HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 13 1998 afternoon1
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 13, 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:
Barbara Brenner
Alcn PrPCPnt-
Tom Brown
Connie Hoag
Absent:
Ward Nelson
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 announced that they would resume working on page 19 of the ordinance.
Discussion regarded rural density. Committee began with item #40, regarding the density table
and cluster densities for the rural districts of R2A, R5A, and R10A.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Division Manager,
explained that she has to add several adopted ordinances into the document.
Sutter stated that item #41 deals with exempt cluster tracks and questioned from what
they are exempt. Goodwin explained that subdivisions that are subject to the agricultural overlay
zones, for example 20 acres that would allow four lots, can allow development of one lot at a
time by specifying the number of dwelling units per parcel to be developed in the future. It
would allow the designation without having to create all lots up front. The remaining would be
in open space. The property would be exempt from the short plat process.
Hoag questioned whether it is only for lots in the agricultural overlay zone. Goodwin
responded that no one outside of the agricultural overlay zone would want to do the process. It
doesn't have to pertain solely to the agricultural overlay zone, however.
Hoag questioned, because it refers specifically to clustering and not the agricultural
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
overlay zone, whether it would allow clustering in the rural zone. Goodwin stated that it would,
but it is allowed anyway. They don't allow the density bonus.
Sutter questioned whether it would be more appropriate in the agricultural protection
overlay section, because it doesn't have an effect on the other rural zoning. Goodwin stated that
it could effect someone in the other rural zoning if they wanted to cluster their dwellings.
Hoag questioned whether the County wants to encourage that in the rural areas.
Goodwin responded that it is allowed currently, but they would have to do a long plat and a
survey. That is the goal, because they are trying to preserve grazing land.
Sutter stated that this catches the situations that fall through the agricultural overlay
protection regulation.
Goodwin stated that the only potential loophole would be if it were rezoned late, which
has happened.
Roger Almskaar, Bellingham, stated that it was a very good idea. The "Purpose" section
needed to be explained and expanded upon. He explained that the wording is not clear, and it
needs to answer the question of whether or not the reserve tract is exempt. If the language stated
that it is an exempt tract, without the word "cluster," then it means exempt from the subdivision
ordinance. Nothing is exempt from zoning.
Goodwin suggested changing the language to remove "exempt" and call it a "cluster
tract." Almskaar stated that they would still have to answer the question as to whether or not it
is still exempt.
Goodwin responded that it is not exempt unless it qualifies under Title 20 as an
exemption as a five -acre parcel. Almskaar stated that needed to be included in the language.
Sutter stated that the "Purpose" section needed to be explained, as to the purpose of the
exempt cluster tract. Knapp explained that the subdivision ordinance does still apply.
Almskaar stated that there are five -acre exemptions in the subdivision ordinance, and
people use them quite a bit. Those people are going to wonder about the meaning.
Goodwin suggested deleting the word "exempt" and just calling it a "cluster tract."
Sutter stated that it then would not be distinguished from an ordinary cluster. The difference
between the two different types of subdivisions needs to be distinguished.
Brenner suggested replacing with the word "special cluster tract." Goodwin stated that
there is another section where it is called an "exempt cluster tract." Brenner stated that it does
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
not always provide an exemption.
Almskaar suggested "future development tract." Goodwin stated that she would work on
language and get back to the Council.
Almskaar commented that, if he was a property owner, he would question whether he
would have to do perc tests and water supply tests if it was not going to be platted in the
immediate future. Knapp stated that would have to be done at some point.
Sutter suggested that if something is exempt, it should be explained what it is exempt
from, such as a perc test or other activities. If more people understood what is exempt, there
might be more people choosing to do it.
Almskaar stated that no one would do it unless there is some benefit.
Sutter stated that there is a benefit to the County in that development of the property is
being delayed, which preserves some open space for a longer period of time. There are benefits
on both sides.
Hoag questioned the Growth Management Hearings Board frowning on clusters. Sutter
clarified that it was just the bonuses that they frowned upon.
Goodwin stated that it was brought up because it was a problem for people.
Brown questioned who would own the reserve tract. Goodwin responded that it could be
owned by any combination, including someone who does not own one of the dwelling units. It
could be sold to someone as pasture or farmland.
Brenner questioned the purpose of urban growth boundaries. The County has said there
needs to be open space between cities. She questioned where the line is drawn so that cities and
towns do not grow together.
Sutter stated that they have to be logical, such as, at some point in the future, Ferndale
and Bellingham will grow together and incorporate.
