HomeMy WebLinkAboutord2015-048strikeWILATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO AB2015 -085b
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office
Agenda Date
Assigned to:
Originator
Gary Davis
_
11/10/15
lnlroducfion
Division head:
Mark Personius
, /A
!/"'
/
II- au "iS
11124115
Planning /Hearing
Dept Head.'
Sam Rvan
Prosecutor:
Royce
��
Buckingham
S
PurchasinglItudgL is
_.
Executive:
_ ...............
Jack Louivs
TITLE OF DOCUMENT.�
Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code Title 20 (Zoning) the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
related to development regulations in limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Memorandum
2. Public Comment
3. Proposed ordinance, including draft amendments and Findings of Fact
SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO
Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO
SEPA review completed? ( )Fes (x) NO
Requested Date 11124115
SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be
clear in explaining the intent of the action.)
A proposed ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Whatcom County Code Title 20
(Zoning), to adopt changes to policy and development regulations regarding development in limited areas of
more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs). To be considered for re- introduction on November 10 subsequent
to new comments from one of the settlement parties.
COMMITTEE ACTION. •
COUNCIL ACTION.•
11/24/2015: Discussed
11/10/2015: Introduced 7 -0
- -
1- 1/24/2015: Adopted 7 -0, Ord. 2015 -048
Related County Contract #:
-
Related File Numbers:
Ordinance or Resolution Number:
PLN2012 -00012 AB2015 -085A
Ord. 2015 -048
Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on
the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us /council.
PROPOSED BY: PDS
INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/10/2015
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -048
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, AND
THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RELATED TO
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN LIMITED AREAS OF MORE INTENSIVE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT (LAMIRDS)
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
Whatcom County to include a rural element in its Comprehensive Plan that governs
rural development; and
WHEREAS, the County Council has entered into a settlement agreement
regarding several outstanding issues from an order of the Washington State Growth
Management Hearings Board (GMHB) in Futurewise v. Whatcom County, Case No.
11- 2- 0010c; and
WHEREAS, the settlement agreement the County agrees to consider certain
amendments its zoning code and Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County Code 2.160.010(D) and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b)
allow the County Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan outside of its annual
concurrent review of Plan amendments when the amendment is to resolve an
appeal filed with the GMHB or court; and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County staff has identified additional zoning code
amendments that are necessary to correct problems with the existing code; and
WHEREAS, the recommended amendments have been considered by the
Whatcom County Planning Commission, the Whatcom County Council Planning and
Development Committee and the Whatcom County Council; and
WHEREAS, legal notice requirements have been met; and
WHEREAS, the County Council finds the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
code amendments in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, based on
the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1) Whatcom County proposes amendments to its Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Code, in response to the Washington State Growth Management Hearings
Board's January 4, 2013 Compliance Order (GMHB No. 11- 2- 0010c) and in
accordance with a settlement agreement signed by the County and petitioners in
that case.
Rural Element Ordinance
November 10, 2015
2) The proposed amendments were posted on the County website on September
24, 2015.
3) Notice that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to
citizens, citizens groups, cities, service providers, media and other groups on the
County's e-mail list on September 24, 2015.
4) Notice of the subject amendment was submitted to the Washington State
Department of Commerce on September 8, 2015.
5) Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for the subject amendment was
published in the Bellingham Herald on September 25, 2015.
6) Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendment was
posted on the County's website on September 24, 2015.
7) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendment on
October 8, 2015 and the County Council held a public hearing on November 10,
2015.
GMA Requirements
8) The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requires county comprehensive
plans to include a rural element that protects the county's established rural
character by containing or otherwise controlling rural development.
9) GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a)) allows counties to consider local circumstances in
its rural element but requires counties to develop a written record explaining
how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and
meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A. (See Conclusions 2 and 3 below).
