HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 13 1998 evening1
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 13, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
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 they would resume working on Exhibit A, page 24. One change that
was made from the afternoon work session is in section 20.38.060, item #2. The separation of
clusters went from %Z mile to 500 feet. The setback for wells in item #3 was changed from 200 to
100 feet. Also, language to the last four words was changed, " is
designated as agricultural reserve tract." On item #5, Sutter questioned what is accomplished if
parcels are not contiguous. Goodwin responded that if there was a large tract, they might want
2 -3 smaller clusters on the edges.
Sutter stated that it could create a checkerboard pattern that would not protect agricultural
land, which is the purpose of this provision. She questioned whether they need to state that it
can be in separate tracts with certain administrative or design approvals. Goodwin stated that it
allows approval so long as the requirements of the section are complied with.
Dawson stated that they may need to separate clusters due to wetlands. Sutter responded
that it has been covered.
Brown stated that they would not find a widespread use because, by the time a well with
a 100 -foot setback, a septic system, and a house are put in, it is hard to locate on smaller parcels.
There is a 100 -foot setback from the property line to the well. There is also a setback from the
house.
Sutter stated that if parcels are interior and don't abut agricultural land, then one
wouldn't have the setback problem. Brown stated that there would be agricultural land all the
way around. The reserve tract is agricultural land, so they would have to keep it on the
perimeter.
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, 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
Brenner stated that agricultural land may be all on one side. There may be R5 zoning on
other sides.
Brown stated that if there is a lot in the middle, there is a 100 -foot setback from the
house, so one can't do a one -acre parcel except on a boundary, because it is agricultural land.
One wouldn't get a checkerboard pattern.
Goodwin suggested "in one or more clusters" or similar language. Sutter questioned how
many is a cluster. She questioned whether the contiguous issue could be dealt with through the
design review.
Michael Knapp, Planning & Development Services Director, stated that because 20 acres
is the threshold to trigger this, that should be the minimum number of a cluster. Then, if there
are 60 acres, they could be separated.
Brown stated that if there is a minimum cluster of four, some people couldn't develop
their 20 -acre lands because they might have wetlands or other problems.
Sutter stated it could be left alone. Knapp stated that the intent is to cluster.
Noncontiguous tracts are not the intent. They need the minimum cluster requirement.
Brown stated that if there is a twenty -acre parcel with areas of wetlands, they should
work around it than take a single piece of land that can hold all tracts.
Dawson suggested adding language to 20.38.060(5); "...separate tracts if land use
difficulties should arise." Goodwin stated that if someone has 120 acres, they might want to
encourage separate clusters, rather than have 24 units clustered together.
Sutter stated that she was concerned with the potential abuse of separate tracts.
Dawson moved to amend to replace language; "Ifaets clusters."
Sutter questioned the effects of changing the word. Goodwin stated that a cluster would
have to be a minimum of two. A tract would be an individual lot.
Hoag questioned whether it mattered if there is a cluster when the regulation limits the
cluster to 20% of the property. Knapp stated that the intent is to preserve a piece of geography
so it is useable for agriculture.
Brown stated that more flexibility is needed.
Dawson stated that as long as the requirements of the section are met, it doesn't matter.
Goodwin stated that the Comprehensive Plan says there will be an agricultural overlay
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, 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
zone, but it doesn't state how large a cluster would be. It does state that the cluster would be on
20%-30%.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Hoag stated that they could not allow separate tracts, because the Comprehensive plan
requires clustering. The regulations would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. They
would have to change either the development regulations or the Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated that cluster and tract definitions should be reviewed. Knapp stated a
tract couldn't have more than one house on it. They would need to change the Comprehensive
Plan. Clustering is defined as multiple housing units on separate tracts.
Sutter stated that clustering is placing the separate tracts contiguous to each other.
Brown stated that it puts undue burden on the person that owns the property, and the
main house has to cluster the others right next to it. Knapp stated that they would need to change
the Comprehensive Plan. Clustering does not mean that the tracts would have to be elbow -to-
elbow. They could still be placed a certain distance apart. The main house could be located
away from the others. One house is allowed on one acre.
Sutter stated that they need to look at design standards and set guidelines and
requirements.
Nelson stated that the Comprehensive Plan says they are to be clustered and require non-
agricultural cluster on 20% - 30 %. He questioned whether the area would be exempt if there is
no agricultural activities occurring.
Sutter clarified that one would have to meet all three criteria to be exempt.
Nelson questioned why clustering is required if there are no agricultural practices going.
Sutter stated that if it is in agricultural open space or there are prime soils, then it is still subject
to the regulations.
