HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 2 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.82,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (PLANNING NO. 50- 98:ZT) (AB99 -377)
Hoag stated there are some additional data she was preparing, and
requested this item be held for two weeks. There are two sections; one is
regarding sewer lines and the other is regarding electrical utility lines. She has not
presented her questions to staff because they cannot answer them. There are
specific things that Puget Sound Energy can answer about kilovolts. They are
trying to restrict a use in a particular area, but it is not being accomplished by what
they are doing. She wanted to present her data to the committee for their
consideration, but she didn't have it gathered.
Sutter asked if the County still has a General Manufacturing zone.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated there is a small piece on the Guide Meridian. It is still in the County Code.
However, if there is no zoning left, it should be struck from the Code.
Sutter stated that if there is a General Manufacturing zone, it should be
something the Planning Commission should look at to see if there is a more
appropriate zoning designation. She also asked for clarification on a section of the
code that is referenced on packet page 73, section 20.82.030(5). Goodwin read
section 20.82.023 of the code that is referenced.
Sutter stated it would include reservoirs that don't have to do with public fire
flow.
Brenner suggested putting the language from section 20.82.023 in section
20.82.030(5). It would make it cleaner. Goodwin stated they would have to put
another paragraph in there because it has all of the provisions.
Brenner questioned whether there are reservoirs provided by public utility
districts for anything that they would include. Goodwin stated the rest require a
conditional use permit. If the reservoir is not just for fire flow, then the structure
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
will be large and will require a conditional use permit. The fire flow reservoirs are
usually very small.
Hoag asked why they are being excluded just because they are public utility
district fire flow reservoirs. Goodwin stated the tank needs to be next to the
building it is intended to protect. If they put it in another zone and run a pipe, then
the fire flow would be reduced to the point they couldn't spray it on the building any
more.
Hoag stated there are multiple sites that can be chosen for that, which would
adequately service the need. By not including them, they are saying the ones that
are big are exempt from the conditional use permit process.
Sutter stated the ones that are big and twelve feet above the ground are a
conditional use.
Hoag stated that wasn't correct. This additional language exempts those
that are in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.82, even if they are too big.
Sutter asked if there as a size specification in WCC 20.82.023. Goodwin
stated it only says it is for the sole purpose of providing fire flow. The only time
that would come in is if there was an existing building with inadequate fire flow.
Generally the reservoir would not be over 50,000 gallons. If the Council wants to
hold a public hearing, they could eliminate that exemption. If someone wanted to
provide fire flow, they would have to get a conditional use permit.
Sutter suggested a size limitation requirement on the outright permitted
facility used for fire flow. The conditional use should be tied strictly to the size of
the facility, so that if the capacity is less than 50,000 gallons and the tank is less
than 12 feet above the ground, it is permitted. If it is larger than that, it would be
conditional.
Hoag questioned whether the use in WCC 20.82.023 is a permitted use.
Goodwin stated it is.
Sutter stated that would be the simple fix, instead of taking out the
exemption. Goodwin stated they would want to add the restriction in WCC
20.82.023 that water tanks owned and operated by a public utility for fire flow are
allowed provided the capacity is less than 50,000 gallons and it is less than 12 feet
from the ground.
Sutter stated they are trying to say that they don't care who is creating the
tank. If the capacity is over 50,000 gallons or it is higher than 12 feet above the
ground, it has to be a conditional use. They accomplish that by taking out the
exemption under the conditional use. Just to make it clear, they should put a
corresponding specification in WCC 20.82.023 for those tanks that are less than
that size. She questioned whether that is a significant enough change to have a
public hearing. Goodwin stated that would be a significant enough change for a
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
public hearing. They are requiring that all people who put a small tank higher than
12 feet get a conditional use permit.
Hoag stated a tank that is higher than 12 feet becomes a safety issue. She
asked if one must have a building permit. Goodwin stated they would have to get a
building permit in addition to plumbing and mechanical permits.
