HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 29 19981
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 29, 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:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
Sutter stated that Committee Discussion Only item #1 would be discussed first.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
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 emergency ordinance is due to expire soon. These that are proposed
will be adopted as a permanent ordinance. They requested a report from staff as to the changes
from the emergency ordinance.
Goodwin stated that changes made between November and July have been made. The
Planning Commission had a public hearing a year ago. That is the draft before the Council. The
September draft is the same as the July 15, 1998 ordinance. The Planning Commission's
29 recommended version had quite a few changes from the July 15, 1998 version. There have been
30 a lot of housekeeping changes, including inserting language to replace asterisk references. There
31 have been some revisions to the purpose statement in the Urban Residential and RR -I zone. A
32 more substantive change is that the agricultural easement requirements have been moved to
33 section 20.80, rather than repeating in other sections. Concurrency requirements also have been
34 repeated in each section and have been moved to section 20.80. They recommended major
35 changes in the agricultural overlay zone,. Citizens are having the most difficulty with that area.
36 One issue is regarding clustering on a parcel that is split into two smaller zones. The proposed
37 change allows an owner to split acreage. They also changed the cluster sizes to a maximum of
38 10 per cluster, '/2 mile apart. That would avoid creating a small community. The County,
39 however, does not have one owner of several hundred acres that this would apply to. It was a
40 concern of the Hearings Board. Most of the parcels aren't bigger than 40 acres in the rural zone.
41
42
43 Knapp stated that the dilemma is that, either way, it is a problem. They would start to
44 create urban densities in the urban area, however if they are spread out, then they create urban
45 sprawl.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 1
2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
3
4 Brenner questioned whether detached accessory dwellings would be allowed in Urban
5 Residential — Mixed (UR -M) and RR zoning, as long as they didn't exceed the density of the
6 underlying zoning. Goodwin stated that this went through Planning Commission the same time
7 as accessory housing ordinance. Council changed the accessory dwelling ordinance after this
8 proposed development regulation was done.
9
10 Goodwin stated that there are two important changes in the agricultural overlay zone.
11 One is #41G of the staff recommended changes. There is a provision in the current agricultural
12 overlay zone that states if one has over 50% of soils defined by SCS or LESA, then they are in.
13 Even if the soil mapping was incorrect, there is no provision to allow a personal soil scientist to
14 do an independent test. This would provide administrative latitude for someone to have his or
15 her area tested. Also, there is no threshold that states how much of the land has to been in
16 agricultural open space. Now, 50% is proposed.
17
18 Hoag questioned how the quality of the samples is determined. Goodwin responded that
19 it could say it has to be a certified sampler.
20
21 Brenner questioned what if someone has 51 % prime soil and would like to take the rest
22 of his or her acreage to plat it out. They should not keep less than good soils in a protection
23 zone. Goodwin stated that the Council could change the language to modify down to 20 acres.
24 Then, it is not effective to farm less than 40 acres.
25
26 Sutter stated she is afraid of trying to provide for every possibility that may exist.
27
28 Hoag stated that generally, prime soils don't lie next to really bad soils. Lesser quality
29 soils can still be used for farming activities, such as grazing. Brenner responded that 50% is too
30 much. If one is going to cluster on 25 - 30% of the land, then set 70 - 75% as the amount.
31
32 Goodwin stated that they would not change accessory dwelling because it has already
33 been addressed. The Planning Commission made changes to language regarding retirement
34 homes. They deleted the term "boarding."
35
36 Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Division Manager,
37 stated that the rational is that there is little distinguishing a hotel from a boarding home. That is
38 the rational for removing the term "boarding." Goodwin stated that boarding homes would only
39 be allowed in urban areas and cities.
40
41 Hoag stated that should not preclude the existence of a boarding home in a certain area.
42 Middleton stated that they could not find a definition.
43
44 Brenner stated that she would like to be able to take away someone's non - conforming use
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 2
I if there are many complaints. Middleton stated that the County's ordinance on non - conforming
2 is the most liberal in the State. Anything goes. Most jurisdictions have sunset clauses, phase
3 them out, or restrict them in some manner.