Nelson stated that the farmhouse should be exempt from the clustering requirement
because it is being used for agricultural purposes.
Sutter stated that one house on the reserve tract could be allowed and others can be
clustered.
Brown stated that they need to allow the property owner to work around the topography.
Brenner stated that one -acre lots give plenty of room.
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Brown stated that there is not enough room with the required 100 -foot setbacks.
Hoag moved to change the language in section 20.38.060(5); "tr-aets cluster."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated that she wrote up wording for language under 20.38.060(1). Roger
Almskaar expressed a concern about the language "impractical." He requested firm criteria,
which stated that if a certain percent were wetlands, then it would automatically be 30% instead
of 20 %. If there is only 20 %, then a 20 -acre site could have four acres that could be non-
agricultural. 30% would allow 6 acres. If the six -acre piece is 1/3 wetland, then four acres
remain, which is the same amount as the 20% allowed. If 1/3 is wetlands, then they could
automatically apply.
Sutter stated that the concept is to allow enough land to meet density requirements and
not go below minimum lot size threshold. Goodwin provided the language, "This may be
expanded to as much as 30 %, where it is found that more than 25% of the area proposed for non-
agricultural use is impacted by critical areas or other physical site constraints, which make it
impractical to cluster the non - agricultural uses on 20 %."
Hoag stated that the word "impractical" is still in the language.
Goodwin stated that the language that Almskaar proposed cuts the throat of people who
subdivide. This states that if it is 25 %, then it is automatic, but allows the latitude for other
conditions. 33% is the magic number. Any smaller than 33% and they get less than their 20 %.
Sutter stated that if constraints exist in which 20 -30% doesn't allow enough for one -acre
lots, they could reduce the minimum lot size. Goodwin replied that the minimum lot size is
15,000 square feet, which is approximately 1/3 —1/4 of an acre.
Knapp stated that from the administration's standpoint, keeping it flexible is what the
applicants need. The current language gives greater latitude. Goodwin supported no change.
Nelson questioned whether there have been any administrative problems with the current
language. Knapp responded that there has been no problem.
Knapp stated that precedents would be set by doing this and would create enough
historical background to ensure there is flexibility. The language that exists gives greater
flexibility than the proposed language.
Sutter suggested adding language from the Comprehensive Plan; "This may be
administratively expanded to as much as 30% in case of natural limitations...." This gives the
most flexibility.
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, 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
Knapp stated that the intent is to preserve the number of units they currently have by the
zoning they currently have. If the area is 20 acres, the goal is to insure they keep those four
units.
Sutter suggested stating that: "it may be administratively expanded in cases of natural
limitations" and omit any specific percentage requirements. The County has to look at what is
being protected. The property may be so constrained that even 30% isn't enough, or maybe
some lower number would be sufficient.
Nelson stated that the applicant should prove the area is impractical and constrained.
Goodwin stated that if the wetlands were on the agricultural portion, they wouldn't have
to enlarge the non - agricultural portion.
Sutter stated that in that case, they need flexibility to allow them as much property as
they need to meet the density. If the percentage were removed, the flexibility would exist. It
could be any percentage.
Knapp agreed that 30% is a reasonable limit.
Nelson stated that they need to provide a mechanism where the administration should
prove the applicant is wrong. If the applicant shows there is a demonstrated need, then they
should be accepting it administratively.
Hoag stated that she liked Gibson's language regarding the physical constraints being
within the proposed cluster tract. They don't want someone to state that they need the 30%
because they have a wetland on the agricultural reserve area.
Goodwin suggested they could specify that the wetland is within the non - agricultural
area.
Sutter stated that the intent was that they don't like the subjectivity of "impractical to
attain." The constraints under consideration have to be within the housing area. Hoag clarified
that the constraints under consideration, when deciding whether the non - agricultural area is 20%
or 30 %, would have to be within the housing tract.
Nelson stated that is already included. Knapp concurred.
Nelson stated that to address Almskaar's concern, they could add language; "...where it
is found that physical site constraints that are provided by the applicant make 20% impractical to
attain."
Goodwin stated that they should not state that it may be "administratively" expanded. If
it were platted, it would go to the Hearing Examiner. That is not administrative. A subdivision
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
goes to the Hearing Examiner. More than five units are a long -plat, which go to the Hearing
Examiner. Knapp stated that Council could decide whether it goes to the Hearing Examiner.
Nelson stated that when zoning was put in, public process was already done.
Knapp stated that administrative approval of a long -plat is allowed in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Sutter would like to make an exemption of the short plat or long plat requirements for
clustering. Goodwin stated that it has to follow the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Knapp stated that final approval could go either to County Council or the Hearing
Examiner. Whatcom County chooses to have final approval by the Hearing Examiner.