Sutter stated there are two types of tanks. She had in mind the type of tank
that sits in the ground and goes up to 12 feet high. She questioned whether that
type of tank would have the associated problems that would require a conditional
use.
Brenner suggested staff bring back language.
Sutter stated they would schedule this for a public hearing in two weeks.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING PERSONAL STORAGE BUILDINGS
(PLANNING NO. 51- 98:ZT) (AB99 -378)
Sutter asked about finding three on packet page 77. That language isn't the
same as the language in Title 20, which doesn't say anything about other structures
not being present. Goodwin stated it is already allowed as an accessory use if other
structures are present. They don't need to add that language. It is only added as
a permitted use.
Sutter stated she didn't understand the finding. Goodwin stated a storage
building is allowed any place in the county in a residential zone when it is
associated with a residence.
Sutter stated the finding is an ambiguous statement.
Dawson asked if a person with agricultural land, rural forestry land, or
commercial forestry land could have a storage building for their equipment if there
isn't a home. Goodwin stated that generally they couldn't. That is why this is
being added.
Hoag stated this regulation allows a 10 -foot by 12 -foot building. No one can
store farm equipment in a building that size. Goodwin stated one could put up a
barn in an agricultural zone.
Hoag asked what is currently allowed and what the change is seeking to
allow. Goodwin stated that currently if one has a residential property that is zoned
in any of the residential zones, and there is not a house on the property, one
couldn't put a personal storage unit on it. The reason is that a person will construct
a storage unit, and then add a bathroom, bed, and stove. That creates a lot of
illegal structures. That is why they talked about it not having indoor plumbing.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Generally, someone would choose not to have a 120 square foot house with no
plumbing.
Sutter stated she read the finding to mean that one can only have a storage
unit if there isn't another structure on the property. Goodwin stated it is already
listed as an accessory use with a structure.
Sutter suggested, "Staff finds that the placement of personal storage
buildings on individual lots when ne etheF strueture is present whether or not
another structure is present,..."
The committee concurred.
Goodwin questioned whether they need to have a public hearing to change
the Planning Commission finding.
Sutter stated they don't have to. They are just clarifying the intent.
Goodwin stated in a rural forestry zone, there could be structures associated
with the use, such as sawmills and storage yards. There is something in
agricultural zones that talks about barns.
Dawson asked about open space timber. Goodwin stated that open space
timber is only a tax designation. Rural or Commercial Forestry zones would allow a
building to store forestry equipment and tools.
Dawson questioned whether a structure would be allowed in open space
timber areas in a residential zone. A 10 -foot by 12 -foot structure would not be big
enough to store timber equipment.
Sutter stated one would not need big equipment in an open space timber
area. They are just growing trees.
Goodwin stated a rural zone with the primary use of agriculture or tree
growing allows those uses as permitted uses. Under Accessory Uses, WCC
20.36.103, which is in rural, allows other accessory uses incidental to the primary
permitted use.
Hoag stated people want to install pump houses in the rural zones. She
questioned whether this could be used to build a pump house. She suggested
amending the language, "no indoor plumbing fixtures." Goodwin stated they could
change the language, but it would require a public hearing.
Sutter stated this type of thing would not be a problem. Goodwin stated
that if someone were building a pump house to put in a well, it would not be
considered indoor plumbing. It would be a storage shed.
Sutter stated a pump house is not a storage facility.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.85,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ACCESSIBLE PARKING (PLANNING
NO. 57- 98:ZT) (AB99 -380)
Brenner asked about the conflict between federal and state standards. The
state cannot do something less restrictive than what the federal government
regulates. Goodwin stated the federal standards don't have specific regulations,
only the intent that everything should be accessible to everyone. The State
standards specify the regulations.
Brenner stated the federal law might change, so the Council should say it
would be whichever regulation would be stricter.
Sutter stated state law couldn't be less restrictive than the federal law. State
law will always be stricter. Goodwin stated the State standards are specific about
what they require.
Brenner asked if it would be a problem to say that it will conform to the
stricter regulation.
