2017 biannual code amendments clark county board … · 4 december 12, 2017 board of county...

2017

BIANNUAL CODE AMENDMENTS

CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COUNCILORS HEARING

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017

STAFF REPORT INDEX OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT "A" - TEXT CHANGES ALTERNATE RV PARK STANDARDS

FLAGLOT FIGURE CORNER LOT SIGHT DISTANCE ILLUSTRATION

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER RON BARCA

CLARK COUNTY WASHINGTON

Planning Commission Recommendation to the Board of County Councilors

TO: Clark County Board of County Councilors

FROM: Jan Bazala on behalf of Steve Morasch , Chair of the Clark County Planning Commission

DATE: November 30, 2017

SUBJECT: Fall 2017 Bi-Annual Code Changes

I. SUMMARY A total of 49 code change items are proposed to a number of different Titles of the Clark County code (item #36 of 50 on the index has been removed from consideration). Thirty-three of the 50 items are changes to development regulations in Title 40; the Planning Commission considered only those 33 items. Of the 33 Title 40 amendments, the Planning Commission voted to approve all items except for #40 (RV park standards) , #44 (deferral of frontage improvements in Rural Centers), and #49 (redivision of remainder lots).

II. BACKGROUND Periodically staff "batch" minor amendments to the Clark County Code to correct scrivener's errors, update references, clarify standards, and to make some minor policy changes. These batches of code changes are commonly known as "Biannual Code Amendments".

Ill. ANALYSIS

Should the code changes be approved, several sections of Clark County Codes will be revised to include: • Title 40, including the Highway 99 overlay standards in Appendix F • Title 14, Buildings and Structures (one item to require building permits for floating

homes) • Titles 5, 7, 12, 13, 24 and 32 (mostly reference updates to reflect the dissolution

of the Environmental Services department)

Attachment "A" includes the entire text of the changes, along with a "rationale" section which explains why the change is proposed. Attachment "A" is divided into four sections: • Scrivener's errors , which correct obvious mistakes;

Fall 2017 biannual code amendments staff report to BCC 1

• Reference changes/updates, which update references to other changed codes or agency processes;

• Clarifications, which are intended to make existing code language more clear; and, • Minor policy items

IV. Community Outreach

This is an ongoing program. Many of these items come from staff; some come from the development community working in concert with staff, some have come from the Team 99, and some have been requested by the Board.

Item #50 was a late entry into the biannual code amendment process, and was considered by the Planning Commission at a separate November hearing; thus two separate notice processes occurred.

The required sixty day notification of intent to adopt items 1-49 was received by the State Department of Commerce on September 281

h; a separate expedited review for item# 50 was received by the Department of Commerce on November 6, 2017.

A SEPA determination of non-significance was published in the "Columbian" newspaper for items 1-49 on September 2. A SEPA notice for item #50 was published on November 1, 2017. No SEPA comments were received on any of the items.

The text of the proposed changes was presented to, and reviewed by the Development and Engineering Advisory Board (DEAB). The DEAB supports the amendments, with some suggested changes to the RV park standards (item 40) and corner lot sight distance (item 42).

Legal notices of the Planning Commission public hearings were published in the "Columbian" newspaper on October 4 and November 1, 2017.

The Planning Commission held work sessions on these items on October 5 and November 2, 2017.

The Planning Commission held a hearing on the first 32 Title 40 proposed amendments on October 19, 2017; item# 50 was heard on November 16, 2017.

V. FISCAL IMPACT None anticipated.

VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of 30 of the 33 Title 40 items. Items #40, #44 and #49 were not recommended for approval.

VII. PROCESS


It's anticipated that the Board will hold deliberations on the 49 proposed amendments at the December 12th hearing. Staff will integrate any changes requested by the Board to the Attachment "A" into a final ordinance to be approved on consent at a subsequent hearing.

Enclosures: Tab 1 Index of proposed code amendments Tab 2 Attachment A- Proposed text changes Tab 3 Delta Development comments on RV park standards Tab 4 Alternate RV park standards Tab 5 Flaglot diagram (for #38) Tab 6 Corner Sight Distance diagram (for #42) Tab 7 Planning Commission Minutes of the October 19th public hearing Tab 8 Correspondence from Planning Commissioner Ron Barca (for #47)


Bl-ANNUAL CODE CHANGE ITEMS- FALL 2017 No. Title/Chapter/Section Description

Scrivener's Errors 1 40.210.01 O.C.4 Fix incorrect reference to the Lot Reconfiguration

standards in the Resource zoning section 2 Table 40.210.030-3 Correct side setback footnote 3 40.220.020.C Fix duplicate numbering in 40.220.020.C.5

4 40.240.050(A)(4)(g)(2)(i) Correct mis-spelling of "Sight distance"

5 40.260.157.E.2.a Correct the reference to the type of park amenities that can be added to a park that do not require additional site plan review

6 40.410.040 Correct the reference to a deleted CARA subsection 7 Table 40.510.050-1 , line Correct mis-spelling of "Sight distance"

9.c.(2)U) 8 40.530.010.D.3 Correct the reference to the Urban Holding overlay in

the non-conforming uses section Reference Updates

9 Update commute reduction authority from the 5.50.040 environmental services department to community

planning 10 Update terms of office for weed board members

7.12.027 11 Update weed board meeting dates

7.14.030 12 7.15.100 Update vegetation management authority from the

environmental services department to the noxious weed board coordinator

13 Update the RCW reference that authorizes the board 12.08.010 to adopt standards for access to county roads

14 Update clean water education and technical 13.26A.010 assistance provider from environmental services

department to the County 15 Remove references to environmental services

13.30A.050 department in clean water funding rate structure and fees

16 Change clean water appeal reference from 13.30A.110 environmental services to responsible official

17 Remove reference to environmental services in 24.12.090 notification list for solid waste handling facilities

18 24.12.110 Eliminate reference to the environmental services report as part of solid waste advisory commission review materials

19 24.12.350 Update reference from environmental services to Clark County for notice lists for solid waste handling

facilities 20 24.16.050 Change solid waste advisory commission authority

from environmental services to Public Health 21 32.04.010 Remove reference to environmental services director

from list of officials authorized to perform enforcement for the County

22 32.08.050 Update the reference to RCW36.70.C regarding the deadlines to file an appeal of an enforcement order

23 40.260.250.G.2.b.2.h .iii Update the reference to a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Species Area and correct formatting in the County's wireless code.

24 Table 40.310.010-3 Remove Mixed Use sign standards in 40.31 Oto eliminate conflicts between 40.310 and the sign standards in the Mixed Use Design Guidelines

25 40.500.01 O.B.4 Remove an extinct reference to timeline extensions 26 40.570.090.E Update references to SEPA WAC exemptions

Clarifications 27 40.100.070 Amend the definition of "Access" to state that all

residential lots must have at least 20 feet of access 28 40.100.070 Remove the unnecessary and inaccurate defin ition of

"Building Setback Line" 29 40.100.070 Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to include

"Average Minimum Lot Depth" 30 40.100.070 Create a separate definition for "Urban Holding Lot

Area" and amend the Rural and Urban Lot Area definitions

31 40.230.085.D.3 Clarify fence standards in the Business Park zone 32 40.250.110.C.2,Urban Correct and clarify the purposes of Lot

Holding Overlay (UH-10, Reconfigurations in the Urban Holding Overlay UH-20)

33 40.260.175.C and Relocate the allowance to issue building permits prior 40.350.030.C.4.j to the completion of all public improvements from the

transportation standards to the special uses section 34 Sections 4.3 and 4.3 of Clarify that Conditional uses are Permitted uses in

the Highway 99 Overlay the Highway 99 overlay only if allowed by the standards "regular" zoning of the site

Minor Policy Changes 35 7.14.090 Reduce the timeframe to file an appeal with the weed

board Je +aele e. ~ 4G.GJG ~ ~staelisR fees feF eeFtaiA "a9iA9 iA ~laee" ~rnjeets .

(REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME)

37 14.06.105.2 Remove the current building permit exemption for floating homes

38 40.100.070 Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to allow more flexibility in the design of flaglots

39 Table 40.210.050-1 Allow contractor's storage offices, storage buildings, and yards in the CR-1 and CR-2 zones

40 Chapter 40.260 Add Special Use standards for RV parks 41 40.340.01 O.A.8 Allow existing gravel parking lots in the Rural area to

remain in use under some circumstances 42 40.350.030.B.4 Reduce the required distance from intersections for

residential corner driveways, and allow shared driveways to exceed individual width reauirements

43 40.350.030(4)(B)(e) Remove County requirements for road access onto State Routes

44 40.350.030.B.5.c. Defer certain frontage improvements in Rural Centers via a non-remonstrance agreement

45 40.430.010.8.3.b Require geohazard review for replacement or expansion of structures that do not meet setbacks to geohazard areas

46 Section 5.5.1 of the Require that residential developments meet parking Highway 99 overlay requirements in the Highway 99 Overlay standards

47 Table 2.3 and Section Increase height limits from 2 to 4 stories in 4.3 of the Highway 99 Transitional Areas, and from 3 to 4 stories in the overlay standards - Activity Centers of Minnehaha Gateway and Parks

Commons 48 Section 7.2.1 of the Remove requirement for structured parking for Low-

Highway 99 overlay Rise Apartments standards

49 40.210.020.C.2 Allow re-division of remainder lots approved under prior Ag or Forest cluster provisions

50 40.540.070 Transfer the authority to sign final plats from the Board of County Councilors to the County Manager

2017 2 Proposed 3 Bi-Annual Code Amendments 4 December 12, 2017 Board of County Councilors Hearing 5 Attachment "A" 6 7 8 Below are a total of 49 proposed items, along with a "rationale" section which 9 explains why the change is proposed. These items are scheduled to be heard at

l O the December 12, 2017 Board hearing. 11 12 Planning Commission comments and recommendation specifics are noted after 13 the Rationale section for Minor Policy items; the Planning Commission approved 14 all Scrivener's items, Reference Updates and Clarifications without discussion. 15 16 The amendments are divided into four sections: 17 • Scrivener's errors , which correct obvious mistakes; 18 • Reference changes/updates, which update references to other changed 19 codes or agency processes; 20 • Clarifications, which are intended to make existing code language more 21 clear, 22 • Minor policy changes, wh ich may have minor impacts to existing county 23 policy. 24 25 Language proposed to be deleted is struck through. Language proposed to be 26 added is double-underlined. Some items have a large amount of unchanged text 27 in order to provide context for the change. 28 29 30 SCRIVENER'S ERRORS 31 32 1. 40.210.01 O.C.4 Fix incorrect reference to the Lot Reconfiguration 33 standards jn the Resoyrce zonjnq sectjon 34 35 40.210.01 o.c. 4 36 37 4. Nonconforming lots may be reconfigured pursuant to Section 40.530.01 O(D) 38 40.210.010. D. 39 40 Rationale: 40.530.010 is the non-conforming uses section , which merely directs 41 the reader back to the correct section 40.210.010.D. 42 43 44 45 46

1 2017 biannual code amendments 12/12/17 hearing Attachment "A"

I 2 _2_. _ _,.,I ... a ... b .... le .... 4....,0...,._2 .... 1 .... o ..... o ... 3 .... 0_.-3~C .... o .... rr...,e .... c .. t ... s .... id...,e._s ... e ... t.,.b""a .... c,.,.k ... f...,o...,o,..tn...,o""t .... e 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

Table 40.210.030-3. Setbacks, Lot Coverage and Building Height Minimum Setbacks4

Maximum Zoning Side

Maximum Building

Lot District Front (feet)5

Street Interior Rear (feet)2 Coverage

Height

(feet)5 (feet) 1 (feet)

RC-2.5 25 25 10, 50 10, 50 N/A 353

RC-1 25 25 10, 50 10, 50 N/A 353

1 Side Setback. Minimum side setback on each side of the residential dwelling and incidental buildings shall be t'l1enty (20} ten (10) feet unless fire regulations require a greater setback, and fifty (50) feet for accessory buildings used for agricultural purposes. Side setbacks from abutting property zoned agricultural or forestry shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet for all structures. Side setbacks from abutting property zoned for surface mining uses shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet, unless a lesser setback is approved per Section 40.250.022(0)(2)(b).

Rationale: A cut and paste error occurred in ORD2016-09-04 when updating this footnote regarding additional fire regulation setbacks.

3. 40.220.020.C Fix duplicate numbering in 40.220.020.C.5

5. Replacement single-family detached structures and additions to existing single-family structures in the R30, OR30, R40 and OR40 zones shall use the setbacks for multifamily dwellings in Table 40.220.020-3.

******** &.. 6. Minimum and Maximum Densities within the R-12 , R-18, R-22, R-30, R-43

and All OR Districts.

For uses other than mobile home parks, the review authority shall find that the established minimum densities will be achieved by all proposed land divisions or site plans. The applicant shall demonstrate that all required densities will be achieved. The review authority shall establish appropriate conditions to ensure density is achieved. Demonstration that the established minimum densities will be achieved shall be provided by the applicant as follows:

a. Where single-family or duplex developments at densities below the minimum density are proposed for a portion of the project. The minimum density to be transferred to a higher density multifamily development elsewhere on the site may be approved; provided, that:

(1) The application shall provide for a fully integrated design; or (2) The development shall provide for phasing in which each

phase meets the minimum density; or


(3) The development shall provide a site plan for preliminary 2 approval of the remainder of the site, which shall be binding on 3 the land owner and all future land owners. The binding document 4 shall be a deed covenant, approved by the county. The covenant 5 shall require that the approved site plan for the multifamily 6 development will be constructed at the densities approved. 7 Where any portion of the project exceeds either the density of the 8 zoning district or twenty-one (21) units per acre, a market 9 analysis shall be provided demonstrating that such a project is

1 o economically feasible in the county. Where a difference in density 11 of over three (3) units per acre is proposed between 12 developments in the site plan , the applicant shall provide deed 13 covenants which notify the future owners of the lower density 14 developments of the type and density of the adjoining 15 development. 16 b. For all other projects including multifamily and detached single-family 17 structures the density of the project for each individual phase and at 18 total project buildout shall meet the minimum density. In order to 19 reduce impacts to and from adjacent properties, multifamily 20 developments adjacent to industrial uses should include the following 21 design standards: 22 (1) Aspects of the development that will not be utilized for 23 residential purposes should be located adjoining to the 24 industrially zoned property where possible. Examples of such 25 uses include parking, garages, access roads, required open 26 space, carports and stormwater facilities . 27 (2) If residential buildings must be placed adjoining to the 28 industrially zoned property, single-story buildings should be used. 29 If multiple-story structures are proposed building openings above 30 the first floor should face away from the adjoining property in 31 order to limit views and exposure to the adjacent use. 32 c. Minimum density will be based on the developable area of the lot that 33 remains after subtracting: 34 (1) Land devoted to public or private roads or alleys, common 35 parking areas and required sight distance triangles required for 36 narrow lots under Section 40.260.155, public parks and trails , 37 required landscaping and drainageways; 38 (2) Land designated by covenant or public dedication to be 39 permanently maintained in an undeveloped state because the 40 land is identified as sensitive due to the presence of steep 41 slopes, unstable land, historical or archaeological sites, wetlands 42 and buffers, or other permanent physical development limitations 43 as may be determined by the responsible official. All other lands 44 shall be considered in the calculation of minimum density or floor 45 area ratio including required setbacks, private recreation or 46 common areas.


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

d. Maximum density shall be calculated based upon the gross area of the site, excluding public right-of-way or street easements.

&.- 7. Signs. Signs shall be permitted according to the provisions of Chapter 40.310.

7-c 8. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided as required in Chapter 40.340 and Section 40.260.155 as applicable.