10) GMA allows, but does not require, counties to designate "limited areas of
more intensive rural development" (LAMIRDs) (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)) and
describes three types of development patterns that may be considered
LAMIRDs:
a) Type I: "Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or
redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed -use
areas, whether characterized as shoreline development villages, hamlets,
rural activity centers, or crossroads developments...Any development or
redevelopment in terms of building size, scale, use, or intensity shall be
consistent with the character of the existing areas." (RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(i)) In RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv), GMA states, "Existing
areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is
a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but
that may also include undeveloped lands as provided in this subsection."
GMA requires counties to establish logical outer boundaries for areas of more
intensive rural development and describes considerations that must be
2
Rural Element Ordinance
November 10, 2015
addressed in establishing those boundaries Per RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(v),
existing areas are those that existed on July 1, 1990.
b) Type II: "The intensification of development on lots containing, or new
development of, small -scale recreational or tourist uses, including
commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a
rural location and setting but that do not include new residential
development..." (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii)
c) Type III: "The intensification of development on lots containing isolated
nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and
isolated small -scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the
existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses , but do
provide job opportunities for rural residents..." (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii)
Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions: Futurewise vs. Whatcom
County
11) In Futurewise v. Whatcom County and Gold Star Resorts, Inc. ( #05 -2 -0013
Sept. 20, 2005 Final Decision and Order), the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) found Whatcom County out of
compliance on three issues: The policies pertaining to Small Town, Crossroads
Commercial, Resort and Recreational Subdivision, Suburban Enclave, and
Transportation Corridor land use designations allow the creation of more
intensive areas of rural development that do not comply with RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d); The Rural Residential zones (RR -1, RR -2, RR -3), Eliza Island
(EI) zone, Rural two -acre (R -2A), and Rural Residential Island (RRI) zones allow
residential densities that are not rural in the rural areas and are not in limited
areas of more intensive rural development per RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d); and
Urban Residential three - per -acre (UR -3) zoning in urban growth areas (except
the UR -3 in Lake Whatcom watershed and the airport hazard area) failed to
achieve appropriate urban densities.
12) In June, 2007 Whatcom County rezoned approximately 1,700 acres in the
Ferndale and Everson UGAs to UR -4 in 2007 (Ord. 2007 -030 and 2007 -045) to
address the urban density noncompliance issue in the September 20, 2005
Futurewise v. Whatcom County and Gold Star Resorts, Inc. decision.
13) The WWGMHH issued a finding of compliance on the urban density issue on
August 30, 2007.
14) The September 20, 2005 Futurewise v. Whatcom County and Gold Star
Resorts, Inc. decision relating to the land use designations and rural density
issues was reversed in Whatcom County Superior Court in 2006. The Superior
Court decision was, in turn, reversed by the Division I Court of Appeals in 2007,
which reinstated the 2005 WWGMHB decision and ordered Whatcom County to
comply with that decision (140 Wn. App. 378). In December, 2009 the
Supreme Court of the State of Washington reversed the Court of Appeals'
holding that the hearings board did not improperly apply a bright line in
addressing the challenge to Whatcom County's rural densities, but affirmed the
Court of Appeals' decision that Whatcom County's comprehensive plan did not
Rural Element Ordinance
November 10, 2015
comply with the Growth Management Act's LAMIRD provisions. The Supreme
Court remanded the rural density challenge to the Hearings Board for
reconsideration without applying a bright line rule, and ordered Whatcom
County to "revise its comprehensive plan to conform to the LAMIRD provision of
the Growth Management Act and then apply the statutory criteria to establish
appropriate areas of more intensive rural development." (167 Wn.2d 723, 735,
222 P.3d 791)
15) In August, 2009 Whatcom County amended Whatcom County Code (WCC)
Chapter 20.34 Rural Residential - Island District (one of the zones found to be
out of GMA compliance in the 2005 Futurewise vs. Whatcom County decision) to
change the required minimum lot size from three acres to five acres (Ord. 2009-
062).
16) On May 10, 2011, Whatcom County adopted Ordinance 2011 -013, amending
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code in response to the 2005 Growth
Management Hearings Board (GMHB) decision and the 2009 Supreme Court
decision.