Hoag questioned whether the current language ensures that the stricter
regulation will be met.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it does.
Hoag moved to recommend to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), TO PROVIDE CLEARER RULES FOR
DETERMINING FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR STRUCTURES (PLANNING
NO. 56- 98:ZT) (AB99 -384)
Goodwin stated this was a request from the Engineering Department.
Frequently, a right -of -way might be a certain distance wide, but the road is not
usually in the middle of the right -of -way. Right now, the regulation says that if
they don't know the exact location of the right -of -way, they assume the right -of-
way is 60 feet wide and the road is in the middle. That is usually wrong.
Therefore, they measure the setbacks and find out the right -of -way was wider and
the road ran along one edge. A building may end up in the right -of -way. This
amendment was a simple change to correct that problem. If one doesn't know
where the right -of -way is located, they survey and find out.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Hoag stated that would cost about $600. Goodwin stated that is cheaper
than moving a building.
Nelson asked how it affects existing structures. Goodwin stated existing
structures are already there. If an existing structure has been there long enough to
have an adverse possession or other claim, then they would probably stay there.
Nelson asked what would happen if there have been additions to the
structures that have encroached into the right -of -way and resulted in the front yard
going into the right -of -way. There could be a problem with the visibility. He asked
whose responsibility it was to change the front yard. Goodwin stated if it is a legal,
non - conforming use before the code is changed, then it would already be there.
Brenner stated the situation Nelson was talking about is probably illegal.
Sutter stated that might not occur frequently enough for the Council to deal
with it.
Nelson stated he has had to deal with it, which is why it brought it up.
Sutter stated it seems like that is a situation that would be taken on a case -
by -case basis. They are trying to deal with preventing that from happening in the
future.
Nelson questioned whether this applied to someone whose landscaping or
building hampered road visibility by being in the right -of -way. Goodwin stated
there are laws on the book regarding site distance. If someone didn't know where
the road right -of -way was and put in a shrub or a wall that is obstructing traffic,
they could have to take it down after a survey.
Nelson asked if this is to help the engineers before they issue a permit to
make that determination. Goodwin stated that was correct. It is intended to apply
to new structures.
Hoag moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Goodwin stated that what happens to existing structures is an interesting
question they would have to look into.
Sutter stated it was beyond the scope of what they are doing, but they could
look into it.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING ADULT FAMILY HOMES AND
CHILDCARE FACILITIES (PLANNING NO. 63- 98:ZT) (AB99 -381)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Goodwin stated this is to comply with state law that says the County will
adopt regulations for care facilities in all residential zones by 1991. The wording is
identical to state law. There isn't a lot of discretion here. The Planning Commission
and staff looked at all zones where daycares would or would not be appropriate.
Hoag asked if state law required that this be permitted. Goodwin stated
daycares that care for six or fewer people have to be permitted. The larger
facilities don't have to be permitted uses.
Brenner questioned whether this means someone can build a facility or
convert a building in these zones. Goodwin stated they could either build or
convert a building.
Brenner questioned whether they have to allow it in an agricultural zone.
Goodwin stated the agricultural zone only allows a daycare in a home, and there
can only be one home on forty acres. They can't exceed the density.
Brenner stated any residence could be converted to a daycare. Goodwin
stated that was correct.
Hoag asked about adding care centers that are not in a dwelling in urban
residential areas. Goodwin stated they would be a conditional use. The only thing
that is permitted is if there are six or fewer children or seniors. Any more would be
a conditional use.
Brenner stated that as a conditional use, it couldn't be added to agricultural
zones. Goodwin stated Agricultural zones aren't one of the areas listed.
Hoag stated the language at the bottom of packet page 90 adds new
conditional uses, daycare centers, and mini - daycare centers that aren't in a family
dwelling to the Agricultural (AG) and Eliza Island (EI) districts. Goodwin stated
they need to strike the language about the Eliza Island and Agricultural districts.
Sutter read the language, which says that those uses are conditional uses.
