HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 10 19981
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
November 10, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Alen PrPePnt-
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169F)
Sutter stated that the first question that she had was whether there were substantial
enough changes to the Planning Commissions recommendations that they need to hold a public
hearing.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that they
agreed earlier that they would have to have a public hearing.
Sutter stated that they would be adopting an emergency ordinance during the evening
meeting so that they could have a public hearing at the next Council meeting.
Goodwin recommended that they schedule the public hearing on the December 8, 1998
regular meeting, due to a full schedule for the November 17 meeting.
Sutter agreed.
Nelson stated that he had a question regarding confinement and feeding operations and
feedlots. He questioned whether it was deleted from section 20.20.160. Goodwin responded that
it was. It is an urban residential zone.
Nelson questioned whether section 20.32.150 refers to areas outside of Short Term
Planning Areas. Sutter responded that section 20.32 is Rural Residential (RR).
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, 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
Sutter pointed out a scrivener's error on page 3 of the document, page 144 of the packet,
on #8. The reference to "children" should be changed to "child."
Goodwin stated that on page 5 of the document, page 146 of the packet, on section
20.20.652, staff felt that it was a better way to reference the section to Title 14, instead of
repeating the entire section.
Nelson questioned how to define several terms that are referenced, such as
"significantly," "adversely," or "substantially."
Goodwin stated that, generally, they are taken on a case by case basis when looking at the
development permit.
Knapp suggested dropping some of the language.
Goodwin stated that, depending on the context, every development is going to have some
impact. If they don't specify "significant," then it is not quantified.
Nelson stated that kind of language disturbs him because it leaves it up to the courts and
people have to spend money in courts. Sutter stated that they could come up with a reasonable
compromise.
Knapp stated that they could remove "significantly" and leave in "adversely" in the
section 20.20.320(3)(b).
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated that it is important because there needs to
be a qualifier, so someone can't interpret it to mean the loss of anything, no matter how small.
Nelson questioned what would be a substantial decrease in property value.
Almskaar responded that it would have to be measurable and proven.
Knapp stated that they might want different language.
Hoag stated that measurable could be very small or very large. Substantial means that it
has to be large.
Sutter suggested staff create language to reflect the committee's concern.
Hoag stated that the burden of proof should be on the person alleging a loss.
Sutter questioned whether the language had caused any problems in the past. Goodwin
stated that it had not.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether that the language in section 20.20.652, "...within one -half mile
of an area designated..." is the same as was already in this, and it is referencing the language, or
the language is new. Sutter responded that the language is referencing another section in Title
14.
Goodwin stated that she noticed in Mineral Lands it is only 300 feet, where other places
require one -half mile. Also, it talks about agricultural zoning or use. It the other areas, Mineral
and Forestry, it is not the use, just the zoning.
Sutter stated that those were concerns to be brought up when they get to section 14.
Hoag clarified that the language in the packet reflects what is currently existing. She
questioned whether this language was being put into any sections that it wasn't in before.
Goodwin responded that it was never in any of the sections, just the right to farm area in Title 14.
It applied to all sections. The only area that had the cross - reference was in the agricultural area.
They used to repeat all of the right to farm language in every zoning section, but not the minerals
or forestry information, even though they applied equally.
Nelson questioned the definition of "disturbing" on page 7 of the document, page 148 of
the packet.
Sutter stated that this was an item that the County has been living with, and questioned
whether it has been a problem in the past. Goodwin responded that it has not been a problem.
Sutter stated that the Hearing Examiner would make the determination if something were
hazardous or disturbing. He will make that determination based on the input provided by the
neighbors.
Knapp stated that the reasonableness of "significant" and "disturbing" is what the
Hearing Examiner, and all of staff, would look for.
Brenner stated that this would apply to a Conditional Use, which is supposed to have a
higher threshold than allowed uses. The neighbors' hardships are supposed to be taken into
consideration.
Goodwin reminded the committee that it only applies to the dock. It is a private, non-
commercial boat dock. Everything else can be disturbing except the dock.
Nelson suggested taking out the language "disturbing."
Knapp stated that what is important for staff when they review it that there is enough
information to determine reasonableness. If the language isn't clear, then it does present a
problem to review. He requested additional language to makes the meaning more definitive.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 3
I Brenner stated that a conditional use is supposed to be compatible with the neighbors, not
2 just the neighborhood. The burden should always be on the person who wants to do the
3 conditional use, not the neighbors, to prove that it is not a problem.
4
5 Sutter requested staff take the language in Whatcom County Code (WCC) section
6 20.84.220 to modify it to be appropriate in section 20.22.150. Goodwin questioned whether
7 Sutter's comment was meant for staff to add additional criteria beyond "existing" and
8 "disturbing."
9
10 Sutter stated that she would come up with the appropriate language herself.
11
12 Knapp commented that, in the past, conditions are created to mitigate disturbing
13 conditions.
14
15 Brown questioned the status of the resort commercial designation. Sutter stated that they
16 have deleted the resort commercial overlay in its entirety.