Sutter moved the discussion to page 21. She questioned 3.a at the bottom of the page and
what the blank is supposed to be. Goodwin stated that it may be how many dwellings would be
on the property. Knapp stated "it would have 1 dwelling unit" Sutter suggested saying "it will
not contain more than 1." Goodwin stated that they should add a description in parenthesis of
what information is expected.
Sutter moved the discussion to page 22.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
Almskaar suggested sending the next draft of the ordinance out to Title companies, etc.
Sutter stated that she would spend more time on the issues tonight and one additional meeting.
Sutter questioned item #42 and whether they wanted to include the word "subarea."
Goodwin stated that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning language should remain. Sutter
concurred, and stated that they should strike subarea. Goodwin stated that they are not likely to
update the subarea plans with the current staff, and they are not using the plans. Also, she
suggested changing the language, "... fWl eenwaun4y kwelvemen public process..."
Sutter stated that the next item, #43, was simply to strike the right to farm section and
move it to a different section.
Sutter directed the discussion to page 23, Agricultural Protection Overlay.
Brown suggested making the parcel size larger, from 20 to 40 acres, and anything less
than 40 acres would be voluntary. Goodwin stated that it is specific in Comprehensive Plan
policy 8D -10, and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Almskaar stated that the last sentence in the "Purpose" statement in 20.38.010 is
misleading and inaccurate. Some people may argue that the statement has made all land 20 acres
or larger resource land in the context of growth management. Goodwin stated that is the intent
of the language. They are long term significant agricultural lands. This was clearly part of the
findings of the Comprehensive Plan. Almskaar stated that it stretches the truth.
Sutter stated that she would earmark that section for further discussion.
Hoag stated that the Growth Hearings Board wanted the lands set aside for long -term
agricultural protection. It was an answer to all the acreage being lost to agricultural use. That
was how the County got the Hearings Board to accept the Comprehensive Plan. If the section is
changed, they would be right back to the beginning with the Hearings Board.
Brenner stated that doing the agricultural overlay is down- zoning people.
Knapp stated that is not the case. The options they had were to down -zone, allowing
people to have same number of units, but also include most of it for future uses.
Sutter stated it is not a down -zone. Clustering is more expensive in R5A and R10A. The
agricultural protection overlay tells people that the County is making it hard for people to do
what is right.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
Knapp stated that they had an option to down -zone to 1 unit per 20 outside of the urban
growth area (UGA).
Brenner stated that they can't take away pre -GMA designations. Goodwin responded
that the lawsuit said that the Growth Hearings Board can't force the County to down -zone pre -
GMA unless they haven't yet adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which Whatcom County has done.
It didn't apply to Whatcom County.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it is irrelevant because the
County is beyond that point.
Brown stated that his problem is that the average person can't do the subdivision and get
the lots in place. It is complicated.
Almskaar stated that a bonus would be a big part of the solution to the equity issue and
offer more flexibility.
Hoag stated that she doesn't support the agricultural protection overlay, but a benefit is
that RI OA and R5A zoning act as a buffer. If one is protecting larger open spaces, the buffer
works better to protect agriculturally zoned land from being converted. Also, there was a change
on page 23 regarding 20.38.020. They need to look at the issues of buffers.
Knapp stated that if development goes to the edge of agricultural land, the value of the
developed land forces the agriculture land to do something else.
(Clerks Note: End of tape one, side A)
Sutter stated that restricting development in urban growth areas to 1 unit per 5 acres is
inappropriate. It doesn't make sense to have 5 acres in an urban area. Goodwin stated that the
Comprehensive Plan says that if the parcel is 20+ acres, it has to be clustered on 20% of the
property, even if it does not have agricultural soils. It is not in the development regulations.
Sutter stated that there were no changes on page 23.
Norm Weatherby, 4470 Dewey Road, stated that he has 20 acres in the agricultural
overlay. He wants taken out of the agricultural overlay zone. It is not good for agriculture to
begin with. It is all wetlands and unusable lands. Light industrial is near him. Half the valley is
light industry. He is in Dewey Valley.
Brenner questioned whether there was a formula for someone to be taken out of the
agricultural overlay zone. Goodwin stated that the formula is on page 25. Part of the issue is the
LESA soil designation.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
Sutter directed the conversation to page 24.
Sutter questioned the 1/z mile rule in section 20.38.060(2) in the last sentence. It is
absurd.
Almskaar offered worksheets. It is too much distance. There is a need for something,
but 500 -600 feet is sufficient.
Goodwin stated that this was done in response to the Hearings Board invalidation, not a
separation between clusters.
Sutter questioned the possibility of requiring anyone in RI OA with more than 100 acres
to subdivide into two 50 acres parcels, then cluster. Goodwin suggested a change to 20. It was
only done to satisfy the Hearings Board.