They can deny a conditional use if it is not appropriate and the proponent cannot
meet the conditions.
Brenner asked how they would deny the conditional use.
Hoag stated they only deny it if it doesn't match the law, zoning, or criteria.
If they don't want it in the area, they shouldn't put it in the code. Goodwin stated
there are children living in agricultural zones.
Sutter asked about the conditions for this conditional use. Goodwin stated
the conditions are in WCC 20.84.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Frakes stated sometimes conditional uses criteria are located in the code in
the section on the particular zone district.
Sutter questioned whether they need to attach specific conditions for them to
be in agriculture zones.
Hoag stated they need to save agricultural land for agricultural uses.
Goodwin read the conditions into the record.
Hoag moved to amend language on the bottom of page three, "Add the
following new conditional uses to eaeb -e€ the EI and AG districts."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated they would hold a public hearing in two weeks.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE, 20.34,
REGARDING LUMMI ISLAND RR -1 DISTRICTS (PLANNING NO. 66-
98:ZT) (AB99 -330)
Goodwin stated they already discussed this. It is already scheduled for
adoption.
Brenner asked about page 96 and why they removed section 20.34.150(8).
Goodwin stated they are not allowing the use of any synthetic pesticides, synthetic
herbicides, or chemical fertilizers. They wouldn't be aerial sprayed, sprayed by
hand, or sprinkled.
Brenner stated chemical products are not just fertilizers.
Sutter questioned what other chemicals would be sprayed from a plane
besides pesticides or herbicides when they are talking about a plant nursery.
Hoag stated plant nurseries use copper, which is not a synthetic or a
chemical fertilizer.
Brenner moved to reinstate and renumber the language, "(9) No aerial
application of chemical products shall be allowed within 50 feet of the dissimilar
uses."
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, questioned why
they would want to allow aerial applications.
Hoag stated removing the language would allow it. Knapp stated it would
not allow it. If they take the language out, it is not allowed. The language says
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
that no application would be allowed within 50 feet. If the language was removed,
they would allow aerial application within 50 feet.
Brenner amended her amendment, "(9) No aerial application of chemical
products shall be allowed within C^ feet of the ^'sing'°'~ ' ^ "
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission's intent by creating item (8) was to
cover a wide range of things. The committee may just want to add to that list.
Knapp stated application isn't allowed, aerial or any other way.
Hoag asked if it was listed as a prohibited use. Knapp stated that item
wouldn't allow any use.
Brenner stated they could allow the use of chemical products, but not to be
applied by aerial application.
Hoag stated there are many dormant sprays for fruit trees that wouldn't be
considered synthetic pesticides, synthetic herbicides, or chemical fertilizers. She
didn't think they would cause a problem for anyone unless they were close to
someone else. Rather than going to the extreme of banning all aerial application of
chemical products, they should just prohibit aerial application within 50 feet. That
would be a reasonable alternative.
Brenner stated she disagreed.
Sutter questioned the number of plant nurseries that are on Lummi Island
and whether they are large enough to require aerial application. This is only for
Lummi Island.
Hoag questioned whether this would apply only to retail plant nurseries, or
would include apple orchards.
Sutter stated an apple orchard is not a retail plant nursery. Apple orchards
would not be producing on such a scale that they would need to be dusted.
Brenner stated it is not a good idea on Lummi Island.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
Sutter stated they would have a public hearing in two weeks.
Hoag questioned whether the committee had gone all the way through this
ordinance.
Sutter stated the committee finished this ordinance. The last time the
committee went through the ordinance, it was in a block of items. All those items
have since been pulled out and brought forward individually.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS), REGARDING HARVEST ACTIVITY IN RF /CF
AND CONFLICTS WITH LANDOWNERS (PLANNING NO. 64- 98:ZT)
(AB99 -329)
Sutter questioned whether side and rear yard setbacks are typically five feet
in the forestry district, as specified on packet page 98E, section 20.80.283(3). That
seems like a small setback on a five -acre parcel.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they
could put the structure anywhere on the parcel and get as close as five feet to the
side and rear yards.