4
5 Goodwin suggested putting that issue on the docket for future discussion.
6
7 Goodwin continued to go through the Planning Commission's recommended changes.
8 Regarding the setback change, the Planning Commission's reasoning for amending a setback
9 from 100 to 50 feet would have only been due to lot size constraints. However, there are two
10 sides to the issue. If someone is going to go into an area that is agriculturally used and rural,
11 they should build their house at least 50 feet from the property line.
12
13 Sutter stated that there is notification to people that they are in a rural zone.
14
15 Hoag stated that 100 feet makes better sense because it would be eliminating future
16 problems. The closer they get agricultural practices to houses, the more problems exist for
17 everyone.
18
19 Brenner stated they could set up an exemption. Knapp stated that there is a variance
20 process.
21
22 Hoag stated that for broad policy, it should remain at 100 feet.
23
24 Rolf Haugan, 507 Brookfield Court, Lynden, stated that it is difficult to get 1/2 mile apart.
25
26 Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated that there should be a public hearing.
27 Goodwin stated that Council had a public hearing and the Planning Commission had several
28 public hearings.
29
30 Almskaar stated that, as a person who works with people that do clusters, there needs to
31 be some things worked on. The 1/2 mile requirement is impractical. One reason for a hearing is
32 that the LESA concept is still included, and there has never been a public hearing on it, yet it is
33 referred to in the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations. Knapp stated that there
34 are some things that they should look at, but the County is still under the gun from the Growth
35 Hearings Board. The County still needs to comply with growth management. They must find a
36 solution to the issue of that transitional area.
37
38 Nelson questioned how to apply flexibility. Knapp stated that finding flexibility is the
39 challenge, and there is a need to address that. There is not a good solution yet.
40
41 Nelson stated the ordinance lists the LESA soils, open space, or agricultural use would
42 qualify someone to be included in the agricultural overlay zone. That is not flexibility. Knapp
43 stated that the flexibility is to divide property up into 5 -acre parcels.
44
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
Nelson stated that if it is LESA soils and in agricultural open space, then it should be an
overlay. However, if there are LESA soils and no active agricultural, and taxes have been paid
based on R5 or R10, then he questioned why it is in agricultural overlay. The parcel would have
to meet all three conditions to be exempt. Requiring only two would be more flexible.
Middleton described what is looked at to determine if soil a LESA classified soil.
Almskaar stated that prime farmland includes areas that a lot of people have not tried to
farm. Also, the LESA program includes things that have nothing to do with soils, such as
location of sewer mains. The concept needs work.
Hoag stated that a lot of agricultural land was taken out of agricultural use, so the County
created the agricultural overlay zone in the rural zone to appease the GMA Hearings board.
Goodwin clarified that there was no change to zoning, only agricultural use.
Hoag stated that she was not a proponent of the clustering to begin with. This is a
compromise. If they further compromise the compromise, then there is no agricultural land left.
Acreage in open space is assessed at a low value.
Norm Weatherby, 4470 Dewey Road, has land classified as residential. It was moved to
agricultural classification. His 20 acres, after removing two creeks, two streams, and two ponds,
amounts to only 10 acres of useable land. There are few pieces left that could be considered
agriculture. His land was mistakenly classified as Al prime soil.
Hoag questioned whether there is a way to exempt streams and such. Knapp stated that
that is the kind of flexibility that needs to be included.
Sutter suggested removing non - farmable land from calculations. Hoag suggested instead
to list out the characteristics that are non- farmable, which is too subjective.
Goodwin suggested 25% for clustering instead of 20 %, which might require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Also, she suggested that they don't use LESA classifications
1 -4. Instead, use only LESA classifications 1 -2 or 1 -3. Comprehensive policies don't reference
a soil type.
Rolf Haugen, 507 Brookfield Court, Lynden, stated that he farmed land that was zoned
R5 as an investment. Sometimes farmers have to develop land to survive. R5 land is marginal
land. The land was put into open space because he couldn't afford to pay taxes while holding it.
They should not make it a criterion to require that they never develop.
Knapp responded that the Growth Management Act dictated what the County could do
regarding enabling laws and burdened the County to identify resources lands. R5 and R10 have
a potential to be retained for investment reasons. The Hearings Board denied the potential for
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
future growth areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Sutter suggested a committee work session the following Tuesday.
