HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 24 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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 24, 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.
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
Sutter announced that item #2 will be discussed first.
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)
(Clerk's Note: This item was discussed after item #2)
Goodwin stated that there is a change in the agricultural protection overlay zone.
Sutter asked about "disturbing" the neighbors on page 140 and questioned whether this
could be related to a nuisance ordinance or definition. The issues regarding the definition of
"substantial" and "significant" had been taken care o£
Goodwin stated that it could. That language is addressed in the text of the conditional
use permits. It is common language used throughout code. The Hearing Examiner deals with
this term. It is related to conditional uses. That is one of the criteria for judging a conditional
use.
Knapp stated that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process helps to mitigate what may
be disturbing. It gives neighbors a chance to comment and alert the public process to issues that
might be of concern. Issues could be resolved in the process.
Sutter stated that she will provide staff with her list of scrivener's errors. On page 154,
under section 20.38.020 regarding applicability, they should include the definition of an official
map as the official zoning map.
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Goodwin asked for agreement on the number of years, on page 156 regarding the
designation of parcels as open space /agriculture for County property tax purposes. Seven years
is what the committee agreed upon, instead of 10 years.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 1
2 Sutter stated that they would make that amendment.
3
4 The committee concurred.
6 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAPS (AB98 -171C)
8
10 Sutter stated that the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
11 Development (CTED) sent at letter with remarks regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan
12 changes. Committee will go through those concerns.
13
14 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated that State agencies
15 wait until the last minute to respond. Staff has been sending CTED information before the 60-
16 day deadline. Receiving comments the day before a hearing makes it impossible to make major
17 changes. They are in communication with CTED that they need to get information to the County
18 sooner so there is better review by the Planning Commission and the Council.
19
20 Sutter clarified that the issue has been separated into two issues, the zoning maps and the
21 text changes. She questioned what they would be working on.
22
23 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated that there are 20 Comprehensive Plan amendments
24 and related zoning amendments. The three text amendments were split out into a separate
25 ordinance. A public hearing will be held on those items. Some of CTED's comments are on
26 those matters and some relate to other matters.
27
28 Sutter clarified that the hearing is only on the text amendments. She directed the
29 discussion to the zoning maps in relation to the letter from CTED.
30
31 Aamot stated that CTED agreed with page one. The top of page two discusses the
32 Manthay rezone. That could be brought up later for consideration on the Planning Commission
33 docket for next year. Regarding the Logs text amendment, CTED agreed. It is one of the issues
34 that will have a public hearing.
35
36 Sutter stated that additional language has come forward.
37
38 Aamot stated that staff does not have any major concerns with that. The committee
39 might want to consider three sleeping units versus five sleeping units.
40
41 Aamot stated that the E. Pole Road/Powers is the text amendment to the agricultural
42 zone. CTED says that they recommend doing a text change there. They want to keep the use
43 non - conforming.
44
45 Sutter stated they don't object to the entire change, just the text change. Aamot
46 responded that last time, the Council struck the last sentence of the language proposed by the
47 Planning Committee that would allow that use to expand on the overall 20 -acre parcel.
48
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 2
1 Sutter questioned whether it would then meet CTED's concern. Aamot responded that it
2 would go a way toward meeting the concern. Under the language that exists, it makes the use
3 outright permitted. The intent was to not allow it to expand beyond the existing operation.
4 When that is compared to other non - conforming uses, they have the opportunity to apply to
5 expand, if they get a conditional use permit. There may be an issue of the use being treated more
6 severely than other uses that are non - conforming. There are language alternatives, such as
7 allowing them to increase 10% of the current building footage, or other things.
8
9 Sutter questioned whether they would have to reschedule the public hearing if they go
10 with one of those changes.
11
12 Aamot stated that option one is to not make any changes to the text, and let it remain
13 agricultural. The use would be non - conforming and allowed to expand as a conditional use.