Sutter stated they are trying to minimize the conflict between residential
owners and forestry owners. They won't accomplish that with a five -foot setback.
Goodwin stated that is existing language. They might want to consider changing
that. The setbacks could be the setbacks of the underlying zone.
Brenner stated that is what she would like to see.
Sutter stated it would be appropriate to default to the underlying zone.
Hoag asked for an explanation of what that would do. Goodwin stated that if
one has a rural forestry parcel of land that is two acres and is next to a parcel that
is 20 acres, he or she is subject to the 100 -foot setback. However, if that two -acre
parcel is next to another piece that is zoned five acres, he or she must have a 20-
foot side and rear setback.
Hoag stated she didn't understand why removing section 20.80.283(3) would
not automatically require a 20 -foot setback. Goodwin stated that if one is next to a
parcel of 20 acres or has trees, he or she would be stuck with a 100 -foot buffer.
That buffer could take out half of the property if they have a one -acre parcel.
Sutter moved to change section 20.80.283(3), "For parcels of less than five
nominal acres, unless the provisions of WCC 20.80.283(2) above are applicable, e
rmmn;.,.,ung five feet side yard and , miningurn five feet rear yard setbacks shall -b�e
bseFved conform to underlying zoning."
Brenner questioned whether the language in section 20.61.709 on packet
page 98D, regarding refraining from legal action, is legal and if the County can
prevent a citizen from taking civil action.
Hoag requested they keep discussion on the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated this would require a public hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Brenner questioned whether the language on packet page 98D had any
effect.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they have to think
about what it says. People are giving up the right to sue for reasonable and legal
uses on adjacent properties. She didn't think they are giving up a lot. It is more of
a notice. Upon recent review of a similar provision in the Right -to -Farm provisions
by another County attorney, it was determined that it is a legal provision.
Sutter stated they would schedule this for a public hearing.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (PLANNING NO. 69- 98:ZT) (AB99 -331)
Sutter addressed an amendment that was previously made on page 106 of
the packet, section (2), "Approval of site specific rezone proposals must consider
the cumulative effects of recent rezones in the area and be supported by written
findings and conclusions showing specifically that all of the following conditions
must exist:..." She so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated section (2)(d)(iii) is supposed to say, "if located within a
non - industrial Urban Growth Area." That language was in a previous version, but
fell out of this version.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated the committee agreed to this change last time. It was
actually in the text.
Sutter moved to amend language on page 106, section (2)(c), "...changed
conditions or new information since the previous zoning..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter stated the committee changed language on page 106, section
(2)(d)(ii). The committee previously changed language, "not create exEess+ve
significant additional requirements..." However, that changed language did not
make it into the current version of the ordinance. The committee already voted on
this at a previous meeting, and it doesn't require another vote.
Hoag suggested amending language on packet page 106, (2)(b), "bears a
substantial , is proven by clear and convincing..."
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated she suggested that
change for a different ordinance. She suggested leaving the language the way it is,
but not because they don't have the legal right to make it more restrictive. There
is not a right to a rezone under these circumstances. State law requires that a
person shows that it bears a substantial relationship to health and safety and the
changed conditions. Local government can make it more restrictive. The language
as it is provides the Council with the utmost flexibility and discretion in deciding
whether or not a particular rezone is appropriate. That is a good thing because
they can consider everything that can come up that isn't always something they
can anticipate. It allows them to weigh the good and the bad, and decide which
course they want to take. The language Hoag suggested would strip the Council of
its discretion. There will always be negative sides to a rezone.
Hoag stated the original language said it would not have a negative impact to
public health. Goodwin stated this is the original language recommended by the
Planning Commission. The committee said one would have to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that it would not have an impact.
Hoag stated that the committee initially questioned how they would
determine a negative impact. She asked if there was anything wrong with saying
that the proposed zoning will not negatively impact public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare.