~ 9. Landscaping. Within the R-12, R-18, R-22, R-30 and R-43 and all Office Residential districts, a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be landscaped to an L 1 standard as described in Section 40.320.010. Additional setbacks and/or landscape requirements may apply, particularly adjoining residential uses or zones pursuant to Section 40.520.040 and Chapter 40.320.

9-:- 10. Recreation Space. Recreation space shall be provided as required in Section 40.260.150.

w,. 11. Safe pedestrian routes, including sidewalks and other planning features, shall be provided for students who only walk to and from school.

-1-4-:- 12. Townhouses shall be assessed school and park impact fees at the multifamily rate. Traffic impact fees for townhouses are assessed at their own rate.

4. 40.240.050(A)(4)(g)(2)(i) - Correct mis-spelling of "Sight distance"

4. An application for permit review within the Columbia River National Scenic Area shall submit eight (8) ind ividually bound copies of the following materials unless a lesser number is specified:

g. Proposed Improvements. (2) Land Use and Transportation .

(i) Site Sight distance triangles where site sight distance standards cannot be met;

5. 40.260.157.E.2.a - Correct the reference to the type of park amenjties that can be added to a park that do not reqyjre addjtjonal sjte plan reyjew

(NOTE: Sections C and Dare provided as a reference for the proposed change in Section E, which follows)

C. Amenities. Parks typically include, but are not limited to, the amenities shown in Table 40.260.157-1 :

"P" - Amenities allowed subject to approval of applicable permits. "X" - Uses specifically prohibited.


Table 40.260.157-1. Amenities.

Amenity Neighborhood Community Regional Park Park Park

1. Non-Site Plan Applicable Amenities.

a. Open lawn areas for informal p p p recreational areas

b. Backstops (for informal baseball p p p play)

c. Playgrounds p p p

d. Walking/jogging/biking pathways p p p (paved, crushed rock or natural)

e. Bicycle racks p p p

f. Benches p p p

g. Paved plazas p p p

h. Picnic areas p p p

i. Small shelters (picnic or gazebo type) p p p

j. Built-in game (e.g., chess/checkers) p p p tables

k. Drinking fountains p p p

I. Trash receptacles p p p

m. Exterior fencing p p p

n. Community gardens p p p

0 . Rain gardens p p p

p. Landscaped beds p p p

q. Canopy/shade trees p p p

r. Natural areas p p p

2. Site Plan Applicable Amenities.

a. Restrooms p p p

b. Parking p p p

c. Archery, rifle, and shooting ranges x x p

d. Sport courts, sports fields , practice p p p fields , and skate spots

e. Sports fields, disc golf facilities x p p

f. Off-leash dog areas x p p

g. Mountain biking trails, mountain biking facilities, BMX facilities and x p p their supporting facilities

h. Camping areas, RV camping, facilities, and including day camp x p p facilities , and retreats


Table 40.260.157-1. Amenities.

Amenity Neighborhood Community Regional Park Park Park

i. Equestrian facilities and their x p p supporting uses

j . Sports complexes, and other x p p recreation facilities

I D. Development Standards. 2 1. Parking Requirements. 3 a. For community and regional parks, the minimum number of on-site 4 parking spaces shall be calculated by using peak rate of trips 5 generated as established by a submitted traffic study. On-site parking 6 shall meet the requirements of Section 40.340.010. 7 b. For neighborhood parks, parking spaces are not required , as they are 8 intended to serve residents who can walk to the facility. 9 2. Accessibility requirements, as adopted by reference in Section

10 14.01.010, shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official 11 and shall apply to all structures and facilities; accessible routes thereto, 12 including parking, public ways, and public services; and their 13 surrounding areas serving the structures and facilities within a 14 neighborhood park. Areas outside of these, such as trails and 15 secondary entrances, are not subject to approval under Section 16 14.01.010, but shall be in compliance with Washington State Building 17 Code, 2004 ADA-ABA, or other applicable state and national standard 18 and any subsequent revisions. 19 3. Transportation impact fees (TIF) for community and regional parks shall 20 be calculated in accordance with Chapter 40.620.

21 E. Review Process. 22 1. Parks are subject to the review requirements pursuant to Chapter 23 40.510 and the site plan review requirements pursuant to Section 24 0 20 040 T bl 40 260 157 2 h . d I I f 4 .5 a e - s ows require eves o review.

Table 40.260.157-2. Park Site Plan Review.

Neighborhood Park Community Regional Park Park

Site Plan Type I Type llA

Type Ill - conditional use Review hearings examiner

25 2. Alteration to Approved Plan. Changes or additions to an approved parks 26 plan may occur at any time without further site plan review, provided: 27 a. The alteration replaces or proposes addition of any amenity identified 28 in Table 40.260.157-1 with another amenity, other than those in 29 Section 1. These uses The uses in Section 2 require a modified site 30 plan and a Type I review to ensure compatibility with the surrounding 31 neighborhood.


b. Any change or alteration does not expand onto an abutting property 2 which was not considered in the original site plan review application. 3 c. There is no change in compliance with building, fire , health, life 4 safety, accessibility, critical areas, or other development requirements 5 of the code. 6 d. The changes do not trigger Minimum Requirement No. 1 pursuant to 7 Chapter 40.386.

8 9

10 11 12

Rationale: Section 1 in Table 40.260.157-1 lists amen ities that are expected to have fewer potential impacts to neighbors.

6. 40.410.040 - Correct the reference to a deleted CARA sybsectjon

40.410.030

13 B. Level 1 Site Evaluation Report/Approval Criteria.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1. For all proposed activities to be located in a critical aquifer recharge area, the site evaluation report shall include a Level 1 hydrogeological assessment. The site evaluation report and assessment shall be done by, or under the direction of, and signed by a qualified groundwater professional who is a hydrogeologist, geologist or engineer, who is licensed in the state of Washington and who has experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments. The report will identify appropriate BMPs and show how they will prevent degradation of groundwater. Examples of BMPs are described in #le guidance documents in Section 40.410.040(A)(4) . 40.410.040.A.1 .

27 (40.410.040.A.1 is shown below for reference, but is not intended to be 28 changed)

29 40.410.040 Incentives, Education, and Technical Assistance

30 A. Incentives.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

1. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Individuals who implement BMPs to safeguard groundwater may not be required to provide additional geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the subject property, pursuant to Sections 40.410.030(8) and (C). Individuals shall implement the Washington Department of Ecology's Stormwater, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste, Wetland , and Solid Waste Programs BMPs; Chapter 13.26A; and BMPs from the Washington Departments of Health,


2

3 4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Agriculture, Transportation , and State Conservation District Office.

2. Maintain Open Spaces. An individual may receive a tax reduction for not creating impervious surface within Category I. Open space may allow recharge to replenish the groundwater supply.

3. Land Exchange. The purpose of land exchange is to locate high-use impacts outside Category I. State agencies and local government may convey, sell , lease, or trade existing public lands in order to obtain public ownership over all or part of a CARA. Such exchanges may occur only upon agreement between the recorded landowner and state and local agencies authorized to exchange the subject land.

