of the ordinance
13 regarding the lot consolidation relief process. She did not agree with them. The
14 process doesn't implement the Comprehensive Plan and is not in the best public
15 interest. DCTED said that they recommend keeping the Hearing Examiner as the
16 official to grant relief from this ordinance. She didn't see any reason why they
17 should not keep the Hearing Examiner. Twenty percent of the cases that came
18 forward to the Hearing Examiner were denied. They need to have a public process
19 for this.
20
21 Brenner stated she didn't like the forced lot consolidation process. There is
22 still an appeal process with the administrative approval to the Hearing Examiner. It
23 will save time to do it this way. She didn't want to make the process more
24 cumbersome.
25
26 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
27
28 Hoag stated she had a change to section (2)(f)(i) on ordinance page five.
29 One of the lots in the rural areas should be at least five acres. None of the other
30 lots would be considered for consolidation unless one of them was less than two
31 acres. That is not appropriate. In rural areas where the zoning is R5 or R10, it
32 should be at least five acres. She moved to amend that section, "...tw -e five acres."
33
34 Brenner spoke against it. One can get an adequate septic system on less
35 than one acre, depending on the soils. They shouldn't take away people's rights to
36 develop.
37
38 Hoag stated they are not taking away someone's right to develop. These are
39 in zoning areas where the zoning is not for that. She questioned Brenner about
40 whether she wanted all those plats developed.
41
42 Brenner stated she didn't want them to be developed, but she wanted to do
43 it in a positive way. It does take away the owner's right to develop.
44
45 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
46
47 Hoag read the language on page six, beginning with "The procedures for
48 Administrative Approval Uses..." Some of the language in section 20.84.235 applies
49 by saying that Planning and Development should approve or deny all applications
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 10
1 and base a decision upon compliance with the criteria and of section 20.84.220.
2 Section 20.84.220 is the criteria. She read criteria numbers one, four, five, and
3 eight. She didn't want to lose those criteria.
4
5 Sutter stated lot consolidation only erases the lot line. Hoag was talking
6 about criteria related to actual developments. That is the permitting process. The
7 lot consolidation is not a permitting process. A person has to meet these criteria
8 when doing the permits. A person shouldn't have to consider the development
9 criteria because the lot line will be taken away and they will not develop.
10
11 Knapp stated these are considered when building occurs.
12
13 Hoag stated to be consolidated, they have to meet criteria. They need to
14 build some of these criteria into the lot consolidation section because they just took
15 away any criteria from the Hearing Examiner for saying why he can't grant the
16 relief.
17
18 Sutter stated there is criteria for making that administrative decision. One of
19 those criteria is the suitability of lots for construction in that district.
20
21 Knapp stated basic criteria are in there.
22
23 Hoag stated it must be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
24 regulations, not the neighborhood. She stated a person could apply for relief in the
25 Lake Whatcom watershed.
26
27 Goodwin stated the relief is not automatic in the watershed, but people could
28 apply.
29
30 Brenner stated she believed the Lake Whatcom overlay would not allow lot
31 consolidation relief in the watershed. Lot consolidation relief should also not be
32 allowed in Drayton Harbor and any environmentally sensitive areas. Those are the
33 only places she supports lot consolidation without relief.
34
35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
36
37 Brenner stated she supported lot consolidation only in the most extreme
38 circumstances, such as the Lake Whatcom watershed. She didn't want to support it
39 in every place where they felt it was not appropriate to have the lots as small as
40 they are.
41
42 Hoag moved to delete the second paragraph on page six.
43
44 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
45
46 Brenner moved to add language to 20.83.072, "(5) Lots within the Lake
47 Whatcom watershed or Drayton Harbor watershed shall not be granted relief from
48 consolidation."
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 11
1 Hoag stated some of the decisions to divide the lots were prior to what the
2 County now knows is wrong.
3
4 Sutter stated she was talking about lots that were legally created. They can't
5 go back and punish someone for a law that didn't exist at the time they did it.
6
7 Knapp stated that there is substantial case law that does support what Sutter
8 said.
9
10 Hoag stated that is what zoning is. The vesting law of the State of
11 Washington says that if something is vested, it holds for five years unless there is a
12 public health or safety emergency.
13
14 Sutter stated that law was passed in 1980. It does not apply to lots that
15 were done prior to 1980.
16
17 Hoag stated it does apply.
18
19 Goodwin restated Brenner's motion to add language to 20.83.072, "(5) Lots
20 within the Lake Whatcom watershed or Drayton Harbor watershed shall not be
21 granted relief from consolidation."