Frakes stated there would always be negatives. The job of the Council is to
weigh the positives and the negatives. If the positives outweigh the negatives,
then it bears a substantial relationship to the list of items. If they don't, then
someone can appeal. If the Council is being arbitrary or capricious in making that
decision, it will be reversed.
Hoag stated the language doesn't say that the substantial relationship has to
be positive. She suggested, "the overall impact."
Sutter stated they need to put that qualifier in there. It is a balancing act.
There may be some small negative impact, but it could be far outweighed by the
benefit. That flexibility should be left in.
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 106, (2)(b), "The overall
impact of proposed amendment to the zoning beaFs a substantial Felatienship will
not have a negative impact to public health..."
Sutter proposed a friendly amendment, "The proposed amendment to the
zoning beaFs a substantial Felatienship will not have a significant negative impact to
public health...."
Hoag accepted.
Brenner proposed a friendly amendment, "The proposed amendment to the
zoning beai=s a substantial i=elatienship will not have a significant negative impact to
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
public health ... and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborsheed as a
whole."
Goodwin stated they are looking at areas that are already designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. They are looking at the whole. It may be one residence
surrounded by 290 acres of potential commercial light rail support facilities.
Brenner stated if it is one person's property, the developer should negotiate
with that person.
Hoag stated negotiation would remove the negative impact to that person.
Sutter proposed a friendly motion to amend language on packet page 106,
(2)(b), "The proposed amendment to the zoning
has no significant negative impact to public health... and well net adveFsely affeet, or
the surrounding neighborhood as a-w ;ems."
Nelson questioned whether this goes through a hearing process. Goodwin
stated it would go to the Hearing Examiner.
Nelson stated the Hearing Examiner would have to use this language. One
person out of many may say it has a significant adverse affect. Goodwin stated the
Hearing Examiner would have to decide whether that was a significant impact.
Nelson questioned whether this is a decision that the Hearing Examiner
would normally make.
Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated it is
important, when looking at this process, to understand there is a project attached
to it. When they are talking about mitigation, they can require mitigation on the
project. There is a lot more flexibility in this. This is considered a permit. The
Hearing Examiner is going to look at the change in land use along with the project.
He will have latitude to meet the needs of the community to fit the project in that
area.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, discussed the section on approval
criteria, section 20.90.030(2), on page seven. He suggested the language
regarding the surrounding neighborhood be removed from section (b) and included
in item (d). The new information is an important point. The Hearing Examiner and
the Council should be the ones to judge whether the information is persuasive or
not. It is a political decision. He suggested adding language in section (d), "...the
proposed amendment will not result in significant and unmitigated adverse
impacts..." The intent was to make sure the impacts will be mitigated to a
satisfactory level. The wording "consistent and compatible" is subjective.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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 there is a difference between consistent and compatible. His
language addresses consistency, but not compatibility.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Almskaar stated that the Hearing Examiner and the Council have to find that
the application is consistent with all the criteria, not just one of the criteria.
Goodwin stated the language "consistent and compatible" was used
specifically to avoid creating spot zoning. Since they are looking at site specific
rezones for specific projects, they wanted to make sure they weren't creating spot
zones.
Brenner moved to amend section (d), "...the proposed amendment is
consistent and compatible with current uses and will not result in significant and
unmitigated adverse impacts on..."
Hoag proposed a friendly amendment, "...the proposed amendment will not
result in significant and unmitigated adverse impacts on, and is consistent and
compatible with, the current uses of..."
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
Goodwin stated that language duplicates the amended language they just
approved for section (b) regarding no significant impact.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Almskaar continued his presentation. Essential services should be phased in,
and he suggested alternate language for section (d)(iii)(a) on packet page 106. All
services shouldn't have to be there at once if the project is going to broken into
phases over five years or so.
Goodwin stated the concept of phasing seems reasonable.
Almskaar stated he didn't see the reason for a five -acre minimum size, as
specified in section (d)(iii)(c). One could have a significant project on less than five
acres.