17) In 2011 the Washington Supreme Court issued a ruling in Kittitas County
(172 Wash.2d 144) regarding the GMA requirement that county comprehensive
plans must contain measures that protect the rural character.
18) On September 9, 2011, the GMHB Order Following Remand from the
Supreme Court regarding the remaining rural density from case #05 -2 -0013
(remanded by the 2009 Supreme Court decision) found Ordinance 2011 -013's
retention of rural zoning with density of one dwelling per two acres was
compliant with the GMA because it was limited to areas in which similar
densities had already been established.
19) On November 9, 2011, Whatcom County adopted Ordinance 2011 -043,
making modifications to Ordinance 2011 -013, including changing Rural
Residential Density Overlay provisions and restricting location of certain
commercial and industrial zoning districts.
20) The January 9, 2012 GMHB Final Decision and Order (FDO) in Futurewise et
al v. Whatcom County ( #11- 2- 0010c) found the amendments adopted under
Ordinance 2011 -013 out of compliance with respect to several issues involving
Comprehensive Plan policies, LAMIRD boundaries and development regulations,
and found invalidity on some of those issues.
21) The January 4, 2013 GMHB Compliance Order in Futurewise et al v. Whatcom
County ( #11- 2- 0010c) found some amendments adopted under Ordinance
2012 -032 out of compliance with respect to several issues involving
Comprehensive Plan policies, LAMIRD boundaries and development regulations,
and found invalidity on some of those issues.
22) The November 21, 2013 GMHB Compliance Order in Futurewise et al v.
Whatcom County ( #11- 2- 0010c) found that Ordinance 2013 -028 had resolved
several of the outstanding issues, though the issues of LAMIRD development
regulations and two LAMIRD boundaries (Birch Bay- Lynden & Valley View and
Smith & Guide Meridian) had not been addressed.
4
Rural Element Ordinance November 10, 2015
23) A settlement agreement signed by Whatcom County on April 14, 2015
requires the County to consider deleting WCC 20.80.100(2) and allows the two
disputed LAMIRD boundaries to remain. No amendments are proposed affecting
the two LAMIRD boundaries.
Whatcom County Policy and Requirements
24) WCC 2.160.080 requires that, in order to approve the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments the Planning Commission and County Council
must find all of the following:
a) The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management
Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is
consistent with any interlocal planning agreements.
b) Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and
Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the
amendment.
c) The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In
determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but
not limited to the following shall be considered:
i) The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth,
employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the comprehensive plan.
ii) The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and /or other service
providers, such as cities, schools, water and /or sewer purveyors, fire
districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public
facilities including transportation facilities.
iii) Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral
resource lands.
d) The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning.
e) Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban
growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a
designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions.
25) Whatcom County's County -wide Planning Policies include policies related to
rural lands:
a) County -wide Planning Policy B.1 states, "The county shall work with citizens
to define a variety of types of rural areas based on the characteristics and
needs of different areas."
b) County -wide Planning Policy B.2 states, "The county shall discourage urban
5
Rural Element Ordinance
November 10, 2015
level development outside Urban Growth Areas and outside of areas currently
characterized by a development threshold greater than a rural development
density."
c) County -wide Planning Policy B.3 states, "Whatcom County shall promote
appropriate land uses and allow for infill within rural settlements
characterized by existing commercial industrial, and intensive residential
development greater than a rural development density. These areas should
be clearly delineated and not expanded beyond logical outer boundaries in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(5). Impacts on rural character, critical
areas and other economic considerations as well as the availability of capital
facilities and rural levels of service must be considered before allowing infill
in these areas."
d) County -wide Planning Policies P.1 and P.2 reflect GMA Planning Goal (6)
(RCW 36.70A.020(6), which states private property shall not be taken for
public uses without just compensation, and Whatcom County Charter Section
1.11, which states no regulation or ordinance shall be drafted and adopted
without consideration of and provisions for compensation to those unduly
burdened.