Sutter stated that the language would be, "constraints as provided by the applicant."
Goodwin suggested omitting the word "administrative," which would leave it open to
whatever the process is for subdivision approval.
Sutter stated that she would like to be more specific.
Knapp stated that it would have to go to the Hearing Examiner or the Council. She
suggested language; "this may be expanded through the subdivision process to as much as 30 %."
Nelson questioned whether the location needs to be road frontage. Knapp stated that it
must be on roads or they must build the roads.
Sutter moved on to page 25.
Sutter stated that there are real problems with the Administrative Modification section,
20.38.080. They are penalizing people for farming their land. She was not satisfied with the soil
classifications. They are currently not taking into consideration all of the factors in designating
land viable agriculture land. It needs more work to determine if it is viable agriculture land. The
situation creates difficulty in meeting the requirements. They've added the burden of the cost of
doing the subdivision and the cost of clustering, plus added costs of exemption. They have to
look at something else.
Nelson asked how the section came about.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Knapp stated that the question is how the decision is made.
Sutter stated that, in order to be exempt, they have to show that less than 70% - 80% of
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, 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
the property is farmable.
Nelson read policy 8A -5. Assessment and appraisals are based on the highest valued use.
Goodwin suggested not having LESA #1 through #4 or prime 1, but have LESA
#Ithrough #3 or #Ithrough #2 as the criteria. Knapp stated that would be more meaningful.
Sutter stated that if there were more incentives to cluster, more people would do it.
Hoag read from LESA classifications #3 and #4.
Brenner stated that the County is already costing the people so much. The County has to
be fair to them.
Sutter proposed criteria on LESA classes #1 through #3.
Hoag stated that if the County sticks to criteria regarding designation as agriculture open
space and use as a commercial farm, then dropping #4 is not as big of a deal.
Knapp concurred with Goodwin. The top 3 is a grouping.
Sutter stated SCS category 1 drops more acreage than dropping LESA #4. Dropping #3
and #4 totals 90,000 acres.
Sutter moved to drop LESA classification #4 as a criterion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to drop LESA classification #3 as a criterion.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Regarding section 20.38.080(c), Sutter stated that they are punishing people for farming
the land. If they've been farming, they can't get an exemption. They could build in more
flexibility to allow for the case where it may be right to make it exempted.
Knapp stated that successful farms are the farms to keep. Long term, there is a need to
keep good farms.
Barbara suggested removing language about not farming for five years.
Knapp suggested linking the criteria to good soils.
Sharon Deming, citizen, questioned whether poor soils could be used for pastureland.
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, 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
42
43
44
Hoag stated that poor soil as pastureland is necessary for cost effective farming.
Brenner stated that the cost for the farmer is too high for all the requirements that they
would have to meet, if they only have marginal soil. The County needs to help them through
incentives.
Nelson stated that they need to provide incentives to maintain the soil and open spaces,
and still allow flexibility.
Hoag stated that if they have good soils and a commercial farm, the land should stay in.
If there are good soils, but they are not farming, then they should be allowed to come out. If
there are bad soils, they could choose not to farm anymore, and after five years, they could be
out.
Sutter questioned why they could not allow the owner of 40 acres to sell bad acreage in
five -acre lots. Knapp stated that doing that would skyrocket the land value. Farmer can't afford
the taxes if they are adjacent to expensive property.
Sutter stated that assessment is based on use. If an owner can't make the land residential,
it would lower the assessment.
Dan McShane, citizen, stated that in Skagit County, there is a concern that there is
motivation by people from California to buy 100 acres on which to place one home. Sutter
stated that it still preserves the agricultural land.
McShane stated that there is a demand for pastureland. If the County gives up chunks of
pastureland, a farmer who needed it would not have access to it.
Nelson stated that there are two restrictive items, including section 20.38.080(b)
regarding open space. In addition, they can't have farmed it for five years. That is a very high
burden. They are paying higher taxes for ten years and they can't have farmed for five years,
before they can make it an investment for retirement or other purposes.
Sutter stated that the regulation is that they can't make a living off of it for five years and
they can't get a tax break on it for ten years.
areas.
Hoag stated that the long term goal is to have the buffer between cities and agricultural
Sutter stated that another work session is needed.
Nelson questioned whether the concern is just with the agricultural overlay and if they
could submit concerns with the agricultural overlay. Planning and Development Services could
provide options.
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Sutter stated that concerns should be submitted to her by Friday morning at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning & Development Committee, Evening Session, 10/13/98, Page 9