14 Rationale: ORD 2009-03-02 removed subsection 4 of 40.410. 040.A which listed 15 many outdated BMP references. Current Ecology Best Management Practices 16 are available on line, so there was little point in codifying a list that is always 17 subject to change. This reference in 410. 030. B.1 to the removed subsection 4 18 was recently discovered. 19 20 7. Table 40.510.050-1, line 9.c.(2)(j) - Correct mis-spelling of "Sight 21 distance" 22

Table 40.510.050-1. Application Submittal Requirements for Type I, Type II and Type Ill Reviews

Required for Required for Submittal Item Pre-

Application Application

1. Application Form. The application form shall be x x completed and original signed in ink by the applicant. 9. Proposed Development Plan. The proposed plan shall be drawn to a minimum engineer's scale of one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet (1" = 200') on a sheet no x x larger than twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches (24" x 36"). The following information shall be clearly depicted on the proposed development plan: c. Proposed Improvements. x x (2) Land Use and Transportation . x x U) Location and width of proposed driveways for corner lots and driveways where site sight distance standards x cannot be met;


1 8. 40.530.010.P.3 - Correct the reference to the Urban Holdjnq oyerlay jn 2 the non-conformjnq yses sectjon

3 40.530.010.D. Legal Nonconforming Lots. 4 A legal lot of record , as defined in Section 40.100.070 and created as a 5 building site, which does not conform to minimum lot area, width or depth 6 requirements of the zoning district in which it is currently situated may be 7 developed, subject to the following : 8 1. A permitted use or structure shall meet all existing development 9 standards of the zoning district within which it is located including, but

1 O not limited to, required yards/setbacks, lot coverage, density, parking, 11 landscaping, storm drainage, signage, and road standards. 12 2. For the purpose of establishing setbacks from property lines, any 13 residential lot of record in the rural (R-5, R-10 and R-20) , resource (FR-14 80 and FR-20, AG-10, and AG-WL), urban reserve (UR-10 and UR 20) 15 and urban holding (UH-10 and UH-20) districts which has a smaller lot 16 area, width and/or depth than that required by the zone in which it is 17 located may use that residential zoning classification which most closely 18 corresponds to the area or dimensions of the lot of record . 19 3. A legal nonconforming lot shall not be further diminished in size or 20 dimension unless approved through a lot reconfiguration under Section 21 40.210.010(0) or Section 40.230.070(C)(2). 40.250.110.C.2 22 23 Rationale: Section 40.230.070 was changed from a district to an overlay in June 24 of 2016, and with the change the code number reference also changed; however, 25 the reference to 230 was not updated. 26

27 REFERENCE CHANGES/UPDATES

28 9. 5.50.040 - Update commute reduction authority from the 29 environmental services department to community planning

30 Chapter 5.50 Commute Reduction 31 5.50.040 Responsible Clark County agency. 32 The Clark County environmental services community planning department shall 33 be responsible for implementing the ordinance codified in this chapter and the 34 county's CTR plan and shall have authority as is necessary to carry out 35 administrative decisions in effectuating such ordinance, plan and program . 36 37 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 38 thus these references need to be updated. 39 40 10. 7.12.027- Update terms of office for weed board members 41 Chapter 7.12 Weed Board Activation 42


1 7.12.027 Terms of Office. 2 3 Terms of office for 11.'eed board members appointed from Sections 1, 3 and 5 4 shall initially expire on December 31 , 2016. Terms of office for board members 5 appointed from Sections 2 and 4 shall initially expire on December 21 , 2014. 6 Thereafter, weed board members shall be appointed to serve four (4) year terms 7 of office. Pursuant to RCW 17.10.050(1). terms of office for weed board members shall 8 be four (4) years Appointments to Sections 1 and 5 shall be staggered two (2) years 9 from Sections 2. 3 and 4

10 11 Rationale: This change will ensure consistency with state statutes. 12 13 11. 7.14.030 - Update weed board meetjnq dates 14 15 Chapter 7.14 Rules and Regulations of the Clark County Weed Board 16 7.14.030 Officers. 17 Pursuant to RCW 17.10.050(3), the weed board shall annually elect from its 18 members, at its first regular October meeting of each calendar year, a 19 chairperson , a vice-chairperson , and a secretary. The secretary shall be 20 responsible for maintaining the minutes and other records of the weed board. 21 22 Rationale: This change will ensure consistency with state statutes. 23 24 12. 7 .14.100 - Update vegetation management authority from the 25 environmental services department to the noxious weed board coordinator 26 27 7.14.100 Establishment of a Clark County vegetation management 28 department. 29 Pursuant to RCW 17.10.060, the director of Clark County environmental services 30 County shall employ a vegetation management department, including a noxious 31 weed board coordinator and staff necessary for administration of the county's 32 noxious weed control program, pursuant to Chapter 17.1 O RCW, including, but 33 not limited to: 34 ( 1) Management of the annual program of work which includes the following 35 duties and responsibilities: 36 (a) Supervision of the inspection of land to determine the presence of 37 noxious weeds; 38 (b) Preparation of the annual program and preliminary budget for approval 39 by the board of county commissioners councilors for Clark County. 40 (2) The director of environmental services noxious weed board coordinator 41 shall be provided with the necessarv authority to perform the duties of the 42 position. including will have the authority to issue citations notices of civil 43 infractions for violations of the noxious weed control regulations. 44 (3) Procedures for handling citations notices of civil infractions shall be 45 governed by Chapter 32.04 , except that appeals of the notice of civil 46 infraction and civil penalties shall be governed pursuant to RCW 17.10.180 47 and Section 7.14.090.


1 (4) Civil penalties shall be assessed according to Table 32.04.050-1. 2 3 Rationale : Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 4 thus these references need to be updated. Additional updates in affected code 5 sections were incorporated as necessary to ensure consistency with state statute 6 and other county code sections. 7 8 13. 12.08.010 (Road Approaches)- Update the RCW reference that 9 aythorjzes the board to adopt standards for access to coynty roads

10 11 12.08.010 Permits. 12 * For statutory provisions authorizing the board of commissioners councilors to 13 adopt standards for accesses, see RCW 36.75.140. 36. 75.130. 14 15 12.08.010 Permits. 16 Permits for the construction of approaches to county roads may be granted upon 17 due and proper application for and on behalf of the board of county 18 commissioners councilors by the Clark County road engineer, whose 19 determination shall be final unless a timely appeal is filed pursuant to Section 20 40.510.020(H). 21 22 Rationale: RCW 36. 75.140 was repealed in 2004 and replaced with 36. 75.130. 23 24 14. 13.26A.010 - Update clean water edycatjon and technjcal assjstance 25 proyjder from enyjronmental servjces department to the Coynty 26 27 Chapter 13.26.A Water Quality 28 13.26A.010 Education and technical assistance. 29 +Re Clark County environmental services department will provide, upon 30 reasonable request, available technical assistance materials and information, 31 and information on outside financial assistance options to persons required to 32 comply with this chapter. 33 34 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 35 thus these references need to be updated. 36 37 15. 13.30A.050 - Remove references to environmental services 38 department in clean water funding rate structure and fees 39 40 Chapter 13.30.A Clean Water Funding 41 13.30A.050 Rate structure and fees. 42 D. The board of county commissioners councilors further finds that many of the 43 difficulties in managing of surface and stormwater problems result in part from 44 the general lack of public knowledge about the relationsh ip between human 45 actions and surface and stormwater management. In order to achieve a 46 comprehensive approach to surface and stormwater management, the county


I should provide general information to the public about land use and human 2 activities that affect surface and stormwater management. Pursuant to RCW 3 36.89.085, the board of county commissioners councilors further finds that public 4 and private schools can provide significant benefits to the county regarding 5 surface and stormwater management through educational programs, on-site 6 facilities , and community activities related to protection and enhancement of the 7 surface and stormwater management system. These programs, facilities and 8 activities can provide students with an understanding of human activities and 9 land use practices that create surface and stormwater problems by providing