17
18 Brown questioned whether the rural is another conditional use for places such as The
19 Logs. Goodwin responded that the issue of The Logs is before the full Council at the evening
20 Council meeting that night. Right now it is still is just a proposal. Current Comprehensive Plan
21 and Zoning Text amendments would be added if they were approved.
22
23 Brown stated that his issue is what is happening in the foothills and rural areas. They
24 have taken away their ability to fund a tax base in those areas. If this issues passes, they are
25 restricting motel operations to less of a capacity than if there was R5 zoning.
26
27 Goodwin stated that issue would be on the agenda on November 24, 1998. The current
28 issue would not apply to The Logs Resort because it is zoned commercial. The change would
29 only apply if The Logs were rezoned, and then the text amendment would go along with it. The
30 time to talk about it would be when they discuss the text of the rezone.
31
32 Brown stated that there was more out there than just The Logs. They need to look at the
33 general rural zoning and development regulations to allow for sleeping units in excess of what is
34 being proposed. He questioned whether there was anything that allows for motels in rural areas
35 under Conditional Uses. Goodwin stated that they are not allowed now, but they are proposing
36 to add them as a part of the text change for The Logs.
37
38 Sutter stated that, according to the minutes of the October 13, they were going to work on
39 the purpose section in 20.36.315, packet page 159, regarding an exempt cluster tract. She
40 questioned the purpose of an exempt cluster tract. They have a definition, but not a purpose.
41 Goodwin stated that it is intended to be exempt from subdivision regulations. The purpose is to
42 allow a landowner to divide five acres from a larger tract of land, and then specify on the
43 division where those houses would be located. A landowner could also use the process for a
44 conservation division for a land trust and specify that no units are allowed.
45
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 4
I Sutter stated that a purpose statement reflecting that intent should be written up. Also,
2 she questioned whether the reserve tract is included in the exemption. Goodwin stated that it is
3 exempt from subdivision regulations, not the zoning. They will clarify that in the purpose
4 section. It is already in the County Code. They will attempt to clarify it further.
5
6 Nelson stated that the purpose of clustering is to reduce sprawl on the parcels. He
7 questioned how urban development or zoning changes that occur apply to a reserve tract. He
8 questioned whether the reserve tract would stay with the original part of the property as a whole.
9 Goodwin stated that language that is included says that if the zoning changes, the owner could
10 further subdivide it.
11
12 Nelson questioned whether the owner retains ownership of the reserve tract. Goodwin
13 stated that he could unless he would sell it. There could be a lot line adjustment or a transfer of
14 credits because it wouldn't be fair to hold an owner to the covenants if the zoning were changed.
15
16 Nelson stated that some of the smaller cities might have to expand their urban growth
17 areas because of an increase in population and industry. He questioned who would receive the
18 benefit if zoning was increased on a reserve tract. Knapp stated that if it goes into the urban
19 growth area, they would not want a reserve tract to remain a reserve tract.
20 Goodwin commented that, because of the wording on packet page 160 in subsection
21 (6)(1), the County would amend the plat in cooperation with the person and looking at the
22 original parcel on the current zoning. It could be a logistical nightmare trying to keep track of
23 what parcel used to belong to a reserve tract. The County would be one of the said parties and
24 the owner of the reserve tract would be the other said party. They would have to look at the
25 original density, what it was changed to, and how many more units they would be eligible to
26 receive. Staff needed to do more research on the concept.
27 Sutter questioned the choice of the word "division" in section (6)(1), on packet page 160
28 and questioned whether it should be "plat" instead. Goodwin stated that it is not a plat, it is an
29 exempt division. There is not a plat.
30 Sutter stated that she believed the language "long- term" was removed from the last
31 sentence of section 20.38.010 on packet page 162, page 21 of the document.
32 Hoag stated that it was discussed in the meeting, and the discussion centered on reserving
33 space for future development and schools. Then the County was told that they had to maintain
34 agriculture of long -term significance. There was never a committee vote to change the language.
35 Sutter moved to remove the language "long- term" in the last sentence of section
36 20.38.010. It is inappropriate in some areas, such as near a city were there may be expanded
37 urban growth areas. There would be problems when trying to convert it into an urban use.
38 Brenner stated that the purpose was that they would define the areas so that they would
39 not convert them into an urban use. They should identify the long -term agricultural uses, so that
40 they don't end up "piece - mealing" the areas in the cities.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 5
I Knapp stated that short-term and long -term urban growth areas are within the 20 -year
2 growth horizon. They have never defined the definition of a long -term commercial significance.
3 Sutter stated that it is a term from the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
4 Nelson stated that the purpose statement of section 20.3 8.010 is an appropriate
5 mechanism which identifies that the purpose is to meet long -term agricultural needs and to
6 recognize that the agricultural zones were primarily the location of the agricultural areas, but the
7 County wants to ensure that there are substantial lands in reserve. That was the reason for the
8 protection overlay. It doesn't mean that those areas are long -term commercially significant
9 lands. They only recognize that it is a mechanism that the County and the public can utilize to
10 reserve lands outside of the agricultural overlay areas. It is appropriate to delete the term "long -
11 term" in the last sentence of section 20.38.010, but leave the reference in the first sentence of the
12 same section.