Rolf commented that the LESA requirements do not reflect farmers' opinion.
Hoag suggested that they consider changing 20% to 25% only for smaller parcels.
Almskaar suggested blocking I 1/2hours for discussion on agricultural protection overlay.
Sutter requested John Gillies, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) attend to
discuss LESA classification soils.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING ZONING OVERLAY MAPS TO IMPLEMENT THE
SHORT TERM PLANNING AREAS DESIGNATED IN THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -170F)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that
there are people in Birch Bay dissatisfied with the maps because they have Urban Residential
four units per acre (UR -4). They would be down - zoned. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing and recommended going forward with the proposal because it was the whole basis
for the Comprehensive Plan.
Sutter asked about the Birch Bay areas being in the long -term urban growth areas (UGA).
Goodwin stated that Muriel Terry has been the most vocal. Blaine will be taking her out of the
urban growth area. The County could do a Comprehensive Plan amendment next year so the
County UGA would match the City of Blaine's UGA.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that Terry is far
away from the boundaries. She is not in the urban growth areas at all. This is only to discuss the
short term planning areas.
Hoag questioned whether the maps over the mineral overlays reflect the Comprehensive
Plan. Knapp stated they are not stuck with maps that may reflect areas different than what were
approved.
Goodwin stated that a map with an error is being amended.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 5
I COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
2
3 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POINT ROBERTS CHARACTER PLAN
4 COMMITTEE (AB98 -339)
5
6 Sutter stated that a letter was received from Ruby White. Her concern has to do with the
7 Point Roberts Character Plan Committee, including their function. Apparently, they have
8 overstepped their authority.
9
10 Ruby White, P.O. Box 152, Point Roberts, stated that the Point Roberts Character Plan
11 defines the sole purpose of the Advisory Committee is to examine building permit applications
12 and make recommendations to their compliance with the Character Plan. Tree retention has
13 nothing to do with building permits.
14
15 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that
16 there was a short-plat that involved future development. The Character Plan Committee was
17 asked to comment on tree retention. There was a Hearing Examiner decision that the Council
18 upheld in which the Advisory Committee does have authority to review tree retention that is
19 associated with a development project.
20
21 Sutter stated that it is possible there is a discrepancy in the definition of building permit
22 applications.
23
24 Nelson questioned whether or not this was on a site that is going through the application
25 process.
26
27 White stated that has been a lot of discussion of clear- cutting at Pt. Roberts. The
28 applicant asked to divide to four 5 acres parcels and sell again. He short- platted the property.
29 The County decided they should review the tree retention. Roland Middleton, Planning and
30 Development Services Land Use Manager advised them that the applicant could get a clear -cut
31 permit. The Character Plan Committee rejected the proposal anyway. The County denied the
32 permit based on the Character Plan committee decision. The County would have to then approve
33 his clear -cut permit. All the committee was to do was to review building permits and signs in
34 commercial areas.
35
36 An unidentified speaker read from a document that stated, "...According to Middleton,
37 the County will now run all clearing permits for Point Roberts development through the
38 Character Plan review process. The decision said that the tree retention plan should have been
39 reviewed by the Advisory Committee..." This is a new policy. He questioned who has granted
40 land use authority to the Advisory Committee and said that the County Planning should be doing
41 it. Just because the Hearing Examiner said that the tower at Point Roberts should have gone
42 through the review committee, which is wrong, doesn't mean that the County has to give the
43 review committee land use authority. They pay the County for land use.
44
45 Sutter stated that she would like to initiate a review of the Character Plan and the
46 Committee's function. Knapp stated that review has already begun.
47
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 6
I Sutter questioned who is the liaison from the Committee. Goodwin responded that it may
2 be Sheila. Middleton deals with them and goes to their meetings.
3
4 Knapp stated that there is not control over the Hearing Examiner decision. Nelson stated
5 that the appeal of the Hearing Examiner to the Council is based on record only. The Hearing
6 Examiner made an interpretation of the Code, which established the "policy." All the Council
7 has to do is let the Hearing Examiner know that they do not want policy to require that review.