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Hoag asked about the lots in the Shoreline Management Program and alluvial
26 fans. Knapp stated they should be included.
27
28 Brenner disagreed because a lot with only a piece of the property in the
29 sensitive area can still be developed.
30
31 Hoag stated this isn't addressed under the criteria. She moved to add a new
32 criterion, (6) The suitability of the lot for development based on geo- hazards."
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Hoag stated there was a portion of the language that said parcels shall not
37 be created that are less than 40 acres in size or have less than 600 feet of road
38 frontage. That meant they didn't want landlocked 40 -acre parcels. Someone
39 decided to misinterpret that to mean that if someone had 600 feet of road frontage,
40 they could break out a lot. They lost hundreds of lots. She would like to try and
41 consolidated as many of those lots as possible.
42
43 Brenner stated they are vested lots.
44
45 Hoag asked about definition of parcel on the bottom of ordinance page six.
46 That definition was adopted and passed, but didn't make it into the Comprehensive
47 Plan. They want to replace the correct definition. Goodwin stated the correct
48 version is no longer correct because it references category one and two wetlands,
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 12
1 which they don't have anymore. This version is more correct that the old definition.
2 It was adopted two years ago and things have changed.
3
4 Sutter stated they need to correct the Comprehensive Plan to put the
5 definition they adopted, and then change the definition to the correct definition.
6
7 Brenner asked if the committee would agree to support forced lot
8 consolidation only if in the Lake Whatcom and Drayton Harbor watersheds, or if the
9 properties are totally in geo- hazardous areas.
10
11 Sutter stated they might want to change the language 'Lake Whatcom or
12 Drayton Harbor watershed" to "stormwater special districts." They also need to
13 make sure that any future areas designated as a stormwater special district are
14 listed in its section.
15
16 Brenner stated the only lots that should be forced to be consolidated are lots
17 within the Lake Whatcom watershed, the Drayton Harbor watershed, or if one of
18 the lots was completely in a geo- hazardous area. She couldn't support all the other
19 criteria.
20
21 Brenner moved to add language to section .072 on ordinance page five,
22 "...consolidation hereunder, except for lots within the Lake Whatcom or Drayton
23 Harbor watersheds, may apply..."
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 Brenner stated the only forced lot consolidation she would support is in the
28 Lake Whatcom or Drayton Harbor watersheds, or if the entire property is in the
29 geo- hazards.
30
31 Hoag stated she didn't agree.
32
33 Brenner moved to delete the entire ordinance, except for in those locations.
34
35 Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
36
37 Hoag asked the difference between conventional minimal lot size and
38 minimum area or width requirements as referenced in section (2)(b) on ordinance
39 page five. Goodwin stated conventional would be a regular subdivision as opposed
40 to a cluster subdivision with a reserve tract.
41
42 Hoag asked about including Lummi Island along with Lake Whatcom and
43 Drayton Harbor. Goodwin stated they are not an urban growth area so they would
44 not apply.
45
46 Hoag asked if they generally treat Lummi Island the same as Lake Whatcom
47 and Drayton Harbor because of the island's sensitivity. Goodwin stated they do in
48 some instances.
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 13
1 Knapp stated Lake Whatcom is the water supply for all of Bellingham. The
2 water supply for Lummi Island is for fewer people.
3
4 Sutter stated she wanted to ask the residents of the Island how they feel
5 about this. They are very much concerned about the environment. If they don't
6 fee it is necessary, then she wouldn't want to include it.
7
8 Hoag questioned item (4- , which was stricken, and item (1)(d) on ordinance
9 page four. She asked the difference in meaning between the old and new
10 language. Knapp stated they are not referring to primary use anymore. It might
11 not be necessary. The primary use would apply no matter what they are doing. It
12 may refer to the density. The primary use would have certain criteria for size.
13
14 Hoag asked about the language that makes the parcels in question non -
15 conforming. Goodwin stated it probably was stricken because it wasn't necessary.
16 Either they are consolidated or not.
17
18 Hoag moved to recommend denial of the ordinance.
19
20 Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
21
22 Hoag clarified that the amendments have been made, but the proposed
23 ordinance as amended will not go forward with a recommendation. The
24 amendments to the proposed ordinance still stand.
25
26 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
27 CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
28 AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND
29 STORMWATER REGULATIONS (PLANNING NO. 61- 98:ZT) (AB99 -286)
30
31 Sutter moved to amend language on page eight of the ordinance, in section
32 .154(2) to read, "Greenhouses and cultivated ground shall not be located closer
33 than 200 feet of Lake Whatcom, or 200 feet of streams subject to the Shoreline
34 Management Act and fish bearing streams, or 150 feet from other streams and
35 their tributaries, which flow into Lake Whatcom." She wanted to make it consistent
36 with the Shoreline Management Act.