IO students firsthand exposure to the difficulties of such problems after they occur. 11 Public and private schools providing such programs, and complying with best 12 management practices for their facilities and activities as set forth in the county's 13 best management practices manual , may apply to the county director of 14 environmental services for a reduction of the applicable service charge. The 15 reduction shall be based on the nature and extent of the programs, facilities and 16 activities provided, the extent to which the programs, services and facilities 17 mitigate the impacts of surface and stormwater runoff and any other matters that 18 are relevant to managing surface and stormwater. 19 E. For the purpose of establishing a fund and providing revenue to pay a 20 settlement of previous noncompliance with the NPDES Phase 1 municipal 21 stormwater permit, a surcharge of five dollars ($5.00) shall apply to each base 22 unit during the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. This charge will be 23 removed in the year 2020 and will not apply to the 2020 clean water rate. 24 F. The board of county commissioners finds that it is crucial to reevaluate the 25 current methodology of assessing the clean water fee. The department of 26 environmental services shall prepare a study and report back to the board of 27 county commissioners within one (1) year of the adoption of the changes to this 28 section , with an examination of alternative methods for collecting the clean water 29 fee. The focus of the study shall be an examination of the allocation of the fee to 30 those whose behaviors and/or conduct generate higher pollutant impacts on the 31 surface and ground water of Clark County. The board of county commissioners 32 shall acknowledge receiving the study through a public resolution and/or 33 reaffirmation of this section. If no resolution is put foP11ard by the board of county 34 commissioners within thirty (30) days of the scheduled receipt of the fee study, 35 the changes to the fee schedule in this section shall sunset, and the previously 36 adopted version of this section shall apply; provided, that the surcharge 37 authorized by subsection (E) of this section is not subject to the sunset provisions 38 of this clause and shall remain in effect until it expires in 2020. 39 40 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 41 thus these references need to be updated. Provisions in section 13.30A.050(F) 42 have been completed so this code section can be removed. 43 44 45


1 16. 13.30A.110 Change clean water appeal reference from environmental 2 services to responsible official 3 4 13.30A.110 Appeal of charges. 5 If an owner or responsible party believes the storm and surface water service 6 charge is incorrect, the owner may appeal to the county environmental services 7 director, providing such information as the county environmental services director 8 responsible official may require . The appeal shall be fifed with the director county 9 within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of the billing of the service charge. The

1 O county en 11ironmental services director may make an adjustment to the charges 11 consistent with professional engineering judgment and with the general policies 12 of this chapter. 13 Decisions of the county environmental services director regarding rate 14 adjustments and appeals shall be final after thirty (30) days of the date the 15 decision was mailed; unless the applicant submits in writing to the county 16 environmental services director a notice of appeal setting forth the information 17 required for an appeal as stated in Section 40.510.020(H) as existing or 18 amended and requesting a hearing before the county hearings examiner. The 19 hearings examiner's proceeding shall be conducted as an appeal of a Type II 20 decision as provided in Chapter 40.51 O; provided, that decisions of the hearing 21 examiner shall be final subject to a timely appeal to superior court. 22 23 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 24 thus these references need to be updated. 25 26 17. 24.12.090 - Remove reference to environmental services in 27 notification list for solid waste handling facilities 28 29 Chapter 24.12 Solid Waste Management 30 24.12.090 Applications and approval. 31 ( 1) Applications for permits to operate new or existing solid waste handling 32 facilities and disposal sites may be obtained at the office of the jurisdictional 33 board of health and shall be on forms prescribed by the Department of Ecology 34 and the jurisdictional board of health and shall contain a description of the 35 proposed and existing facilities or additional facilities to be constructed , and such 36 other information as the health officer may deem necessary in order to determine 37 whether the solid waste handling facility or disposal site will comply with state 38 law, state regulations and the provisions of this chapter. 39 (2) The application shall include either a copy of the conditional use permit 40 issued pursuant to Section 40.260.200 of this code or the applicant's basis for 41 contending that such a conditional use permit is not required. 42 (3) The health officer shall send copies of applications for permits to: 43 (a) Clark County community development department; 44 (b) Clark County department of environmental services; 45 t£t fQl Department of Ecology; 46 fGf ~ Department of Natural Resources;


I ~ iQ1 Solid waste advisory commission ; 2 fft ifil Any other appropriate city, county, state or federal agency. 3 4 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 5 thus these references need to be updated. 6 7 18. 24.12.110 - Eliminate reference to the environmental services report 8 as part of solid waste advisory commission review materials 9

10 24.12.110 Solid waste advisory commission. 11 (1) The solid waste advisory commission shall recommend approval or 12 disapproval of the application to the health officer only after the commission has 13 reviewed the following at a public hearing: 14 (a) The health officer's findings. 15 (b) The community development department report. 16 (c) The environmental services report. 17 tat L!j Any available comments from the Department of Natural Resources. 18 ~ iQ1 Any available comments from the Department of Ecology. 19 fft ifil Conformance with the solid waste management plan . 20 (Will The necessity for compliance and conformity with any county, state or 21 federal laws. 22 W !,91 The necessity for obtaining , and receipt of, any other permits required . 23 fit !bl The necessity for an environmental impact statement. 24 {ff ill Any and all environmental impact statements required . 25 Will Any other relevant publ ic or private report and testimony submitted . 26 ft)~ The public use, interest and welfare to be served by either the approval or 27 disapproval of the application. 28 fmt ill The desirability of the approval or disapproval of the application . 29 (2) The determinations of the solid waste advisory commission shall be 30 advisory only. 31 32 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 33 thus these references need to be updated. Reports from former environmental 34 services staff would be integrated into community development comments as 35 needed. 36 3 7 19. 24.12.350 - Update reference from environmental services to Clark 38 County for notice lists for solid waste handling facilities 39 40 24.12.350 Regular permits. 41 (1) Regular permits, other than short-term permits, shall be granted by the 42 jurisd ictional health department only after an advisory report and 43 recommendation by the solid waste advisory commission of Clark County. 44 (2) Regular permits may only be granted after legally advertised publ ic hearing 45 before the solid waste advisory commission for which ten (10) days' prior notice 46 has been given in a newspaper of general circulation at the expense of the


1 applicant. In addition, written notices shall be mailed to the adjacent landowners 2 of record as then shown in the records of the Clark County assessor within three 3 hundred (300) feet of the subject property twenty (20) days before the solid 4 waste advisory commission hearing, at the expense of the applicant. Notices of 5 all subsequent hearings shall be mailed to any person who shall have a written 6 request on file with the department of environmental services of Clark County 7 Public Health for any such notice. All notices shall state the time and place of 8 such hearings and shall consist of a general description of the proposed use and 9 a general language description of the subject property which is sufficient to

10 apprise interested parties of its general location. The mailing of notices as 11 required by this section shall be a prerequisite to a valid hearing. 12 13 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 14 thus these references need to be updated. 15 16 20. 24.16.050 - Change solid waste advisory commission authority from 17 environmental services to Public Health 18 19 Chapter 24.16 Solid Waste Advisory Commission 20 24.16.050 Staff responsibility. 21 The staff of the solid waste advisory commission shall be under the control and 22 supervision of tRe Clark County director of environmental services Public Health 23 and shall be responsible for coordinating all solid waste management matters 24 with all agencies concerned on behalf of the commission. 25 26 Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 27 thus these references need to be updated. 28 29 21. 32.04.010 - Remove reference to environmental services director 30 from list of officials authorized to perform enforcement for the County 31 32 Chapter 32.04 Code Enforcement, Generally 33 32.04.010 Definitions. 34 (1) "Commercial/noncommercial ventures" as used in this title shall have the 35 following meanings: Any person engaged in the development, management, 36 sale, rental or use of property solely for the purpose of residential occupancy by 37 such person or such person's immediate family shall be deemed to be engaged 38 in a noncommercial venture. All other persons shall be deemed to be engaged in 39 commercial ventures. 40 (2) "Director" as used in this title shall mean the director of public works, 41 director of community development, or director of environmental services public 42 health , or such other person as the county commissioners council shall by 43 ordinance authorize to utilize the provisions of this title and shall also include any 44 duly authorized representative of such director. "Director" shall also mean the 45 "local health officer" as that term is used in Chapter 70.05 RCW. 46


l Rationale: Environmental Services no longer exists as a separate department, 2 thus these references need to be updated. 3 4 22. 32.08.050 (Enforcement) - update the reference to RCW36. 70.C 5 regarding the deadlines to file an appeal of an enforcement order 6 32.08.050 Final order. 7 (1) Any order duly issued by a director pursuant to the procedures contained in 8 this title shall become final ten ( 10) days after service of the notice and order 9 unless a written request for hearing is received by the hearing examiner