14 Option two allows building coverage to increase a maximum of 10 %. Option three allows
15 expansion within the existing developed area and not allowing further encroachment on
16 agricultural land. The next issue is Century Holdings, which was not scheduled for a public
17 hearing. CTED was concerned that there is no public sewer or water system. The Planning
18 Commission found that an error had been made in the original zoning. There is adjacent UR -3
19 zoning and there are other areas in Pt. Roberts that have that type of zoning.
20
21 Sutter stated that there are other areas designated as urban growth areas (UGA) that don't
22 have public sewer and water. Their developments can only occur at RSA. The same thing
23 would happen here. She would not be inclined to change that one.
24
25 Aamot clarified that if public sewer and water are developed in the area, then they can
26 develop at the higher density. The Goldstar file will not have a public hearing. The Planning
27 Commission found that the area is adjacent to the transportation corridor, the freeway, and is an
28 appropriate area to expand the Gateway Industrial Zone. This is called a limited area of more
29 intense rural development. It was provided for in the 1997 Growth Management Act (GMA)
30 amendments. They found that was an appropriate expansion. CTED disagrees with that. The
31 Ferndale area, north of Grandview, is not scheduled for a public hearing. The City of Ferndale
32 included this parcel in their UGA, but it was inadvertently left off of their maps. When the
33 County designated its UGA, we weren't aware that it was included. We are essentially just
34 correcting an error.
35
36 Nelson questioned whether it was included in Ferndale's land supply analysis and their
37 comprehensive plan. Aamot responded that it was included in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
38
39 Brenner stated that Ferndale made a complaint that they hadn't been included in the
40 process of the County making a determination. Sutter stated that had to do with the Slater Road
41 issue, not this issue.
42
43 Aamot stated that the text amendments for Great Western Lumber would be before the
44 Council at the public hearing. Those text amendments would allow for cottage industries in the
45 rural forestry zone. They would specifically recognize the site as a use that is appropriate in that
46 zone. They would also allow for a conditional use to provide for wood processing facilities.
47 CTED's concern is that the County not allow non - resource uses in resource lands. Small cottage
48 industries with less than four people can be non - resource based.
49
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 3
I Sutter questioned whether the staff had any recommendations, since this was a text
2 change, based on CTED's comments.
3
4 Aamot stated that they haven't developed any alternatives. Their main concern is with
5 the lack of limitations on conditional use. Some type of cap on employees could be developed.
6 The RCW that they cite pertains to rural lands. Staff's opinion is that it doesn't apply in this case
7 because this is a resource land.
9 Craig Olafson, Planning and Development Services, stated the proposal is to allow
10 cottage industry to allow up to ten employees and 4,000 square feet for building size in rural
11 forestry.
12
13 Sutter stated that there doesn't seem to be any real concern about any of the zoning map
14 changes that can't be adequately addressed with language. She suggested that the ordinance
15 itself include wording changes. The title needed to be changed.
16
17 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that one
18 ordinance is for the whole Comprehensive Plan, including maps, text, and zoning text. The only
19 thing split out for public hearing was the Title 20 text. The other three items are together in one
20 ordinance.
21
22 Goodwin stated that the language in the mineral resources text referenced the amount of
23 mineral resource lands (MRLs). Staff updated it to the current MRLs. The way it is written, it
24 referred to the earlier MRLs. Since there is no public hearing on that issue and the committee
25 wants to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, staff can take a look at that issue to
26 determine if it needs to be changed. If so, it can be docketed for 1999. The total acreage of
27 MRL shows the total acreage currently. The paragraph may have intended to address the interim
28 MRL, before the others were adopted. The figure that was there was accurate. Another
29 paragraph could be added to reflect how many acres exist in the final version. Staff
30 recommended leaving the figure as it is, then fixing it next year.
31
32 Sutter stated that the committee would go with the Planning Commission
33 recommendation, then the Commission would look at updating it at their next docketing session.
34
35 Brenner stated that they should not adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendments without
36 having a public hearing on the Lummi Island Quarry.