8
9 Dave Niles, Pt. Roberts Voters' Association President, showed a copy of the Hearing
10 Examiner's March report that clearly states that the Character Plan was added in an advisory
11 capacity only. They don't have the right to final decision. The County is probably trying to
12 show that these documents are looked at.
13
14 Hank Peltier, Pt. Roberts, stated that the Character Plan was to enhance the character of
15 Point Roberts and keep commercial buildings uniform. There is an issue of plans sitting before
16 the advisory committee too long. The County ensured that if a request sits longer then a couple
17 of weeks, then they would take control. No one is monitoring the committee's actions. He
18 encouraged the Council to ban the committee if it gets too far off from its intent.
19
20 Nelson moved that language be drafted, addressed to the Hearing Examiner on behalf of
21 the Council, to reflect that advisory groups are merely advisory. Their recommendations are not
22 necessarily the intention of the Council. Regarding the Point Roberts Character Plan, he would
23 request the Hearing Examiner observe that these are advisory commissions. Any delineation
24 from the intent of the original plan should be brought forward to the Council first. Nelson stated
25 that he would work with it, along with Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor. The
26 Council sets policy, not the Hearing Examiner.
27
28 Knapp stated that amendments to the Character Plan should go through the Planning
29 Commission.
30
31 Sutter stated that amendments might only require more specific intent.
32
33 Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner absent.
34
35 Sutter asked White to provide to her a list of the regulations she would like to sunset.
36 White stated that she had been writing to the Council for many years on one specific case, a lot
37 line consolidation.
38
39 Sutter stated that they are working on that one and it is a complicated issue. With all the
40 state mandated tasks that the County has been assigned, it is not on a fast track.
41
42 White stated that they could begin with taking out anything from former County planner
43 Carl Batchelor. There are many regulations that they can't enforce, there is no point in making
44 new regulations.
45
46 Sutter stated that an issue was raised regarding a mobile home. White stated that the
47 mobile home is placed illegally. There is no septic tank, but cable and phone. The only
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
45
46
47
response from the County was that there have not been enough enforcement people.
Knapp questioned White whether she filled out a complaint form. She replied that others
have within the last few years. They have to have a record of complaint.
White stated that she is not going to file a complaint. It has already been done.
Nelson stated that there is a new director for Planning and new County administration.
She must go forward.
Knapp stated that he would look into past complaints.
Peltier asked the Council to look into the land use issue regarding the Character Plan.
Roland Middleton and Derek Koellmann do an excellent job. The Committee should not have
charge of land use. Sutter responded that they would not have charge.
Matthew Lange, citizen, stated that he owns a one -acre parcel being used for a business
use. He has contacted Planning and Development Services regarding the Character Plan
Committee. They have overstepped their authority. He requested that they discuss the sign
ordinance that they are attempting to enforce. If there is going to be a review of the plan,
businesses stand to lose their signs.
Sutter asked him to bring the concern to the Council when the Character Plan is going to
be reviewed.
White stated that all the business will not be affected. Only Key Bank and Sterling have
changed hands. They would not be required to change until the businesses change hands.
Knapp stated the timing is next summer.
Goodwin stated that the Point Roberts taxpayers suggested changes to the Character Plan,
which is on the docket this year. There will be a public hearing maybe in November.
Knapp stated that there would be an opportunity to consider these folks' concerns if they
could be related to the concerns of the Taxpayers' Association.
Sutter stated that they should notify all associations in Point Roberts. At some point, the
County could have a meeting in Point Roberts when there are draft amendments to the Character
Plan.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee moved to Committee Discussion and Recommendation to
Council item #1.)
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE REVISING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 15.24
REGARDING MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATIONS (AB98 -338)
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Building and Codes Manager, stated that the
difference between manufactured and mobile homes are that mobile homes were manufactured in the
1970's. Manufactured homes are what they are building now.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that this is before public
hearing tonight. They wanted to give Council Members a chance to ask questions. A large number of
the mobile homes have been coming to Whatcom County because most counties don't allow the pre -
HUD (Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development) homes. Life safety is a large issue.
Ryan stated that the County has two options. The first is to not allow pre -HUD, 1976 mobile
homes. The second option would be to allow them, but require a Labor and Industries (L &I) life safety
inspection and upgrade.