Hoag stated that if she lived in R5A or R10A zoning and someone next door built 10 or
12 homes, she would lose her rural setting. This idea of not more than 10 lots in one spot is a
good idea.
Sutter suggested removing the 1/2 mile rule.
Almskaar suggested that they may need a design variance. It is not a zoning variance,
where one would have to prove a problem. The design variance should be allowed to deal with
oddball situations that force a landowner into certain things. Adopt a maximum of 10 units, then
go to a 500 -foot separation. If that doesn't work, then ask the County to review as a design
variance. The theme is flexibility.
Sutter moved to change the %2 mile to 500 feet in section 20.38.050(2). Or, another
option would be to limit the dwellings to no more than 10 and allow design standards.
Almskaar stated that they could set the separation at 500 feet for 5 houses, then for each
additional dwelling, add more space in between the two clusters. For every unit added, the
buffer grows.
Brown stated that a landowner could cluster, then the neighbor might not be able to fit in
his or her cluster.
Brenner stated that if someone applies for a permit, the neighboring properties would be
looked at.
Sutter stated that it should just be limited to 10 lots and separate by a certain distance.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
Goodwin stated that they already could get a variance.
Sutter restated the motion to amend the language in section 20.38.060(2), "...in one
cluster and there shall be at lease one half mile 500 feet of separation between clusters."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter questioned in section 20.38.060(3) why it is designated at 200 feet from the
property line when the State's wellhead protection zone is only 100 feet.
Hoag stated that it is more protection for the peoples' wells.
Brown stated that it doesn't work. It creates a hassle to locate a water system on clusters.
Brenner suggested 200 feet unless there is a topographical reason to not do it.
Almskaar stated that 100 feet is a more realistic number because they are trying to set
aside reserve tracts for farming. Also, the language is broad. One solution is in the platting
process, put a covenant on a certain area. Goodwin stated that they can't put a non - agricultural
covenant on an agricultural overlay reserve tract. It would be better to change the criteria and
remove the LESA soils that are too bad for agricultural uses.
Sutter stated that they could designate that the reserve tracts would have no application of
pesticides or herbicides within 200 feet of a well.
Hoag suggested changing language in section 20.38.060(3), "...whieh may used
agr4etiltufal p,,..peses which is designated as the agricultural reserve tract."
Brown questioned reducing the buffer to the well to 100 feet, which would allow more
flexibility. If a person owning the reserve tract wanted a 100 -foot covenant on the agricultural
tract around the boundary to allow even more buffer, that may work better.
Sutter stated that the wellhead protection zone doesn't allow fertilizer or cattle.
Agricultural practices, which may contribute to contamination of well water on adjoining
properties, may not be carried out within 200 feet of a well. Goodwin questioned what would
happen if the agricultural practices were there first, before the house and well.
Sutter stated that another other way is that there will be a 200 -foot non - agricultural buffer
along all wells. That would accomplish it because the subdivision person will know where the
well would go, as long as there is no agriculture taking place. Brown suggested using the 100 -
foot well buffer with a 200 -foot pesticide buffers.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, Page 7
2 Hoag stated that, if the purpose of the zone is to preserve agriculture, then they should
3 not restrict the uses on the agricultural land. If someone wants a 200 -foot buffer on the well, the
4 owner can place that restriction on the well owner. It would be difficult to gauge whether the
5 farmer is doing anything within 100 -feet of the fence. It would be easier to determine whether
6 the farmer is crossing the fence.
7
8 Sutter moved to amend the language in section 20.38.060(3), "...minimum of 2-98 100
9 feet from the property line..."
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Hoag suggested a language change in section 20.38.060(3), "...whieh may used €er
14 agr-ieultwal ptif eyes which has been designated as the agricultural reserve tract."
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Almskaar suggested a change to section 20.38.060(1). If they look at certain parcels,
19 they will find areas that have hillsides, soils that can't be built upon, and wetlands. They could
20 name all those areas "constrained areas." They can't be used for farming and they are difficult to
21 build upon. There are portions of some 20+ acre parcels that have constraints on both
22 agricultural uses and residential development. This would be reflected in the language, "If a
23 parcel contains at lease X percent of one or more of the above constrained area and their
24 associated buffers, then the reserve area requirement should be reduced to 70 %." The question
25 would be what the trigger threshold should be. There is no definition of "develop- able." From
26 25 years experience in the field, the word "impractical" does not have a clear meaning. He
27 would rather be more scientific and less subjective. Also, that section should not state
28 "administratively."