13 Hoag stated that if the lands are designated as agricultural lands of long -term
14 significance, then they are counted in the acreage that is set aside.
15 Goodwin stated that there is a page of findings that were adopted in the Comprehensive
16 Plan that addresses the amount of acreage that is assumed available for long -term protection.
17 The findings state that those areas are designated for long -term agricultural protection because of
18 the agricultural overlay zone.
19
20 Sutter amended her motion to strike reference "long- term" in the first sentence of the
21 section, leave it in the second sentence, and strike the entire last sentence.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
24
25 Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
26
27 Sutter questioned the definition of "parcel" on packet page 162, page 21 of the document.
28 Knapp responded that this defines a buildable lot. Whereas segregations may not be buildable
29 lots.
30
31 Hoag questioned whether the addition of "through the subdivision process" on page 22 of
32 the document and page 163 of the packet, section 20.38.060(1), came from an earlier committee
33 meeting. Sutter stated that it did.
34
35 Sutter stated that section 20.38.060(6) should have been deleted because there is no
36 longer a section 20.80.743. That was the agricultural impact easement. That was stricken during
37 the last committee meeting because provisions of disclosure were stronger. The numbering
38 should also be amended.
39
40 Brown stated that section 20.38.060(4) is vague, and he recommended amending
41 language, "thereof which ffhty is to be used..." They are restricting any building because
42 anything may be used for agricultural purposes. Goodwin responded that section 20.38.060(3)
43 uses the language that it must be designated as the agricultural reserve tract.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, 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
Sutter stated that they were not only talking about the agricultural reserve, but also
adjacent properties. Goodwin suggested amending the language, "...which may be used
designated for agriculture..."
Sutter stated that "designated" would work, because rural zoning isn't zoned for
agriculture, but it is designated if it is in the agricultural protection overlay (APO).
Hoag questioned whether it would qualify if something is not being correctly used for
agriculture, but it meets all of the other criteria.
Sutter stated that they may need to change language to designate agriculture or
agriculture protection overlay (APO).
Hoag suggested the language contain both "used" and "designated" to include both
situations. Sutter stated that they would work on that one.
Goodwin stated that they wouldn't want part of a residential cluster portion that is
designated as agricultural overlay to be set back.
Brown suggested amending language in line two of section 20.38.080(1) on packet page
163 to state, "...section if a44 at least two of the following..." It would give more leeway to
people caught in a situation.
Sutter stated that there has been a lot of work on this section to create a ranking system
for those properties based more on the realities of whether or not it is farmable, taking into
consideration a lot of other factors. For the time being, they are better off leaving it as is, so they
can get the other one done.
soils.
Brown stated that the County may be better off, but people in the County won't be.
Nelson stated that of the people he talked with, most were concerned with the LESA
Brown stated that, even if they don't meet the soil conditions, they are still in.
Sutter stated that is appropriate, because if they've been getting a tax break for farming it,
and they haven't been farming it, then it is not appropriate. There are people out there getting a
tax exemption and are not meeting the criteria. The County can't afford that. She wanted to see
a better rating system developed. In the meantime, the purpose is to protect agricultural land.
Brenner stated that she would like to see a way that people can get their soil evaluated
without it costing a lot of money. Goodwin stated that there are three or four people in Whatcom
County that do soils tests.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 7
I Nelson stated that he had a concern with the agricultural overlay. He questioned whether
2 there was a reason staff decided on ten years as the timeframe for the tax purposes.
3
4 Brown stated that seven years would be better than ten.
5
6 Nelson suggested five years.
7
8 Hoag stated that they had been applying for the tax break the entire time.
9
10 Sutter stated that if a landowner wants to subdivide, then they need to take it out of
11 agricultural open space designation, which would incur penalties. Seven would be more
12 appropriate.
13
14 Nelson stated that this is just a recognition that they are going to five years to meet the
15 three criteria, and it would have nothing to do with the penalties.
16
17 Hoag stated that if it was five years instead of seven, they would not have been getting
18 full taxation of that property during the seven years because it was designated as open space.
19
20 Nelson stated that the penalty still would apply and they would still have to pay the back
21 taxes.
22
23 Nelson moved to make the penalty five years under the modification of agricultural
24 overlay.
25
26 Motion failed 1 -1 with Sutter opposed and Brenner absent.
27
28 Sutter moved that the ten years be changed to seven years.
29
30 Sutter withdrew her motion.
31
32 Hoag stated that she believed that the committee agreed on two hundred feet, instead of
33 the proposed removal of language in section 20.40.251 on packet page 164 and document page
34 23. They decided that they did want them to have road frontage, but not 600 feet of road
35 frontage. Goodwin stated that she discussed the concern with several people that work with
36 subdivisions. The road frontage requirements are elsewhere in the subdivision ordinance. The
37 only reason that this has been confusing is because a lot of people believed that they could go to
38 any size parcel in the agricultural zone as long as there is 600 feet of road frontage. It has been a
39 source of confusion in the past. The frontage is adequately covered in the subdivision ordinance.