Brenner stated that she did not want to see them used as rentals. Ryan responded that the County
can't address that. A third item is adopting Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulations
when manufactured homes are installed in the flood plain. L &I has an inspector for these homes. She
has had calls from people who have mobile home parks wanting to know if they can upgrade one in
existing parks. This issue does not address existing homes, only new ones being installed. They must
prevent Whatcom County from becoming a dumping ground.
Knapp stated that if there are life safety concerns, there might be a way to address life
safety issues. Ryan stated that L &I enforcement is very weak. They are the ones in charge of
the substandard mobile units. This has to do with installation. Other jurisdictions are doing this
right now.
Sutter stated that, unless someone applies for a permit, the County has no authority to require
someone to update his or her home.
Hoag stated that if they want more flexibility on the second option, then they could allow them
to be brought in the County, but specify "owner- occupied," to discourage rentals.
Knapp stated that the County can't enforce prohibition of rentals. They can address life safety
issues. There are also Health Department regulations. Ryan stated that L &I governs the substandard
mobile homes.
Sutter stated that the County can't pass an ordinance that dictates a current homeowner must
upgrade their mobile home.
Rolf Haugen, 507 Brookfield Court, stated that affordable housing is a major issue for farmers.
They are the only industry that provides housing for their workers. If trailers already exist in County,
the County should allow them to be shuffled around. Fire happens in houses as well as mobile homes.
Ryan stated that the standards are HUD standards, not Building standards. Mobile homes are held to
higher standards than homes.
Ryan stated that the list requires fire safety upgrades similar to building requirements.
They are addressing only fire suppression upgrades in mobile homes.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
47
Larry Collier, Planning and Development Services Permit Coordinator, stated that 17% of
mobile homes to be moved are pre -HUD homes. There has been a large increase because adjacent
counties have passed ordinances against them.
Hoag suggested that they don't allow pre -HUD mobile homes into the County and that pre -HUD
homes already located in the County must be upgraded.
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Division Manager,
questioned how they could prove it came from within the County. He will have to require a title
review from every mobile home that comes in. Currently, an applicant either doesn't have to
show title or he or she doesn't have a title.
Hoag suggested the County require the owner to prove the mobile home came from
within the County.
Brenner stated that the onus needs to be on the owner to prove it was in Bellingham when
it was purchased.
Sutter stated that the other option is to not allow them at all. Brenner suggesting
allowing it for the farmers.
Collier stated that there are State housing regulations. They could allow internal ones for
agricultural housing as long as it was for the seasonal farm worker and it was upgraded.
Haugen stated that it needs to be easier for farmers to provide small housing. Ryan stated
that the State has passed lesser standards for seasonal housing. That permit is obtained through
the Health Department. It is a new law passed this year, enforced and inspected by the Health
Department.
Ryan suggested that they not be installed, except for agricultural housing, and then
require an L &I life safety upgrade prior to building permit issuance.
Hoag suggested that they leave it allowed for any use, not just agricultural, as long as it is
upgraded. If they only allowed them for agricultural uses, then the County would have to prove
whether or not they are truly being used for agricultural purposes.
Nelson concurred. It makes it simpler for administrative purposes.
Brenner stated that they cannot stop them from being imported.
Hoag stated that to stop the import of them, they would be outlawed. That would
discourage those people that obey the law in the first place. For the others, the County should
simply require that the person purchased it in the County. They should simply disallow pre -
HUD homes from being imported. Then, for the others, they would require a proof of a local
purchase.
Planning and Development Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Middleton stated that dealers import them.
Hoag stated that if the County did not allow them to be imported, then that includes the
dealers.
Brenner stated that would be impossible to enforce and they should just go with requiring
them to be upgraded. That would discourage a lot of them from being imported.
Nelson stated that if there is a further concern, it can be addressed at a later date.
Ryan stated that the consensus then was to delete the language, "Used
^'a °r than 1976 are net to be install Used mobile homes older than 1976, and HUD approved,
require a fire -life safety inspection by the State Department of Labor and Industries."
ATI-In TRN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 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, 9/29/98, Page 11