Public Participation
26) Whatcom County's County -wide Planning Policies include policies related to
citizen involvement:
a) County -wide Planning Policy A.2 states, "The county and the cities shall
provide opportunities for citizens to become involved in the growth
management planning process through various mechanisms, such as
surveys, public workshops, meetings, hearings, and advisory committees."
b) County -wide Planning Policy A.4 states, "Citizen comments and viewpoints
shall be incorporated into the decision - making process in development of
draft plans and regulations. Consideration of citizen comments shall be
evident in the decision - making process."
27) Whatcom County's Rural Element update process has provided extensive
citizen participation opportunities since it began in late 2008. The Whatcom
County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 8, 2015. The
County Council held open work sessions on October 27, 2015. -Since publication
of the first draft amendments on September 25, 2015, the most current draft
amendments have been continuously posted on the County's web site, as have
all documents presented to the Planning Commission and all written public
comments. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services has sent e-
mail notifications to interested parties regarding upcoming events and posted
drafts on September 24, 2015.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and requirements of
the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and are in the public interest,
.:1
Rural Element Ordinance
November 10, 2015
and the proposed amendments to Whatcom County Code are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2) The rural element of the Comprehensive Plan harmonizes the GMA planning
goals in RCW 36.70A.020, as described in Conclusion -2 of Ordinance 2013 -028.
The amendments further support Goal 2 to reduce sprawl by limiting
development within designated LAMIRD areas to the uses and sizes that existed
in those areas in 1990.
3) The rural element of the Comprehensive Plan and the County development
regulations, as amended, meet the requirements of the Growth Management
Act, RCW 36.70A, as described in Conclusion 3 of Ordinance 2013 -028. The
amendments reflect the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
4) The amendments to the rural element of the Comprehensive Plan and the
County development regulations resolve the noncompliance and invalidity
findings of the January 4, 2013 GMHB Compliance Order in Futurewise et al v.
Whatcom County ( #11- 2- 0010c) regarding development regulations for
LAMIRDs and are consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement signed
by the County and petitioners in the GMHB case.
5) The subject comprehensive plan amendment complies with the approval criteria
of WCC 2.160.080, which requires that the County must find the following
criteria, are satisfied in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment.
a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of Growth Management
Act, is internally consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policies and is
consistent with any interlocal planning agreements.
i. Growth Management Act
The amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act as
described in Conclusions 3 and 4, above.
ii. County-Wide Planning Policies
County -wide Planning Policy B.2 states, "The county shall discourage
urban level development outside Urban Growth Areas and outside of
areas currently characterized by a development threshold greater than
a rural development density." County -wide Planning Policy B.3 states,
" Whatcom County shall promote appropriate land uses and allow for
infill within rural settlements characterized by existing commercial
industrial, and intensive residential development greater than a rural
development density. These areas should be clearly delineated and
not expanded beyond logical outer boundaries in accordance with RCW
36.70A.070(5). Impacts on rural character, critical areas and other
economic considerations as well as the availability of capital facilities
and rural levels of service must be considered before allowing infill in
these areas." The proposed amendments limit development within
designated LAMIRDs as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
7
Rural Element Ordinance November 10, 2015
iii) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code regarding development
within designated LAMIRDs are consistent with WCCP Policy 233-5,
which requires development to be limited to the same size and uses
that existed in each area in 1990.
iv) Interlocal Agreements
The amendments do not affect areas subject to interlocal agreements.
b. Further studies made or accepted by the department of planning and
development services indicate changed conditions that show need for
the comprehensive plan amendment.
The need for this Comprehensive Plan amendment and accompanying
Zoning Code amendments is generated by the Growth Management
Hearings Board's January 4, 2013 Compliance Order.
c. The public interest will be served by approving the comprehensive plan
amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be
served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be
considered:
i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population
growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land
as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments either retain existing zoning intensities and
densities or reduce them in rural Whatcom County.
ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the County and /or other
service providers, such as cities, schools, water and /or sewer
purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide
adequate services and public facilities including transportation
facilities.
No amendments are proposed that increase densities or intensity of
uses or increase the demand for services and facilities beyond levels
needed to serve development under existing zoning.
iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral
resource lands.
No amendments are proposed that increase adverse impacts on
designated resource lands.
Rural Element Ordinance
that:
November 10, 2015
d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning.
The amendments do not change zoning district boundaries.
e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an
urban growth area boundary shall be required to acquire development
rights from a designated TDR sending area, unless one of the
exceptions set forth in WCC 2.160.080(A)(5) applies to the
amendment.
No urban growth area amendments are proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council
Section 1. The Whatcom County Official Zoning Code is hereby amended as shown
on Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as shown
on Exhibit B
Section 3. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of
this Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid.
ADOPTED, thisr W, day of November
..�`5i •". «. o * it
ATTEST. -,e.
�1e c) I;OUNTY
Dana Brown = [Janis,- Codncii..Clerk
APPROVLfi.),,�gto f6rM;o', °`�
IIIISS - -
CI _4tty -- rosecutor
2015.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
9
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
) Den
Jack Lours, Executi
Date. 11105//5
Revised Code Amendments November 10, 2015
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20 ZONING
Chapter 20.59
Rural General Commercial (RGQ District
20.59.150 Administrative approval uses.
In a rural community designation, uses listed below may be administratively
permitted if the same use a use of the same type existed in that same rural
community designation on July 1, 1990, per WCC 20.80.100(1). In a rural business
designation, all uses may be administratively permitted.
.151 Storage warehouse type uses.
L1,LOutdoor storage of durable and nondurable goods; provided neighboring uses
are adequately screened.
.152 Manufacturing /fabrication type uses.
LIJAssembly and manufacturing of prefabricated wood building and components.
Chapter 20.80 Supplementary Requirements
20.80.100 LAMIRD Requirements.
20.80.100 LAMIRD requirements.
(1) Building Size in Rural Communities. Within areas designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as rural community, which are limited areas of more intensive
development as described in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i), permitted maximum
building sizes shall be in accordance with building sizes that existed in each area on
July 1, 1990, as shown in the following table.
Maximum floor area per building, in square feet
(Maximum combined floor area for all buildings, in square feet)
1
Revised Code Amendments
Retail /Office/
Restaurant/
Lodging
Acme
2,734
Warehouse
(2,734)
Axton &
4,800
Guide
(4,800)
Meridian
(2,070)
Birch Bay-
2,784
Lynden &
(3,684)
V.V.
Corner
Cain Lake
2,060
Kendall
(2,060)
Custer
3,968
(7,000)
(3,968)
Deming
Auto/
2,400
Storage/
Equipment
Public/
Warehouse
Repair
Community
2,070
17,784
Glacier
(2,070)
(21,896)
2,160
(2,160)
Corner
Deming
11,790
2,400
J (18,757)
(2,400)
Diablo
513
(513)
Glacier
3,500
(7,888)
6,636
Hi notes
Corner
(9,036)
Kendall
7,000
(7,000)
Laurel
10,700
(11,000)
Lummi
Peninsula
Maple Falls
Newhalem
Nugents
Corner
8,020
(8,020)
3,218
(3,218)
18,221
(19,499)
7,800
(18,540)
4,620
(4,620)
Pi
November 10, 2015
Manufacturing/
Fabrication
2,473
(4,825)
3,300 46,451
(3,300) (46,451)
i _
11392 { 30,099
(1,392) (79,512)
10,872
(10,872)
3,150
(3,150)
1,500 19,856
(1,500) (19,856)
3,340
(3,340)
10,260 21,950 17,670
(10,260) (63,360) (23,590)
7,280
(7,280)
8,822
(10,082)
4,810 16,284
(12,981) (28,924)
3,240
(3,240)
Revised Code Amendments
November 10, 2015
Point
34,704
3,286
11,246
Roberts
(34,704)
(3,286)
(11,246)
Pole &
6,400
4,548
4,000
Guide
(6,400)
(5,556)
(4,000)
Meridian
Sandy
1,428
Point
(1,428)
22,042
Smith 8r
5,866
5,900
9,600
Guide
(7,068)
(5,900)
(17,100)
(22,042)
Meridian
Sudden
6,348
2a;-�9 30,140
Valley
(10,320)
(x.44 945)
3,480
Van Wyck
1,904
(3,480)
(1,904)
Wiser Lake
24,690
11,222
2,130
(24,690)
(12,374)
(2,130)
(2) Within areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as rural commun.Lty, a
public community facility that serves a predominantly rural area may exceed the
maximum floor area and maximum combined floor area given For ublic /community
uses in 20.80.100(1), subject to a conditional use permit per 20.84.200.