40 It was removed to avoid that interpretation.
41
42 Hoag stated that her next concerns were under item (3)(a) on the same page. One of the
43 concerns is that a retiring farmer that continues to occupy his home and surrounding buildings
44 will not often be able to be confined to one acre. There are places where the home and buildings
45 take up three acres or more. Also, she was concerned that a retiring farmer would want to have
46 five acres to continue farming as a hobby. Lastly, there is a shortage of five to ten acre parcels
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 8
I that could be used for specialized farming. If they are allowed to have up to five acres, then
2 there would be more of those pieces out there that are available for that. The reason it was
3 reduced to one acre was because they don't want to see a lot of the farmland chopped into one -
4 acre pieces. In answer to that, subsection (e) should be amended to no longer allow any division
5 after the first five acres. Anything subject to the underlying zoning could still occur. The
6 purpose of the legislation was to allow a retiring farmer to be able to live on his place and still
7 have the farming continue.
8
9 Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated that a lot of owners can get the exemption,
10 and then they sell the house. The subdivision ordinance does not exempt a sale of land for less
11 than five acres, which forces them to offer the house on the full five acres, whether they want to
12 sell it all or not, because the costs of doing a short-plat are very high. He suggested that they
13 allow the parcel to be a minimum of one acre and a maximum of five, to let the owner decide.
14 Make the case an exemption from the subdivision ordinance. They would have to amend the
15 subdivision ordinance to provide for a specific exemption under his suggested conditions.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sutter stated that it is currently written to allow a parcel size of between one and five
acres.
Goodwin stated that they would have to research the legality of that proposal. They may
not be allowed under the State laws to exempt a parcel smaller than five acres.
Anthony Raab, 2834 North Shore Road, Bellingham, advised the committee to let the
farmer choose his parcel size between one and five acres, if legally possible.
26 Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated that she was recently before
27 the Agricultural Committee to discuss the retired farmer exemption. She suggested this issue be
28 discussed with that Committee to get their comments. They're the ones that have to apply what
29 they are talking about.
30
31 Goodwin told them she would docket the item for Planning Commission on June 30,
32 1999. It would be processed as a zoning text amendment.
33
34 Sutter stated that what they would do is docket it for the Planning Commission in June,
35 send it to the Agriculture Committee for their recommendations. They would not change it for
36 now.
37
38 Brenner moved to amend language in section 20.40.251(3)(e), "...shall not be further
39 divided for- a period of at least 15 years from the da4e of di i i ant to this seetion exeept.
40 as- provided zer- in WCC 20.40.251 , ), efk7), or" The reason they are doing this review
41 is to change the rules. There are people getting caught in the loop while they change the rules.
42 Those people deserve to have that retired farmer exemption. Once the rules are changed, they're
43 changed. It is a permanent affect. People will know in the future what they're getting into. It is
44 a stopgap measure. On agricultural zoning, a one -time farmer retirement exemption is adequate.
45 Otherwise it will chop up the acreage.
46
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sutter suggested that people continue to live with what they've been living with, until it
can go to the Planning Commission.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Goodwin questioned whether the intent was that the section stay the same. Sutter stated
that proposed change #46 doesn't exist.
Hoag asked for clarification on the difference between sections 20.40.251(5) and
20.40.251(8) on packet page 165 and document page 24. Sutter stated that they would look into
it.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that #5 applies to a new loan. It doesn't become a legal lot
except if there is a foreclosure. #8 decrees another legal lot.
Hoag questioned the reason for deleting the language in item #49 on packet page 167 and
document page 26, which is section 20.60.010. Sutter responded that there are already
neighborhood commercial districts outside of small towns and crossroads commercial areas.
Sutter stated that she had a letter dated January 13 from Phil Serka regarding the Custer
rezone area. She read the letter into the record regarding section 20.85.020 on packet page 173
and document page 32.
Goodwin stated that it is the section dealing with the Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The Comprehensive Plan prohibits a residential PUD.
Sutter suggested that they insert "PUD" instead of "uses" in that section for clarity.
Sutter stated that they decided to change language in section 20.89.010 to "protect"
critical areas and "preserve" open space.
Sutter stated that "rural" in the second line of section 14.02.050(A) should instead be
"agricultural protection overlay."
Goodwin suggested "R5" or "R10" because the problem is, until one goes through the
criteria about whether or not it is in agricultural open space, they wouldn't know what is
designated as agricultural overlay.
Sutter stated that she believed that anything in R5 or R10 zoning that is over 20 acres is
agricultural overlay.
Brenner stated that there are areas that are open space /agriculture that are less than 20
acres.