Olason stated the five -acre minimum is required within urban growth areas
because the Comprehensive designates urban growth areas. What happens within
those areas is left up to the cities' future land use maps. As they start to change
within those areas, they should propose a change of a reasonable size so that it
isn't unreasonable. Staff thought that a five -acre site was reasonable, especially if
it was commercial or multi - family. There would be enough area for adequate
buffering of the development.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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 questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan requires a five -acre
minimum in an urban growth area. Olason stated it does for un- serviced areas.
Almskaar questioned whether Olason referred to the requirement in the
Urban Residential zones that one must maintain a five -acre density unless there is
sewer and water. Olason stated that is a residential density issue. That wasn't the
reason for the five -acre limit. The reason was to have a block of land of a sufficient
size that wasn't two lots. They had to have a threshold somewhere, and felt that
was reasonable.
Hoag stated land under five acres would be a spot rezone.
Almskaar disagreed. A spot rezone is one that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and these types of criteria.
Hoag stated retaining the five -acre language keeps them consistent with
what they've been doing throughout. Olason stated it is important to note it is five
acres inside an urban growth area. Outside an urban growth area, they could be
smaller.
Brenner moved to amend packet page 106, section (d)(ii), "...and will not be
unduly detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; or"
Hoag stated it is a subjective term. It is an important threshold that it not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. As soon as they add
"unduly," they have to decide how much is okay and how much is not okay. The
language as it is is clear.
Sutter questioned how they determined how far "detrimental" can go. There
needs to be a threshold of how detrimental it could be.
Hoag stated they would look at how detrimental it would be. If the positives
outweigh the negatives, then it will have a positive impact. If the negatives
outweigh the positives, it will have a negative impact.
Brenner questioned Almskaar's intent for the suggested language. Almskaar
stated he meant it to be a qualifier of "detrimental." It gets back to the discussion
of "adverse impact" compared to "significant adverse impact." Without a qualifier,
someone could claim it is detrimental and kill the project.
Hoag stated the language specifically prevents an economical burden on the
community, not on one person.
Almskaar suggested, "...and will not be detrimental to the overall economic
welfare of the community; or..."
Brenner withdrew her amendment. After Almskaar's clarification, she
believed they have his intent covered.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, 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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag requested clarification on the phasing suggestion.
Sutter stated a project is often done in several phases, not all at once. When
they do that, it isn't necessary to have all urban services hooked up from the
beginning phases of a project. He asked that they not require the urban services
be available at the beginning of the project.
Hoag asked if they are allowed to do this if the services aren't there, in terms
of the Growth Management Act.
Sutter stated they could, as long as they can show they will be provided.
The Comprehensive Plan requires they prove the availability of services.
Almskaar's amendment would be to require that the services would be hooked up
at a certain point in the development. Olason stated that often times there is no
sewer. It may be the one thing that is not available within the site, so they may
not be in a position to do the project if they are required to have sewer. In many
cases, they may be able to use on -site septic on an interim basis, based on what
the use requirements are. In this case, it would be based on what the
requirements are. If they need a sewer outfall, they can't be there without sewer.
If they could survive with an on -site septic system, then it would be an option for
them, as long as they didn't preclude the future extension of sewer.
Knapp stated the Growth Management Act requires that they identify that
services will be available and where they will come from. This original language
doesn't preclude a phasing process. It only requires that a project must identify
whether a development is phased. The current language doesn't preclude the
phasing process.
Sutter stated she liked the idea of tying it to a completed development.
Hoag moved to hold in committee for two weeks.
The committee concurred.
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
This item was held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND
STORMWATER REGULATIONS (PLANNING NO. 61- 98:ZT) (AB99 -286)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/26/99, Page 16
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
This item was held in committee.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.80,
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, BUFFERS AND BUILDING
SETBACKS (PLANNING NO. 48- 98:ZT) (AB99 -376)
This item was held in committee.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.89,
DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURES (PLANNING NO. 70- 98:ZT) (AB99-
386)
This item was held in committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:50 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, 10/26/99, Page 17