10 within the ten (10) day period. 11 (2) An order which is subjected to the appeal procedure shall become final 12 twenty (20) twenty-one (21) days after a mailing of the hearing examiner's 13 decision unless within that time period an aggrieved person initiates review 14 by 1Nrit of certiorari pursuant to RCW36. ?OC.01 O et. seq. in Clark County 15 superior court. 16 17 Rationale: RCW36.70.C was updated from 20 days to 21 days. 18 19 23. 40.260.250.G.2.b.2.h.ijj - Update the reference to a Washjngton 20 Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Species Area and correct 21 formatting in the County's wireless code. 22 23 (h) An aerial photograph, which clearly indicates the location of 24 the proposed facility in relation to: 25 (i) Significant features within one thousand three hundred 26 twenty (1 ,320) feet including, but not limited to, existing 27 and/or proposed site structures, public rights-of-way, 28 residential developments, adjacent land uses, and 29 properties used for public purposes;

30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41

42 43

(ii) Governmental jurisdictional boundaries within five hundred (500) feet of the proposal boundaries; and

(iii) Cliffs, snags, talus, Oregon white oak woodlands, urban natural open space, Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. waterfowl habitat and bald eagle foraging areas within one thousand (1 ,000) feet as defined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as Priority Habitats and Species areas subject to Chapter 40.440.

!Jlffi.4 A photographic analysis of the proposed site, including a representation of existing conditions and photographic simulations depicting views of any new support structures or towers.

ill M Elevation drawings of the proposed site and facility, including the tower, equipment structures, antennas,


1 2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

10

mounts and, if applicable, any existing structures. Other applicable features, including but not limited to security fencing and screening, shall be included.

~ f\4t A detailed landscaping and screening plan, including existing and proposed vegetation , installation procedures, and landscaping/screening maintenance plans in accordance with Section 40.320.030.

ill fvH1 Any additional applicable information the responsible official deems necessary to adequately review the proposal.

11 Rationale: Urban Natural Open Space (UNOS) is a retired WDFW Priority 12 Species Area, The habitat type has been redefined as Biodiversity Areas and 13 Corridors (BAC) and all previously mapped UNOS areas are now mapped 14 BAC The locations of mapped BAC are found on WDFW's "PHS on the Web" 15 website. 16 17 In regards to the formatting change, subsection iv through vii are not part of what 18 the aerial photograph is supposed to capture, but are separate submittal 19 requirements, thus need to be listed separately. 20 21 24. Table 40.310.0101-3 - Remove Mixed Use sign standards in 40.310 to 22 eljmjnate conflicts between 40.310 and the sjqn standards jn the Mjxed Use 23 pesjqn Gyjdeljnes 24

Table 40.310.010-3. Additional Sign Standards for Multifamily Residential, Office Residential Districts, MiKed Yse, Business Park and University Districts

Number of

Sign Type/Use Signs

Maximum Area Height Lighting3

Allowed on Premises

On-Premises 1 per street 16 square feet2 Maximum No additional

Freestanding frontage 1 15 feet restrictions

On-Premises 1 per side of 32 square feet

No height No additional Fascia building restrictions restrictions

2 square feet/business or professional tenant, Only that

Business for tenant identification, portion of the

Complex- 1 per street and 16 SF for business Maximum sign identifying

Freestanding4 frontage complex identification. 20 feet the complex Total maximum shall be cumulative sign area, 32 illuminated square feet


I

Table 40.310.010-3. Additional Sign Standards for Multifamily Residential, Office Residential Districts, Mixec:t Use, Business Park and University Districts

Number of Signs 3

Sign Type/Use Allowed on Maximum Area Height Lighting

Premises

High School 1 h' h Electronic ~er

1 ig 25 square feet Maximum

20 feet Review and approval Message Center sc 00

Real Estate Signs5

Allowed

Building street 6 square feet per sign frontage < 120 lineal feet, 1 sign

Building street frontage 120 -1,320 lineal feet, 1 sign

(.05 feet) * (lineal frontage) or a maximum of 32 square feet

Building street 32 square feet with frontage min imum of 500 lineal > 1,320 lineal feet spacing between feet, 1 sign per signs 660 lineal feet of frontage

None None

Combination of • There shall be no combinations of permanent sign types on a Sign Types single street frontage, e.g., a fascia sign facing the street will

preclude the use of a freestanding sign on that street.

Roadside Farm Stands, Agricultural Markets

• The use of a business complex sign shall prohibit the use of any other type of freestanding sign , i.e. , for a corner lot a business complex sign on one (1) street will require the sign on the other street to also be a business complex sign .

See standards in Section 40.260.025

2 Rationale: There are sign code requirements in Chapter 40.310 that conflict 3 with the Mixed Use Design Standards. ORD2006-04-18 which adopted the 4 Mixed Use Design Standards in Appendix A to Title 40 should have deleted the 5 reference to the Mixed Use zone in Table 40.310.010-3. 6 7 8


25. 40.500.010.B.4 - Remove an extjnct reference to time!jne extensjons

2 B. Development Approvals Timeline - General. 3 1. Basic Rule. Preliminary approval of land divisions (Chapter 40.540) , site 4 plan approval (Section 40.520.040) , uses subject to review and 5 approval (R/A) (Section 40.520.020), approval of conditional use 6 permits (Section 40.520.030) , approval of planned unit developments 7 (Section 40.520.080) , approval of mixed use developments (Section 8 40.230.020), approval of master plans (Section 40.520.070) , and 9 approval of variances (Section 40.550.020) shall be valid for a period of

I O seven (7) years after approval. The right to develop an approved land 11 division, site plan , use permitted subject to review and approval (R/A), 12 conditional use permit, planned unit development or variance or part 13 thereof expires seven (7) years after the effective date of the decision 14 approving such development, unless: 15 a. For land divisions - A fully complete application for a final plat has 16 been submitted . 17 b. For use approvals that do not require a building permit - The 18 permitted use has legally commenced on the premises. 19 c. For all other approvals - A building permit for the approved 20 development has been issued and remains in effect, or a final 21 occupancy permit has been issued. 22 2. Extensions - Phased Developments. 23 a. Those applications specifically approved for phased development 24 may receive an unlimited number of subsequent two (2) year 25 extensions in accordance w ith the following : 26 (1) At least one (1) phase has met the general development 27 approvals timeline basic rule described in Section 28 40.500.010(8)(1 ); 29 (2) The request for the extension has been submitted in writing to 30 the responsible official at least thirty (30) days prior to the seven 31 (7) year deadline, or, in the case of a subsequent extension 32 request, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the 33 approval period ; 34 (3) The applicant has demonstrated an active effort in pursuing 35 the next phase of the appl ication ; and 36 (4) The applicant has demonstrated that there are no significant 37 changes in cond itions which would render approval of the 38 application contrary to the public health , safety or general 39 welfare. 40 b. The responsible official shall take one (1) of the following actions 41 upon receipt of a timely extension request: 42 (1) Approve the extension request if no significant issues are 43 presented under the criteria set forth in this section ; 44 (2) Conditionally approve the application if any significant issues 45 presented are substantially mitigated by minor revisions to the 46 orig inal approval ;


1 (3) Deny the extension request if any significant issues presented 2 cannot be substantially mitigated by minor revisions to the 3 approved plan. 4 c. A request for extension approval shall be processed as a Type I 5 action. Appeal and post-decision review of a Type I action is 6 permitted as provided in this subtitle. 7 3. Developer Agreements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may 8 approve a developer agreement under RCW 36. 708.170 through 9 36. 708.240 providing for a longer approval duration. The hearing