Sutter stated that Rural is a broad range of areas that may not be appropriate. Rural is not
necessarily agricultural overlay.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 10
I Brenner questioned whether there were parcels under 20 acres in size that are agricultural
2 open space. Goodwin stated that anything zoned rural could have agricultural open space.
3
4 Sutter questioned what protection is created in the agricultural overlay by the language in
5 section 14.02.050, "...land upon which farm operations are being conducted..." When doing a
6 cluster subdivision, a landowner doesn't have to disclose that the rest of the property may be
7 used for agricultural purposes. Goodwin stated that is why the word "rural" was added. There
8 wouldn't be any land subject to the agricultural overlay that wasn't zoned rural.
9
10 Sutter stated that staff would take the section regarding retiring farmers back to the
11 Agricultural Committee next year.
12
13
14 2. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGMEARING
15 SCHEDULE (AB98 -397)
16
17 Sutter stated that they were asked to look at their docket and do some prioritization. It is
18 difficult to do that given the information that is available. She broke it down into categories.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
21
22 Sutter stated that number one priorities are lot consolidation and cluster density bonus.
23 Number two are those that are needed for environmental or resource protection. Number three
24 are rezone requests and number four are all others, such as recycling facilities.
25
26 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that with
27 items such as the recycling or code scrubs, their public hearings would be very short and easy to
28 handle. Most of the code scrub items have been on the docket since the early 1990's. They
29 could handle all of those items in one night, with minimal discussion, to get them off of the list.
30
31 Sutter stated that they could get those out of the way.
32
33 Goodwin stated that the ones that require more research or public involvement and are a
34 lower priority could be scheduled later. There are two other issues that need clarification. One
35 is Lake Whatcom. The Planning Commission wanted more direction on what the Council wants
36 them to do with Lake Whatcom.
37
38 Sutter stated that they are looking for reasonable solutions to the problem. It may not be
39 a single fix item.
40
41 Nelson stated that he would like them to look at the possibility of transfer of development
42 rights (TDR). That is a direction that was taken during the Comprehensive Plan process. If they
43 are going to reduce density in the watershed, then there needs to be an equitable system to do it.
44
45 Brenner stated that she would like them to work on options with the State Department of
46 Natural Resources (DNR). They could bump up the classification of the streams in the
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, 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
watershed. That would give more protection to what can and can't be done. Also, someone
mentioned the idea that the State has the ability to gift the property.
Nelson stated that the Planning Commission can take a look at the DNR issue. But there
is a simple thing that could be done. DNR has done landscape planning and management for
Lake Whatcom. Austin Flats was not included into that plan. The Council can work on getting
the State to recognize the current landscape plan.
Sutter questioned their hearing on density around Lake Whatcom. Goodwin clarified that
they didn't do a hearing, they had a work session.
Sutter stated that, in light of all the other efforts going on to protect Lake Whatcom, they
may come forward with a recommendation that certain things that are already being done
currently are continued, work on the TDR, and other things that can reasonably be done.
Sutter questioned whether the committee wanted to submit the proposed priority
categories as a guideline for the Planning Commission.
Brown questioned where small town zoning discussions would happen. Goodwin stated
that is scheduled for January 28, 1999 as Comprehensive Plan compliance. That is a number one
priority.
Brown stated that he received a call from a Mt. Baker School District Board member.
They have concerns about the landscape requirements.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that they are
already dealing with that. That is not a Planning Commission issue. They can deal with that
administratively.
Nelson stated that he is fine with the proposed priority guidelines.
Goodwin stated that they also had questions about the Central Road area. It is 3,000
acres. There was no paid application, only suggestions that came forward at the time of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Council direction was to deal with it at the Planning Commission
level. She questioned whether the Council intended to initiate it as a rezone and, if so, who
would pay for posting the site and mailing out public notices. There is no applicant in this case.
There was a suggested amendment. They can go forward with it as a County initiated rezone.
Sutter questioned who initially brought it forward. Goodwin stated that it got expanded
because Roger Almskaar was asking about it. It was on the Comprehensive Plan list of site -
specific requests.
Sutter stated that the Council needs more information before they decide whether or not
they want to initiate it.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, 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
Knapp stated that when it becomes a large proposal, they have to look at significant
impacts and whether it would require an environmental impact statement.
Goodwin stated that they would bring this specific one back with more information.
Hoag stated that lot consolidation and cluster density bonuses don't rank higher than
environmental or resource protection.
Sutter stated that there have been on going, repeated requests to have lot consolidations
dealt with. It is a real problem for a lot of people. It has been hanging around since at least 10
years ago. Cluster density bonuses could be a number two priority.
Goodwin stated that they have draft language for lot consolidation and are proposing to
move that up to December 10, 1998.
Bill Geyer, 1008 — 16th, Bellingham, stated that Council made comment about the public
facilities zone only applying to the Northwest Annex. He encouraged the committee to direct the
Commission to request location of existing public facilities of fire, water, and sewer districts. It
would be helpful that those locations be recognized on the maps.