37
38 Hoag asked where they got the 250 feet. Goodwin stated that was a decision
39 the committee made some time ago.
40
41 Hoag asked what streams are subject to the Shoreline Management Act.
42 Goodwin stated most. The small ones aren't.
43
44 Motion failed 1 -2 with Sutter in favor.
45
46 Sutter moved to amend section .153(2) on ordinance page eight, "...shall not
47 be located within cleseF than 250 feet t-e of lake Whatcom ... from other streams and
48 their tributaries, which flow into Lake Whatcom."
49
50 Motion carried unanimously.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 14
1 Hoag asked about the word "facilities" in section .153(3) on ordinance page
2 eight. Goodwin stated they discussed the idea of changing the language.
3 Preexisting agricultural uses are a subcategory of animal hospital and kennel.
4 Animal hospital and kennels are not an agricultural use. They are a facility. That is
5 why it is changed.
6
7 Sutter moved to amend language in section .153(3) on ordinance page eight,
8 "...preexisting agFiCUltural uses facilities with less than..."
9
10 Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
11
12 Sutter stated the language in section .303 on ordinance page ten is confusing
13 because they are using the terms 'non- impervious' and 'pervious,' which are the
14 same thing. She moved to amend language in section 20.71.303 on ordinance
15 page ten, "For cluster subdivision approved after (date) that portion of the reserve
16 tract which is kept in nen irnpeFvieus open space may be counted as open space
17 toward pervious surface area requirements..." Sutter stated the lots in the
18 subdivision have a limited allowed amount of impervious surface. The phrase 'non -
19 impervious' before 'open space' is redundant. Open space has to be non -
20 impervious by definition.
21
22 Hoag stated they differentiated between pervious surfaces and open space.
23 Goodwin read the definitions of open space and reserve tract into the record.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
26
27 Sutter amended her amendment on page 10, section 20.71.303, "For cluster
28 subdivisions approved after (date) that portion of the reserve tract with is kept in
29 non impervious open space may be counted as epen sp toward pervious surface
30 area requirements..."
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Sutter questioned section 20.80.526(2) and asked about the criteria that will
35 be used to determine whether or not it is appropriate to put parking spaces that far
36 away. Knapp stated the design and type of use might allow that it could be done.
37 It could be allowed for something such as a conference center where people are
38 more willing to walk a greater distance.
39
40 Goodwin stated a business owner is not going to put parking so far away that
41 the customers won't come to the business.
42
43 Sutter stated it was okay, as long as there will be reasonable considerations
44 and not an arbitrary decision.
45
46 Goodwin stated the reality is that the commercial areas in Lake Whatcom are
47 so small, most business wouldn't have the room to put parking spaces 700 feet
48 away.
49
50 Sutter pointed out a scrivener's error in section (4)(e) on ordinance page 17,
51 "...and the slope is less than under..."
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 15
1
2 Sutter questioned the language in section (f) on ordinance page 17. This
3 language says the County "shall" review proposed land clearing activities. Other
4 language elsewhere says the County "will" review proposed land clearing activities.
5 She questioned the difference and stated she liked consistency in the language.
6 She moved that they use the word "shall" in sections 2(a) through 2(f) on
7 ordinance pages 16 and 17.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 Sutter questioned the language in section (4)(b) on ordinance page 16. She
12 questioned what would happened if it is in a stormwater special district, but not a
13 water resources management area. Goodwin stated this is just land clearing
14 review. Stormwater control is a separate issue with separate criteria in a separate
15 section.
16
17 Hoag asked where the water resource special management area is. Goodwin
18 stated at this point it is the entire Lake Whatcom watershed.
19
20 Sutter questioned section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven. The language
21 they added has a problem. If one has buildings, he or she has to move the
22 buildings unless he or she has a conservation plan. It goes back to the idea of
23 regulating an existing use. She didn't think they could do that. They have to
24 change it so it doesn't address the buildings.
25
26 Hoag stated their intent was to get the animals away from the water.
27
28 Sutter stated they need to delete "preexisting" from that language. Goodwin
29 stated that earlier the committee was concerned about crops also.
30
31 Brenner asked how many preexisting agricultural uses there are in the Lake
32 Whatcom watershed.
33
34 Knapp stated there is a minimal amount.
35
36 Brenner stated she would like to take out that language.
37
38 Sutter stated the other problem is that "less than five animal units" could be
39 interpreted to mean one chicken. That language is too prohibitive.