29
30 Almskaar stated that the language in section 20.38.060(1) should be changed,
31 "...productivity of the reserve tract. This m be „ay mist,- a4ivel , expanded to as mueh as 30
32 whefe it is found that physieal site eenstfaints make 200,; If a parcel, the
33 subject property, contains at least X percent of one or more of the constrained area and their
34 associated buffers, then the reserve area requirement shall be reduced to 70 %." It is a more
35 precise way of defining impractical.
36
37 Goodwin suggested that the constrained areas be put in the reserve tract.
38
39 Sutter stated that it doesn't make sense in terms of what they are trying to accomplish,
40 which is preserving agricultural lands. Those aren't agricultural lands. Almskaar responded that
41 the existence of those constrained areas make planning the site much more difficult.
42
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, 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
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, questioned why one would have to have a
larger piece on which to develop the house if there is a wetland located elsewhere.
Hoag stated that the criterion was about the dwelling area having problems, not the
reserve tract.
Sutter stated that the problem is in calculating the reserve area and buildable area based
on the entire piece of property. Actually, the amount of property to work with is less. Goodwin
stated one would want to leave the wetland in the reserve tract.
Sutter stated that if they are to preserve agriculture land, they don't want non- farmable
land in the reserve, which means it would have to be in the portion to be developed.
Hoag questioned whether there is anything that requires people to reserve the best land
for the agricultural reserve.
Goodwin stated that one would look at the wetlands and farmlands first, then decide
where to put the lots.
Sutter stated that the issue is which items allow a landowner to increase the housing
portion to 30 %. They need a definition of the constraints.
Gibson stated that if there is a percentage of constrained land within the housing tract,
then the housing tract could expand. The percentage would have to be worked out.
Goodwin stated that would encourage the worst subdivision. It would encourage people
to cluster the houses around the wetland.
Sutter stated that section 20.38.080, on page 25, regarding administrative modification
punishes people for farming their land. People will be punished for farming their land when a
criterion for getting an exemption is if it hasn't been farmed. Goodwin responded that if it is
agricultural soils, it doesn't matter what they do because they are automatically in anyway.
Sutter stated that she assumed the farmland classification is based solely on soil types.
When the LESA system was set up to determine on a parcel by parcel basis, the committee that
worked on the classification stated that they would use other criteria to determine the grouping,
such as the average parcel size in the area, public utilities and other available services,
relationship and proximity to urban growth, and other items. She questioned whether the LESA
map is based on all the criteria that was set up, or solely on soil type.
Goodwin stated that it is based on soils.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, Page 9
I Sutter stated that the map that shows the LESA soil types did not take into consideration
2 proximity to urban areas, average parcel size, and the other criteria. Therefore, the LESA soils
3 are not an adequate measure of what the County is looking for when determining whether or not
4 those are viable agricultural areas.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
7
8 Hoag stated that LESA did take into consideration other criteria.
9
10 Goodwin stated that one option is to not use LESA, but use the Natural Resources
11 Conservation Service (MRCS) system instead. Then they would have to decide which categories
12 they want to include. Also, they need to look at what the Comprehensive Plan policy states.
13
14 Almskaar stated that there has never been a public hearing on the LESA system.
15
16 Goodwin stated that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't use the LESA system. It doesn't
17 have to be used.
18
19 Hoag stated that it is important not to get hung up on soils.
20
21 Sutter stated that other things to think about include the cluster bonus provision. If the
22 cluster bonus provision existed prior to the GMA, and the deletion of the provision was due to
23 pressure from the Hearings Board, and they did not have the authority to invalidate pre -GMA
24 regulation in the County, then the County is not bound by the invalidation on the cluster bonus.
25 The benefits to be reaped to preserve more open space agricultural land override the concern that
26 one extra house would create urban levels of density.
27
28 Gibson stated that, prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth
29 Management Hearings Bard has no power to strip the County of pre -GMA planning. However,
30 once the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan, they are under the authority of Hearings
31 board. Sutter stated that the County was stripped of the authority before the County adopted the
32 Comprehensive Plan. Gibson responded that they had no authority to do so at that point.
33 However, it now makes no difference, because the County is under the Comprehensive Plan.
34
35 Sutter wanted to offer incentive to cluster, because it is more expensive than to do five
36 and ten acre traditional zoning. If people cluster, then they would preserve more land and
37 provide more environmental protection than they would with five and ten acre zones, but the
38 incentive isn't there for a developer or a property owner. They have to go through the short -plat
39 process, provide public water, and meet all the fire flow requirements, among other
40 requirements.
41
42 Almskaar stated that if they come up with a good schedule for which activities people can
Planning and Development Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
get bonuses, then it would withstand court.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 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 Committee, 10/13/98, Afternoon, Page 11