Cy�desi-g -n T t e zenifrg-a4fr4nistrateF
p'e Fruit a use Ch.-. F�-sTI -'1ow n .bs etie ) ef-
h'� tiefi if there i
,,�,�r .�, {. } ,� y��i' �} �- Qf� !?�T_._T.^"rrr��i"iFC3"''G'�i�3
q"ec-ume'�}�`F'R. n - use - l 'a'1 I I"-pe existed
1 u4id4 �eef- .- "ed fer a _u-se r to e similar J i-n
thet aFea in , ".G—,provided tip- e- p'r-- apesed -flear area-does-not-exceed-the
de u r ed-Brea:
Ire
than allewe persrub-�an (I 3 - or develepl:ffefft-eF
redeve[&pment 7 - C of
as a -process
a- r . - ro c
C •
4 Y
3
Revised Code Amendments
November 10, 2015
area -,e+�— -I ,4-,4-990, ee,s er4ng -t#a-r- pa-Fa -ers-,Fisted -be-le . h tH�h-tlfve
t�,t�re -rx} e +lase
M MUM
rrt•� -*�
�S�i1Rw�lY. a�a-aM���i�aa��ai ►."lt�f�Iiu.4a a'!._,aa LsA.11 -, AMR.la!►.a[l Ala Ll41!
( -"" }- Use.;- r�- erf4iiT to--w -heF- the - .pr- vposed- arse -4s - ++tc4uded in the type p e of use
eixist+Frg-o Iru l , -11990' irt the_ z„=e
(iv) 1 tensity, of rrirr te�pater tt l adverse ire fracas - re u rar�i�a g
praper"Eies t#a t-d-id --r at-r e x i s n 9 y 1 i9,99.
(3) Within areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as rural business, which are
limited areas of more intensive development as described in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii), new nonresidential uses are subject to a maximum building
size of -57,000 square feet, except in the Birch Bay - Lynden /I -5 area where new
nonresidential uses are subject to a maximum building size of 12,000 square feet,
which is considered "small- scale" relative to existing uses in that area. For buildings
in which nonresidential uses that existed on July 1, 2012, . building size expansion to
no greater than 8,000 square feet is permitted, except in the Birch Bay - Lynden /I -5
area, where building size no greater than 20,000 square feet is permitted.
(4) Within a rural business designation, a larger building size for new nonresidential
development is permitted if a conditional use permit is granted per WCC 20.84.200.
A conditional use permit for a larger building size shall be subject to a finding that:
(a) The larger building size will not cause the need for additional public
facilities to be provided in the area;
(b) The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies
regarding the rural business designation; and
(c) The proposed small -scale business conforms to the rural character of the
area.
4
Revised Code Amendments November 10, 2015
EXHIBIT B
AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 2 Land Use
Rural Communities
Rural Communities are areas that have historically served as centers of activity and
services for surrounding rural areas, or have been established as more intensive
rural residential development. In many cases, they are served by public services
and facilities, including schools, libraries, post offices, and /or public transportation.