40
41 Hoag stated Dick Gilda, who brought forward that concern, suggested one
42 animal unit and limiting the use only within one half mile of the lake. She wanted
43 to know precisely how many animals are in the watershed if they are going to
44 change policy based on that information.
45
46 Sutter moved to amend section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven, 'Within
47 six months after the adoption of this chapter, preexisting agricultural uses, other
48 than structures, with less than five animal units..."
49
50 Motion carried unanimously.
51
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 16
1 Sutter stated they have covered new uses with five or more animal units.
2 They have also covered preexisting uses with less than five animal units. They
3 have not covered new uses with less than five animal units. That is why they
4 should amend the language, "Within six months after the adoption of this chapter,
5 pFeexistipg all agricultural uses,..."
6
7 Hoag stated they need to specify preexisting uses. She moved to amend
8 section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven, "Within six months after the adoption
9 of the chapter, all agricultural uses, including preexisting uses, other than
10 structures, with less than..."
11
12 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment, "...shall comply if physically
13 possible, with the setbacks." Goodwin suggested there is variance language that
14 addresses her concern.
15
16 Brenner withdrew her friendly amendment.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Hoag moved to amend section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven, "Within
21 six months after the adoption of this chapter, all new and preexisting agricultural
22 uses, other than structures, with less than five animal units..."
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Hoag moved to amend section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven, "...with
27 more than two but less than five animal units..." She wanted to leave the language
28 "less than five" to remain so that it would be clear.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 Hoag moved to amend section 20.71.051 on ordinance page seven, "...with
33 two to five animal units..." Without the amendment, a person that has two animal
34 units would not meet the threshold and would not have to meet the requirement.
35
36 Hoag questioned where animal units was defined. Goodwin stated it is
37 defined in the Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.97(A).
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 Goodwin suggested an amendment on ordinance page ten, section .302(3),
42 because a person with a small lot would be restricted to having a small amount of
43 impervious surfaces. A citizen suggested a minimum building pad to give a lot
44 owner at least enough to build a house if they have a small lot.
45
46 Knapp stated a small footprint would allow a good size house if it was
47 designed to be a two -story structure.
48
49 Goodwin stated the citizen wanted a bigger house, with an allowable
50 footprint of 2,000 square feet, with enough room to park their car. They wanted at
51 least 2,500 square feet, if not 4,000 square feet, of allowable impervious surfaces.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 17
1
2 Hoag stated the driveway doesn't have to be impervious. A 2,000 square
3 feet footprint would allow a 4,000 square foot house. It is not restrictive. She
4 asked where this is zoned and how close it is to the lake. Goodwin stated it is right
5 on the lake. It is along Northshore Drive.
6
7 Knapp stated he didn't think it was restrictive. A 4,000 square foot house
8 allows at least four bedrooms and two baths.
9
10 Brenner moved to reinstate item (4)(a) at the top of ordinance page 16. It
11 doesn't destroy the intent of what they are doing.
12
13 Hoag stated she discussed this item with the person who brought forward the
14 concern. She stated that person was talking about mowing a lawn. It is not about
15 mowing a lawn. The concern is about brushing. If one brushes a slope, they end
16 up with a problem.
17
18 Brenner stated weed whacking and brushing are not the same thing. She
19 suggested, "The county will not review vegetation maintenance activities, except for
20 brushing, as defined by..." Goodwin stated leaving the language in would be
21 contrary to the new language about a review requirement if it is over 2,000 square
22 feet. If they leave the language at 5,000 square feet, they would want to strike all
23 the language about reviewing slopes.
24
25 Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
26
27 Hoag referred to section 20.71.153 on ordinance page eight. She questioned
28 whether six months is a realistic amount of time. She asked to ensure that they
29 are not talking about structures in that section. Goodwin stated they wouldn't even
30 want the structure.
31
32 Hoag stated they are talking about preexisting structures.
33
34 Sutter stated they would require a conservation plan in that case.
35
36 Hoag stated if they leave the language in, and a person can't meet the
37 setback, then that person would have to do a conservation plan. They will leave
38 that language alone.
39
40 Goodwin stated the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) asked her to bring
41 up a concern on ordinance page 15, section (6), to remove "on site" on the second
42 line. It might be more feasible to treat stormwater off site. It would provide more
43 flexibility.
44
45 Sutter so moved.
46
47 Hoag questioned whether removing "on site" is what they want to do. Knapp
48 stated they do if they can do treatment better in another area. They should have
49 that opportunity. They are trying to make sure the water is better.