1 O examiner is delegated authority to conduct hearings and make 11 recommendations for developer agreements, but final approval thereof 12 is reserved to the Board. 13 14 4. Six Month Extension.* 15 a. Preliminary approvals of land divisions (Chapter 40.540) , site plan 16 approval (Section 40.520.040) , uses subject to review and approval 17 (RIA) (Section 40.520.020) , approval of conditional use permits 18 (Section 40.520.030) , approval of planned unit developments (Section 19 40.520.080) , approval of mixed use developments (Section 20 40.230.020) , approval of master plans (Section 40.520.070) , and 21 approval of variances (Section 40.550.020), that 1.vere approved on or 22 between June 1, 2004 , and June 1, 2005, are hereby granted a six (6) 23 month extension of the expiration of their five (5) year periods of 24 validity under Section 40.500.01 O(B)(1 ). 25 b. An extension granted under Section 40.500.01 O(B)(4)(a) shall not 26 modify or excuse compliance with any of the conditions of approval 27 provided for in those approvals. 28 29 &.- 4. Special Stormwater Rules. All permits issued pursuant to the 30 regulations contained in Chapter 40.385 or earlier stormwater code and 31 the 2009 or earlier version of the Clark County Stormwater Manual will 32 expire on January 8, 2021 , unless approved construction has begun on 33 site before January 8, 2021 . "Construction has begun" means, at a 34 minimum, that site work associated with and directly related to the 35 approved project has begun, for example, grading the project site to 36 final grade, or the installation of utilities. Simply clearing the project site 37 does not constitute the beginning of construction . 38 39 Rationale: The proposed language contains the language from the first six 40 month timeline extension which has since been amended and is no longer 41 relevant. 42 43 26. 40.570.090.E - Update references to SEPA WAC exemptions 44 E. Non-Applicable Exemptions to Critical Areas. 45 Clark County selects the following categorical exemptions to be inapplicable 46 within certain critical areas as specified below:


1 1. The minor new construction exemptions under Section 40.570.090(C) 2 do not apply within any critical area , except that agricultural structures in 3 Section 40.570.090(C)(3) are exempt in shoreline and unstable slope 4 areas, and on slopes of forty percent (40%) or greater.

2. 5 Other minor new construction exemptions under WAC 197-11-800(2) do 6 not apply as follows:

a. 7 Bus shelters and other transit facilities in WAC 197-11 -800(2)(a) Lill 8 are not exempt in any critical area ;

b. 9 Commercial and public signs in WAC 197-11-800(2)tbj~ are not 1 O exempt in shoreline management areas;

c. 11 Minor road and street improvements in WAC 197-11-800(2)~!£il are 12 not exempt in any critical area ;

d. 13 Grading, septic tank installation, and other activities in WAC 197-11-14 800(2)fej ~) are not exempt in any critical area;

e. 15 Building additions and modifications in WAC 197-11-800(2) ~ill are 16 not exempt in any critical area;

f. 17 Demolition of structures in WAC 197-11-800(2) fB Lg) is not exempt in 18 shoreline management areas; 19 Underground storage tanks in WAC 197-11-800(2) ffi1 !bl are not g. 20 exempt in any critical area; and

h. 21 Street or road vacations in WAC 197-11-800(2) Will are not exempt 22 in shoreline management areas. 23 24 Rationale: The WACs were reformatted , requiring these references to be 25 "bumped ahead" in the numbering. 26 27

28 CLARIFICATIONS 29 30 27. 40.100.070 - Amend the defjnjtjon of "Access" to state that all 31 residentja! lots myst have at least 20 feet of access. 32 33 "Access" means the place, means, or way by which pedestrians or vehicles shall 34 have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property or use, as 35 required by this title. Residential lots shall be provided a minimum of twenty (20) 36 feet of access to a public or private street. Non-residential uses shall be provided 37 access according to Chapters 40.350 and 40.340. 38 39 Rationale: The requirement for 20 feet of access for all residential lots is a 40 longstanding requirement, but specific references to the minimum access width 41 is found in a relative backwater of the code; Section 40.200.050.B (which allows 42 for the short platting of parcels that have two legal residences) states that "All 43 lots shall have a minimum of twenty (20) feet of access to a public or private 44 street. " Also, the 20 foot width is a standard fire code requ irement. 45


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Note that the constructed driveways themselves do not need to be 20 feet wide (except for long driveways that require turnouts) , only the access, which can be provided either by lot frontage on a public or private street, or by a 20 foot wide easement that provides access to the street. Additional width is often needed to accommodate cut and fill slopes, and occasional maneuvering off of the narrower driveway surface.

Addition of the 20 foot requirement to the definition of "Access" will make the requirement more visible.

28. 40.100.070 - Remove the unnecessarv and inaccurate definition of "Building Setback Line"

1..---=-·:~ li------..Re 1-=E-:::-:~-:!~-:~-t::-1:!~-::-:1::~-=~~-: :=-~~~-1::: :-::!es------.ltg I

14 15 Rationale: This definition is unnecessary and incomplete; there are other 16 definitions for Front, Side, and Rear Setbacks; this definition only really defines 17 the front setback, which has this separate definition: 18 19 Front setback" means any required open space between a building and 20 the front lot line, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, 21 except as specified elsewhere in this title . 22 23 29. 40.100.070 -Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to include "Average 24 Mjnjmym Lot Qeoth" 25 26 "Lot depth" means the horizontal distance between the midpoint of the front and 27 opposite, usually the rear lot line. Average lot depth shall be the average of the 28 side lot lines. In the case of a corner lot, the depth shall be the average length of 29 the longer dimension of the lot. 30 31 Rationale: Single family lots are oftentimes not equal-sided rectangles. The 32 single family lot standards tables therefore use the terms "average lot width" and 33 "average lot depth". There is a definition for Average Lot Width , but no definition 34 of Average Lot Depth, although staff routinely reviews lots in the manner 35 described in the proposed amendment. 36 37 30. 40.100.070- Create a separate defjnjtjon for "Urban Holdjnq Lot 38 Area" and amend the Rural and Urban Lot Area definjtjons 39 40 "Lot area, rural" means the computed area contained within the lot lines to 41 include:

42 Private driveway easements,


• On-site road easements,

2 One-half (1/2) width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less, of abutting public 3 rights-of-way for perimeter streets, excluding limited access state or interstate 4 highways.

5 For the purposes of this definition, "rural lot area" applies to urban reserve (UR-6 10 and UR-20) and urban holding overlays (UH 10 and UH 20), and rural (R-5, 7 R-10 and R-20) , agricultural (AG-4-G 20 and AG-WL) and forest resource (FR-2G 8 40 and FR-80) districts. 9

1 O "Lot area, urban" means the computed area contained within the lot lines in 11 urban districts, to include private driveway easements, and excluding street and 12 alley rights-of-way, street easements, and street tracts. 13 For the purposes of this definition, "urban lot area" does not apply to the urban 14 holding overlays (UH 10 and UH 20) . 15 16 "Lot area, Urban Holding" means the computed area contained within the lot lines 17 to include:

18 • Private driveway easements.

19 • On-site road easements.

20 • One-half (1/2) width or thirty (30) feet. whichever is less. of abutting public 21 rights-of-way for perimeter streets. excluding limited access state or interstate 22 highways. 23 24 Rationale: Urban Holding is often misunderstood as a rural area designation, 25 when it is in fact an urban designation. The definition of "lot area, rural ," includes 26 Urban Holding lots so that right of way can be included in the lot area, which 27 other urban lots cannot do. This adds to the misperception that Urban Holding is 28 a rural designation. 29 30 This separate new definition will not change what is counted towards lot area for 31 Urban Holding lots. 32 33 31. 40.230.085.p.3 - Clarjfy fence standards jn the Bysjness park zone 34 3. Additional Development Standards for the Business Park District. 35 a. Uses in Setbacks. No service road , spur track, hard stand , or outside 36 storage area shall be permitted within required setbacks adjoining 37 residential districts. 38 b. Setbacks. No minimum setback is required where side or rear lot 39 lines abut a railroad right-of-way or spur track. 40 &- Fences. Fencing is permitted outside of a boundary line where it is 41 necessary to protect property of the industry or the business 42 concerned. No sight obscuring fence shall be constructed abutting a