37
38 Goodwin stated that the text amendment has nothing to do with the Lummi Island
39 Quarry, it is just to update the figures from what there used to be in the interim to what there is
40 now that it has been adopted.
41
42 Brenner questioned whether the figure includes the Lummi Island Quarry. Goodwin
43 stated that it did, but the Lummi Island Quarry was also included in the interim MRL figure. It
44 wouldn't have made a difference in that acreage.
45
46 Sutter stated that the Lummi Island Quarry is an issue. The question is whether or not it
47 meets criterion #6. The argument that has been put forward is that criterion #6 was not in place
48 when the Planning Commission held their public hearing. The word adjacent used in criterion #6
49 is capable of multiple interpretations. The County needs a definition of adjacent. Until the
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
County can clearly define what adjacent means, they are not justified in making any changes.
She recommended going with the Planning Commission's recommendation, which is not to
eliminate the MRL, but to limit it to the 20 acres shown on the map. She wanted to see the
definition of adjacency addressed.
Aamot asked if they wanted that docketed at the next year. Sutter suggested that she
would bring it forward at full Council from the committee.
Nelson moved to recommend approval of the zoning maps and Comprehensive Plan text
to the full Council. The text is the next ordinance.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Sutter directed discussion to the ordinance regarding the zoning text.
Aamot stated that CTED had concerns with the text changes regarding the agricultural
text and the rural forestry text.
Sutter stated that item #9 -98 is the East Pole Road/Powers and the recommendation was
to changes the underlying zoning to agricultural from light industrial and then make the text
change.
Sutter stated that the change is on packet page 178 and the previous committee meeting
the change was made to leave out the last sentence, which would have allowed expansion up to
20 acres. By doing that, they have addressed the issue of expansion and non - agricultural uses as
a concern by CTED.
parcel.
Brenner stated that the discussion regarded allowing expansion to the full acreage.
Sutter stated that currently existing uses are recognized.
Brenner stated that the full parcel was 20 acres, so it was still expanding it to the full
Sutter stated that language on packet page 230 does not allow for expansion.
Brenner stated that language regarding same type and intensity may allow the full 20
acres. It should state that it can't expand.
Aamot stated that if there is a non - conforming use, then there is a provision for which
they can apply for a conditional use permit. The issue is that it wouldn't be non - conforming
anymore.
Sutter stated that they need language that they would not be allowed to expand.
Nelson stated that CTED is not saying that expansion couldn't occur with a conditional
use permit.
Brenner stated that she is opposed to expansion.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 5
2 Knapp stated that option #2 may address the concern.
3
4 Sutter stated that option #2 would allow them to expand to 10 %. She questioned what
5 would happen if they wanted to expand more than 10 %. They could not do it.
G
7 Craig Olafson, Planning and Development Services, stated that they should look at
8 whether they need any language at all. If they simply rezone it, it would be pre- existing, non-
9 conforming use and they would be subject to a conditional use permit, at which time they would
10 have to verify that it was a valid application. This section only addresses the one parcel in the
11 entire County. Option one stated that they could just remove the whole thing and treat them the
12 same as everyone else. Do a zoning change. They would be in a position, where if they can
13 justify an expansion, then they can do so, but they would have to have a conditional use permit.
14
15 Brenner stated that as a non - conforming use, they can't expand.
16
17 Olafson stated that they could, but they have to go through a process.
18
19 Sutter stated that she likes option #1, the Planning Commission recommendation #l, as a
20 rezone and not add the extra language.
21
22 Nelson stated that a concern during the Comprehensive Plan process was getting produce
23 to processing plants or having facilities that provide tools and implements in the agricultural uses
24 areas.
25
26 Brenner stated that this is non - agricultural related.
27
28 Nelson stated that options #2 and #3 limit the process and he doesn't want to set a
29 precedent. Option #2 does not allow for the conditional use process. Olafson stated that was
30 correct. It limits a facility to where they are and what they are. They could change uses within
31 the buildings, but they couldn't expand at all.