50
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 18
1 Hoag stated the regional treatment facilities haven't been working, but onsite
2 facilities work better. Goodwin stated they already allow for regional facilities in
3 that section.
4
5 Knapp stated the key is to allow whichever does a better quality job.
6
7 Hoag stated there is no language that says whichever is better. She moved
8 to amend language on ordinance page 15, section (6), "...structure, unless it can be
9 demonstrated that an off site facility can provide better treatment or common
10 detention..."
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
15
16 Goodwin stated the TAC thought the 50% limit was too high. It should be
17 25 %, a dollar amount, or if the improvement increases impervious surfaces by 120
18 square feet or more. They recommended that the threshold be at 25 %. They want
19 it more stringent.
20
21 Hoag moved to amend section (6) on ordinance page 15, "...exceeding 59%
22 25 %..."
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Hoag moved to amend section (6) on ordinance page 15, valuation of the
27 structure, or increasing impervious surfaces by more than 120 square feet, unless it
28 can be demonstrated that an off site facility can provide better treatment or
29 common detention..." Goodwin stated 120 square feet is the threshold that requires
30 a building permit.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether that size was appropriate.
33
34 Sutter stated it is a way to get some retrofitting done on large homes.
35
36 Hoag stated it may not be appropriate for small houses. One hundred
37 twenty square feet is too small.
38
39 Sutter asked if an owner can get a variance if it creates a hardship. Goodwin
40 stated only if there are site constraints.
41
42 Hoag asked why the TAC chose 120 square feet. Goodwin stated that is
43 when a building permit is required.
44
45 Knapp stated the TAC suggestion is reasonable. It should be consistent with
46 what is in the code.
47
48 Hoag amended her amendment, "...increasing impervious surfaces by more
49 than 200 square feet."
50
51 Motion carried unanimously.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 19
1
2 Sutter moved to amend language on ordinance page 13, section
3 20.80.634(2), "(b) Drayton Harbor watershed." Goodwin stated they left it out
4 because the entire ordinance they are amending deals with Lake Whatcom only.
5 When they address the Drayton Harbor ordinance, they will include that language in
6 the same location.
7
8 Sutter withdrew her motion.
9
10 Hoag stated she was rethinking that 200 square foot requirement. She
11 questioned whether it is harder to evaluate the requirement. Knapp stated it is
12 easier to administrate if they make it consistent with the building permit threshold.
13 That is why the TAC recommended 120 square feet. The additional square footage
14 from 120 to 200 doesn't mean that much, but it minimizes the administration.
15
16 Hoag stated she was trying to balance between making it easier for staff and
17 making it reasonable for the public. Knapp stated 120 square feet is fine.
18
19 Hoag moved to amend section (6) on ordinance page 15, "...increasing
20 impervious surfaces by more than 299 120 square feet."
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 Goodwin stated they need to recommend the ordinance to the Council if they
25 want to have a hearing.
26
27 Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.89,
32 DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURES (PLANNING NO. 70- 98:ZT) (AB99 -
33 386)
34
35 Sutter stated they would have the public hearing on December 7 th
36
37 6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS
38 CHARACTER PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT RELATING TO
39 POINT ROBERTS (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND
40 DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -411)
41
42 This item was not discussed.
43
44 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
45 PLAN REGARDING CAPITAL FACILITIES (PLANNING COMMISSION
46 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -407)
47
48 This item was withdrawn.
49
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 20
1
8.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
2
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (PLANNING
3
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
4
430) (AB99 -410)
5
6
This item was not discussed.
7
8
9
9.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
10
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL
11
UGA (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON
12
FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -409)
13
14
This item was not discussed.
15
16
10.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
17
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PLANNING
18
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
19
430) (AB99 -406)
20
21
This item was not discussed.
22
23
11.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN AND
24
THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM UR3 TO
25
LII FOR 10.74 ACRES (BELLINGHAM UGA /MARINE DRIVE REZONE)
26
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
27
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -405)
28
29
This item was not discussed.
30
31
12.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONE MAP
32
REGARDING RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 5.84
33
ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (WARNICK AMENDMENT)
34
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
35
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -408)
36
37
This item was not discussed.
38
39
13.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, LII
40
AND HII ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FRINGE PLAN
41
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
42
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -404)
43
44
This item was not discussed.
45
46
14.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
47
PLAN TEXT AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TEXT
48
REGARDING THE CHERRY POINT PIER DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 21
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
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -403)
This item was not discussed.
15. DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL (AB99 -436)
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Special Planning and Development Committee, 11/16/99, Page 22