These areas are Type I LAMIRDs and include small unincorporated towns and other
areas where a concentration of commercial and public uses have been in existence
since before the adoption of the GMA in 1990. Typically, these are mixed -use areas
containing both residential and nonresidential uses developed at a greater intensity
than is generally found in outlying rural areas. This more intensive development is
contained within the boundaries of the Rural Community designations, preventing
the expansion of more intensive uses and densities into the surrounding rural
areas. Because undeveloped lots may be included within Rural Community
boundaries, infill development is possible, but at an intensity consistent with the
development that existed in 1990.
I• i-k-c g --avith the leg is u-re i c fifj- � w , F a � .,t-• � "av-e�le�(ibi l
to retamn existing businesses .,d ti„ . hL,r..,.-` to expand, tflves to
ICtsep €err r- a#-Ce+ ► rt eCE) lm+e -p .. h e Fe
i ,sonesses x sted in 1990 in Rural r t
gi-eat e- r -tA:i a-F �•t-eEHfl -•r ar°i F7Fv Ydt dthe exp , ie
eefl- 5.5-t sI 111h e eh a Fa r4e f .F '-N y 990 of nt yes ty`. uses
e14 I Areas designated as Rural Communities are: Acme, Axton & Guide Meridian, Birch
Bay- Lynden & Valley View, Cain Lake, Custer, Deming, Diablo, Emerald Lake,
Glacier, Hinotes Corner, Kendall, Lake Samish, Laurel, Lummi Peninsula, Maple
Falls, Newhalem, Nugents Corner, Point Roberts, Pole & Guide Meridian, Sandy
Point /Sandy Point Heights, Smith & Guide Meridian, Sudden Valley, Van Wyck, and
Wiser Lake.
Goal 277: Designate areas of more intensive rural development that
existed on July 1, 1990 as Rural Communities.
Policy 233-1: Areas designated as Rural Communities shall meet the criteria
stated in this chapter and the requirements of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(i), which describes limited areas of more
intensive rural development consisting of the infill,
development, or redevelopment of existing commercial,
Revised Code Amendments
November 10, 2015
industrial, residential, or mixed -use areas, including necessary
public facilities and public services to serve the limited area.
Policy 23J -2: Boundaries of Rural Communities shall meet the criteria stated
in this chapter, and the requirements of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv), which requires limited areas of more
intensive rural development to be clearly identifiable and
contained within a logical outer boundary delineated
predominately by the built environment as it existed on July 1,
1990.
Policy 2JJ -3: Additional Rural Communities shall not be designated, nor shall
boundaries of Rural Communities be changed unless the area of
the proposed addition meets the criteria stated in this chapter,
and requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) . Designated
Resource Lands should not be redesignated as Rural
Communities.
Policy 2JJ -4: Within the Rural Communities, encourage adequate economic
development to provide current and future residents'
employment needs, and provide rural residents places to shop,
eat, and access to public services.
Policy 2JJ -5: Within Rural Communities development or redevelopment in
terms of size, scale, use, or intensity shall be consistent with the
character of the area on July 1, 1990.
m ra f' ,-a�-C existed-e-n4u+y
1990 business ie B�
b3us'ines5e5 °e e-k- v -� erg en -t-hr t-det the
Community in 1'f� -I fy .. , .-.F use ef-4tte lity. Thle use bt4n-g
e*piC S' ,"RTG'CJs1"7'CI e consistment, r`viii i the i of uses '"
exc i5ted' i ri- the-a re t „ n , a ly 1.4 nert
e €era i t-iena+-ptxblie far-+l4�ies4n the area-
Policy 233- -76: Lands inside Rural Community designation boundaries that are
within low- density residential zones (one residence per five
acres or less density) or resource zones, or are federally owned,
should not be re -zoned to allow more intensive uses and
densities.
Policy 23J -87: Land uses within Rural Communities, except for industrial uses,
should be principally designed to serve the existing and
projected rural population.
Policy 2JJ -98: Encourage future public participation activities to develop
additional planning goals and policies specific to residents' needs
and preferences in individual Rural Communities.
6