32
33 Sutter stated that the committee's recommendation on the first text change was to delete
34 the amendment.
35
36 The committee concurred.
37
38 Sutter stated that the next item, rental cabins and associated conference centers in the
39 Foothills subarea, was no problem for CTED. There is a request from the proponents of the
40 change to do more language change for clarification of allowed uses. The only concern is their
41 request to change from three sleeping units to five sleeping units per acre. Otherwise they are
42 just expanding on the allowed uses.
43
44 Brenner stated that it is not significant and she doesn't have a problem with it.
45
46 Aamot clarified that it is supposed to be five sleeping units per five acres. The text
47 stating that it is five sleeping units per gross acre is incorrect.
48
49 Nelson asked for the definition of a sleeping unit.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 6
2 Goodwin stated that they might want to do one sleeping unit per acre instead of five
3 sleeping units per five acres. She read the definition of a sleeping unit.
4
5 Nelson and Sutter concurred that they could move that forward.
6
7 Sutter stated that the next item is in the rural forestry district, administrative approval
8 uses, regarding Great Western. It is file #42 -98. This is the one that CTED had problems with.
9 The proposal is to add a provision to the rural forestry district, relating to cottage industries and
10 value added industries.
11
12 Nelson stated that Great Western is a forestry- related industry and that the concern by
13 CTED is with non - forest industry. Aamot stated that only one text change regarding the cottage
14 industries employing no more than four employees would be non - forestry related.
15
16 Sutter stated that the cottage industries were consistent with the RCW. The section
17 regarding cottage industry is not a problem and the forestry products section is not a problem.
18 That leaves section .067 regarding light industrial manufacturing uses that were legal under the
19 concomitant agreement, which relates to forestry uses.
20
21 Aamot stated that expansion would be allowed under the provision for the Great Western
22 site in section .067.
23
24 Sutter stated that they limited the use to the land area zoned light impact industrial. She
25 questioned whether that removes the light impact industrial that the site is built on, or does it
26 recognize that.
27
28 Aamot stated that the amendment would recognize their existing use and their ability to
29 expand that existing use in accordance with their concomitant agreement. That one site would be
30 allowed to expand.
31
32 Sutter asked about the last one regarding secondary processing facilities of timber not
33 permitted in 20.42.
34
35 (Clerk's note: End of tape one, side A)
36
37 Aamot stated that in the conditional use process, the Hearing Examiner looks at the
38 impacts on the surrounding area, the Comprehensive Plan policies, and so forth. There is a
39 review process there.
40
41 Sutter stated that it states that the conditional use provision is applicable for proposals,
42 which include structures that exceed 4,000 square feet. There is a limit on the outright permitted
43 size. If it is less than 4,000 square feet, a conditional use isn't required.
44
45 Sutter stated that the committee is okay with that.
46
47 Nelson stated that he looked through the points that came from Thurston County. The
48 committee addressed most of the points. He questioned why CTED brought them forward. He
49 questioned whether CTED saw the text amendments.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, 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
Sutter stated that CTED probably saw the text amendments out of context.
Knapp stated that the rationale was that within resource -based areas, the intent was to
follow the direction that the governor and the legislature has been moving toward in terms of
encouraging resource based industries. This is an existing facility in which the uses proposed
were to encourage new resource -based industries. The focus is to encourage rural economic
development in a way that is consistent with GMA. To add uses that are products of resources in
the County matter in terms of rural economic development.
Sutter stated that there is only one industry there and it wouldn't apply to the County's
situation. The committee adequately addressed all concerns and stated that the committee
concurred to move to recommend to full Council. There will be a public hearing on the proposed
text changes. The committee eliminated one text change and the rest are moved forward with a
recommendation to the full Council for approval.
Aamot questioned whether the committee would also recommend the changes that Mr.
Almskaar recommended. Sutter stated that they would.
Aamot noted that the first three findings on the ordinance related to the agricultural zone
would have to be struck.
Sutter directed the discussion to item #1.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Services Committee, 11/24/98, Page 8