Goodwin stated that their concern is that they may create two -acre spot zones all over the
County wherever there is a public facility. Or, since public facilities are already permitted uses
in the rural zone, it is more appropriate to leave those facilities in their current zoning and allow
provisions for them to be approved. They would only deal with the new public facility in the
area where there are areas identified for public facilities.
Sutter stated that they should let the Planning Commission decide if they are appropriate.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAPS AND TEXT (AB98-
171A)
Sutter questioned whether this would require a public hearing. The Planning
Commission held their public hearing.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that it
only requires a public hearing if the Council wants to make any changes from the Planning
Commission recommendation. If they want to adopt it as recommended, then they don't have to
have a public hearing.
Sutter stated that the first item was file #20- 961:CZM for Haskell. It is recommended for
denial. She concurred with the recommendation. Item #2 was file #13- 94:CZM for Weden. It is
recommended for denial.
Brenner suggested only dealing with items in which a committee member had a concern.
She questioned item #5, file 9- 98:CZMT: for E. Pole Road/Powers. It is appropriate to allow an
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 13
I existing business to stay there. By accepting the Planning Commission's recommended changes,
2 they could in the future increase the non - agricultural use of the parcel.
3
4 Goodwin stated that the parcel is 20 acres, and the existing use takes up five acres. The
5 other 15 acres are in raspberries. The entire parcel would be allowed to be used for light
6 industrial. This is the only parcel in the County where a rural industrial overlay would apply, so
7 the Planning Commission decided that there was no point. Therefore, they made this one an
8 exception in the agricultural zoning.
9
10 Sutter questioned what staff would suggest doing with it to protect the agriculture.
11
12 Brenner suggested leaving it a non - conforming use. It would not preclude the owner
13 from doing what he is currently doing, and it wouldn't allow it to expand.
14
15 Sutter questioned what it is currently zoned. Goodwin stated that it is zoned light impact
16 industrial now. The owner's concerned that the area is zoned light impact industrial, but the
17 current use is in raspberries.
18
19 Goodwin stated that the purpose of the text amendment was to allow them to continue to
20 do the light industrial.
21
22 Brenner stated that the text amendment allows them to expand to the fall 20 acres.
23 Goodwin stated that by the conditional use permit of the non - conforming use, they could expand
24 to the full 20 acres anyway. They would just have to get a conditional use permit.
25
26 Sutter questioned the effect if they don't adopt the text change. Goodwin stated that the
27 piece would be non - conforming, and anytime the owner wanted to get bank financing or a sale or
28 to add another building, then they would have to go back to the Hearing Examiner and get
29 another conditional use permit. Their concern was that each time there was a change of use or
30 expansion of a building, it requires a conditional use permit.
31
32 Goodwin stated that one option would be to specify that the expansion couldn't go
33 beyond the original five acres.
34
35 Sutter questioned whether this was the only area in the County where this would apply.
36 Goodwin stated that this is the only area that has a legally established use that would be non-
37 conforming and not in a agriculture zone. All the rest are either already a conditional use permit
38 or were illegally established. This is the only area that used to be zoned light impact industrial
39 that is being down -zoned to agriculture.
40
41 Sutter questioned whether the preservation of the agriculture section would be satisfied if
42 it was changed to five acres. Goodwin stated that was correct. It would protect the agriculture
43 land, but it wouldn't satisfy the applicant.
44
45 Nelson suggested striking the last sentence of the proposed amendment on packet page
46 192. Goodwin stated that would work.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 14
2 Brenner moved to strike the last sentence of the proposed amendment on packet page
3 192, section 20.40.134. "type and intensity.
4 f4eilifies may be allowed by administfa4ive approval, but will be limited to a total developed are
5 of not mer-e than 20 aer-es and e" istfuetion proposals must eemply wit
6 peffnitted uses of the zoning as the zoning existed at the fifne of adeption of the Gempr-eheasive
7 "
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 Nelson questioned the reason for the recommendation to denial of the application filed by
12 Ochoa, on packet page 190.
13
14 Sutter questioned whether it would be considered a spot rezone because it is only 1.1
15 acre.
16
17 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Senior Planner, stated that it could be,
18 although it is adjacent to an urban growth area.
19
20 Nelson questioned whether it was included in an urban growth area. Aamot stated that it
21 was not.
22
23 Nelson questioned the adjacent zoning. Aamot stated that it is urban growth area to the
24 west, and a suburban enclave, RR1, to the east.
25
26 Sutter questioned the zoning of the urban growth area. Aamot stated that it is Urban
27 Residential/ 3 units per acre (UR -3).
28
29 Brenner stated that there was a reason this area was left out before. The neighbors
30 around it were fighting to not let it go forward.
31
32 Aamot stated that the Planning Commission's thinking was that there was quite a bit of
33 neighborhood opposition. They wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Also, the
34 State planning laws state that the County must show a changed condition to change the
35 Comprehensive Plan. They didn't have a changed condition.
36
37 Hoag requested a review of the application by the Everett Rock Quarry on packet page
38 215. It lays out the events. She didn't agree with Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action item
39 #7. She attended the meeting that was referenced. There was a motion to designate the 20 acres.
40 A former Planning and Development Services planner said during that meeting that the Planning
41 and Development Services staff would not recommend the application for approval because it
42 did not meet criterion #6. At that point, the Council withdrew the motion. Another person
43 testified that the Planning Commission recommended the application. Then, the Council made
44 the motion again, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Two things happened
45 in that process. First, someone testified that there was a forty -acre piece between the two
46 locations. Actually, there is just a corner of a forty -acre piece between the two. Second, there
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 15
I was not criterion #6 when the Planning Commission held its review. The Planning and
2 Development Committee were developing the criterion. The Council didn't want to recommend
3 it when they realized how close the two properties were. When the Council realized that the
4 Planning Commission recommended it, the Council changed their minds.
5
6 Sutter questioned where they are with it now. Hoag stated that the Council needs to
7 decide if it is going to be approved, taking into consideration item #6.
9 Sutter stated that the definition of adjacency was one of the questions.
10
11 Hoag stated that adjacency can be defined. Three out of four definitions of adjacent is
12 near. The fourth definition is contiguous. The point was that the County Council did not want
13 these things to be near residential areas. The Council should look at that objectively. In the
14 process that occurred, the Planning Commission had not reviewed that portion of it. The Council
15 decision was based on the fact that they thought that had been reviewed and approved by the
16 Planning Commission.
17
18 Sutter stated that they have to be clear and consistent when using terms such as
19 "adjacent" or "near." For example, in the agriculture forestry and forestry, they have determined
20 that half a mile is adjacent and near. That is how far they have to go to consider impact. With
21 mining, adjacent or near is 300 feet.
22
23 Hoag clarified that was just on the disclosure notice. On the intent to designate, it is
24 1,000 feet.
25
26 Sutter stated that they don't have a clear standard for what that means. They can't apply
27 it in one location and not the other. If they look at other mineral resource lands (MRL)
28 designations, she questioned how many would be considered near residential development,
29 depending on the definition.
30
31 Brown stated that in that discussion, part of the determination was the fact that the quarry
32 was expanding away from the existing development. When they use criterion #6, they looked at
33 how much of the area it encompassed around the MRL. It wasn't just that there was one little
34 portion adjacent. He felt that this had a good hearing. Planning and Development Committee
35 had a lot of debate. The criteria was how much development was around the parcel.
36
37 Kyle Bride, Ace Rock, stated that they have been going around and around with this. He
38 is not sure why it is being discussed again. There were 12 other criteria. They are being treated
39 like a new MRL designation, which was a portion of that. Three years prior to the public
40 hearing, it showed 120 acres. It was reduced to the minimum of 20 acres. Criterion #4 says that
41 if an application meets criteria #1 - #3, then it will be designated. They have met the first three
42 criteria. They have been open since the 1930s. Criterion #6 was established two and a half
43 weeks prior to the County recommendation that it be designated an MRL. 20 days before the
44 final vote, they withdrew the recommendation based on criterion #6, disregarding every other
45 criterion. There are 65 acres that the County shows as non - conforming use. They could have
46 designated it 10 acres further away than the Scenic Estates.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 16
2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
3
4 Sutter stated that the Planning Commission recommendation is denial of the request to
5 eliminate the MRL and approval of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendment to
6 make the MRL 20 acres as shown on Exhibit L. That is what the committee is dealing with
7 currently. Their options are to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, send it back
8 to the Planning Commission for further review, or change it.
9
10 Hoag recommended that they correct the error that was made. Regarding the 20 acres,
11 they are referring to the map that was forwarded and approved being incorrect. It showed more
12 than what was actually approved. That is what the map amendment addresses. Regarding the
13 term adjacent, the definition used by the Planning staff at the time was, "close or near to." That
14 should be applied to all MRLs. Mr. Bride did not understand the designation process. If one met
15 the first three criteria, then one is automatically an MRL. If one did not meet those, which his
16 did not because his non - conforming use was smaller than 20 acres, then one would have to meet
17 the remaining criteria. All of the MRLs have to do that.
18
19 Nelson moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation.
20
21 Brenner stated that they should make the corrections.
22
23 Sutter recommended that it is upheld and request that concerns be written and submitted
24 to her.
25
26 Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
27
28 Knapp stated that the map is correct. It is part of the package.
29
30 Brenner stated that the decisions were based on incorrect maps.
31
32 Hoag stated that it is not difficult to establish the fact that this was based on
33 misconception. The Council owes it to look at it clearly.
34
35 Sutter directed the conservation to The Logs on packet page 193.
36
37 Goodwin stated that they already changed the one wording in the recommendation on the
38 agricultural zone. They are having a public hearing and if they wanted, they could schedule a
39 public hearing without discussing each one. They would then have a public hearing. The
40 Council can't adopt them at the night meeting. If they have a public hearing to change that one
41 item, they will be discussing them all. Because they are batched, they are opening all the
42 applications.
43
44 Sutter questioned whether the committee had any questions regarding the application
45 from Century Holdings, on packet page 199.
46
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 17
I Goodwin stated that Planning Commission members said that it would change, given the
2 proposed changes of the interim development regulations by Council. At this point, when the
3 Planning Commission considered it and recommended it, they thought that the zoning density
4 would be one unit per five acres until it became an urban growth area (UGA). If they go with
5 four units per acre within a resort recreational subdivision, then they are rezoning this parcel.
6 They would need to take off the last part of Finding #7, for the Council's final findings, because
7 the short term planning area would no longer apply.
8
9 Bill Geyer, Geyer & Associates, 1008 — 16th, Bellingham, spoke representing Century
10 Holdings and stated that he understood the committee would consider the items if they had
11 questions about the Planning Commission's recommendations.
12
13 Sutter stated that was correct. They already know the Council is going to have to have a
14 public hearing because the committee made a substantial change this afternoon. All of the
15 applications must be considered because they are all included on one ordinance.
16
17 Geyer stated that the process creates problems for applicants whose applications are
18 unquestioned. Those applications are to be delayed, because there now needs to be a public
19 hearing on the one application. The Council should consider a different process.
20
21 Nelson suggested they amend the code on that one item. They could remove from the
22 ordinance the one item that they amended, approve the remaining items, and then have a public
23 hearing on the item that they would be changing.
24
25 Sutter stated that would be a separate ordinance.
26
27 Hoag stated that there should be a public hearing.
28
29 Nelson stated that they have had the public process.
30
31 Sutter stated that, first of all, if they don't make any changes, then they don't have to
32 have a public hearing. If the committee makes recommendations to change to the full Council,
33 and the Council does not approve the changes, then they don't have to have a public hearing.
34
35 Nelson clarified that the proposed change is on the agriculture section and 20 acres.
36
37 Sutter questioned whether there were any other recommended changes to any of Planning
38 Commission's recommendations to these items.
39
40 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, stated that she would classify her question as being a
41 scrivener's change, on packet page 214 and page 29 of 32 of the file. At the Planning
42 Commission level, language was added to the staff's recommendation. The first sentence in
43 section 20.42.067 does not read clearly. The language that was added was the "as revised under
44 Auditor's File #..." because there is an acknowledgement that the concomitant agreement is
45 going to have to be re- filed. She suggested that they place the "as revised under Auditor's file #"
46 in parentheses. They are talking about the uses that were legal under the concomitant agreement.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 18
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
They received a copy of the current concomitant agreement in the packet with a strike -out of the
one paragraph. She didn't want the Council to believe that was going to be filed. They aren't
going to re -file the original concomitant agreement with a strike -out. She recommended that
they file an amendment to the concomitant agreement, so that the title companies know that it is
an amendment.
Sutter agreed that was a scrivener's change. She questioned whether there were any
other changes.
Almskaar questioned whether the definition of "associated conference centers" in section
20.36.176, packet page 195 regarding The Logs, would include such things as cooking and
dining facilities for guests, gift shops, swimming pools, and other amenities that would not be
open to the general public. It would only be open to people attending for a meeting. If that is the
case, then he doesn't have to ask for a change.
Sutter questioned whether there was a definition for "conference centers." Almskaar
stated that there was not. "Conference centers may not be the best term, because of its urban
connotation.
Nelson stated that a conference center would have a restaurant and facility anyway.
Almskaar stated that, if the Council thinks that the term is broad enough to include those
things, then he doesn't ask for any changes.
Hoag stated that if it is not open to the general public, then it is for conferences.
Sutter questioned items (1) and (3) under section 20.36.176 on packet page 195.
Goodwin stated that it could include one cabin with three sleeping units, or smaller cabins.
Almskaar stated that this would work for The Logs. Over the next year or two, when
they look more carefully at the Foothills, they might want to amend this to fine -tune it.
Brown stated that they need to look at the overall picture of what is going on in the area.
This is really restrictive.
Sutter stated that adopting this does not take anything away from anyone.
Brown stated that they are not giving them the opportunity for much.
Sutter stated that they could pull the item from the ordinance that they want to make a
change to, make it a separate ordinance, and adopt the remaining items at the evening Council
meeting.
Hoag requested that they also remove from the ordinance the issue regarding Everett
Rock. She would have testified before the Planning Commission if she believed that she could
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 19
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
have. They would not have come forward with their recommendation if they had access to all of
the data. The Council owes it to at least look at it apart from the ordinance.
Sutter suggested the item be docketed on the Planning Commission schedule. Hoag is
asking for something that they can't get through by the time they have to get it done.
Hoag suggested separating this item from the others.
Sutter stated that it still would have to be approved at the same time.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
W14ATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/10/98, Page 20