1 major arterial or other public right of way in excess of four (4) feet in 2 height within the perimeter setbacks. Any chain link or other wire 3 fencing must be screened with green growing plant materials or 4 contain slats. 5 c. Fences. Fencing around the perimeter of the development and 6 fencing abutting public or private streets shall be a combination of 7 solid wall. wrought iron. or other similar treatment. Sections of fence 8 or wall longer than fifty (50) feet shall be interspersed with trees or 9 hedges at least every fifty (50) feet for a distance of at least five (5)

Io feet to break up the appearance of the fence or wall. Fences or walls 11 shall not block sight distance at intersections. The responsible official 12 may approve and condition an alternative fence design that is 13 compatible with existing . abutting fencing. landscaping. and land uses 14 that still meets the intent of the development standards of the 15 Business Park zoning. 16 17 d. Site Landscaping and Design Plan. In addition to site plan 18 requirements, the following requirements shall apply: 19 (1) Blank walls are discouraged next to residential zones. If a 20 blank wall is adjacent to residential zones, the applicant shall 21 provide and maintain a vegetative buffer at least eleven (11) feet 22 high that creates a varied appearance to the blank wall. Other 23 features such as false or display windows, artwork, and varied 24 building materials are acceptable. 25 (2) Parking areas adjacent to rights-of-way shall be physically 26 separated from the rights-of-way by landscaping or other features 27 to a height of three (3) feet. A combination of walls , berms and 28 landscape materials is preferred. Sidewalks may be placed with in 29 this landscaping if the street is defined as a collector or arterial 30 with a speed limit of thirty-five (35) mph or above, in order to 31 separate the pedestrian from heavy or high speed traffic on 32 adjacent roads. The creation of a perimeter feature shall not 33 interfere with the implementation of low impact development 34 stormwater management features on site. 35 (3) If a development is located within two hundred fifty (250) feet 36 of an existing or proposed transit stop, the applicant shall work 37 with the transit agency in locating a transit stop and shelter as 38 close as possible to the main building entrance. 39 (4) Parking island locations may be designed to facilitate on-site 40 truck maneuvering. 4 1 (5) Required setback areas adjacent to streets and abutting a 42 residential district shall be continuously maintained in lawn or live 43 groundcover. Allowed uses in these areas are bikeways, 44 pedestrian paths and stormwater facilities. 45 (6) A minimum fifteen percent (15%) of the site shall be 46 landscaped. Vegetated stormwater facil ities and pedestrian


plazas may be used to satisfy this requirement. To qualify as a 2 pedestrian plaza, the plaza must: 3 (a) Have a minimum width and depth of ten (10) feet and a 4 minimum size of six hundred fifty (650) square feet; and 5 (b) Have a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of the area paved 6 in a decorative paver or textured , colored concrete. Asphalt 7 is prohibited as a paver in pedestrian plazas. 8 (7) Structures should be clustered on site to maximize open 9 space within the development.

IO (8) VVhen security fencing is required it shall be a combination of 11 solid wall , wrought iron, dense hedges or other similar treatment. 12 Long expanses of fences or walls shall be interspersed with trees 13 or hedges at least every fifty (50) feet for a distance of at least 14 five (5) feet to break up the appearance of the wall. 15 16 Rationale: There are two subsections in the Business Park development 17 standards that address fencing . Existing subsection 0 .3.c appears to allow 18 fencing in a right of way, and allows it to be chain link; Subsection 0.3.d.(8) infers 19 that fences should be of a higher standard. The proposed change eliminates the 20 reference to chain link fencing in the right of way in 0.3.c, and provides more 21 specificity to the more refined fence design elements of 0 .3.d(8), by stating that 22 the higher standard of fencing applies only to the perimeter of a site, and defining 23 what makes up a "long" section of fence that requires trees or shrubs to break up 24 the appearance of the fence ; it also provides flexibility (which could include chain 25 link) when appearance is not an issue, such as when the rear perimeter of a site 26 abuts an industrial area that is not readily visible to the general public. 27 28 Note that the code text will not require the higher standard of fences between 29 internal lot lines in a development. 30 31 32. 40.250.110.C.2 Urban Holdjnq Oyerlay (UH-10. UH-20) - Correct and 32 clarjfy the pyrooses of Lot Reconfjgyratjons jn the Urban Holdjnq Oyerlay 33 34 2. Nonconforming Lots - Lot Reconfiguration Standards.

35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45

a. Purpose. It is in the public interest to encourage the protection of sensitive lands, expand the amount of commercially viable resource land under single ownership and reduce the amount of road and utility construction allow a greater degree of flexibility in the adjustment of lots to enable a more efficient transition to greater urban density or large scale development.

b. Lot Reconfiguration . Except for previously approved agricultural or forest zoned clusters or rural residential planned unit developments, these substandard Substandard lots may be modified where consistent with the following criteria. Parcels which meet all of the following criteria are eligible for


I 2

3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21 22

reconfiguration and reduction in size subject to a Type II review if:

(1) Existing parcel(s) are:

(a) Smaller than the minimum lot size established for new lots in the applicable zoning district. Parcels which meet the minimum lot size may be adjusted as a part of this process, but may not be decreased below the established minimum lot size;

(b) Determined to be legally created , have lawful access, and be buildable.

(2) Proposed parcel(s) result in the following:

(a) No additional parcels;

(b) Have septic suitability approval;

(c) Have adequate public or private potable water at the time of occupancy;

(d) Each resulting legal nonconforming parcel shall be at least one (1) acre in size with a minimum width of at least one hundred forty (140) feet;

(e) Result in achieving one (1) or more of the identified public interest issues in subsection (C)(2)(b)(1) of this section. Meets the intent of subsection C.2.a of this section.

23 Rationale: Under the regular boundary line adjustment (BLA) provisions in CCC 24 40.540.010, substandard non-conforming lots (lots that do not meet the minimum 25 lot area for the zone) cannot be made more non-conforming. Lot 26 reconfigurations, however, can allow substandard lots to get smaller, provided 27 the overall result of the boundary adjustment results in better utilization of land 28 given the zoning of the site. Lot configurations were originally allowed only in the 29 Resource zones, but under ORD2016-06-12, reconfiguration provisions were 30 extended to lots with the Urban Holding overlay. The rationale behind this is that 31 minimum lot areas with the Urban Holding overlay are either 10 or 20 acres, and 32 not allowing such large parcels any leeway in reduction of area was found to be 33 unnecessarily restrictive in many cases. In any event, the proposed change will 34 correct a cut and paste error which resulted from "borrowing" the existing lot 35 reconfiguration text from the Resource zones. 36


1 33. 40.260.175.C and 40.350.030.C.4.j - Relocate the allowance to jssye 2 byjldjng permits prjor to the completion of all pybljc jmproyements from 3 the transportation standards to the special uses section. 4 5 40.260.175 Residential Building Permits on Unfinished Plats

6 A. Residential building permits for individual residences, additions to existing 7 residences, or "model" homes may be approved on the sites of preliminary 8 land divisions prior to the recordation of the final plat under the following 9 circumstances:

1 O 1. Only one (1) home is allowed per each existing lot of record within the 11 boundaries of the preliminary land division. 12 2. Single-family attached dwelling units are not allowed under this 13 subsection. 14 3. A survey and certificate stamped by the surveyor is required to verify 15 that the placement of homes meets the platting and zoning 16 requirements of the existing lot of record , either as originally configured 17 or as modified under this title, as well as the approved preliminary plat. 18 4. Impact fees will be calculated at the current rate at the time of building 19 permit application.

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

B. Residential building permits for "model" homes may be issued on lots within recorded final plats prior to the construction of all required public improvements subject to the following conditions: 1. Performance bonds or financial guarantees required under Section

40.540.080(8) have been accepted and approved for those public improvements which have not been constructed.

2. Only one (1) home is allowed per each twenty (20) lots within the plat. Plats with fewer than twenty (20) lots do not qualify under this subsection.

3. Engineering services must authorize the issuance of the building permit to ensure that adequate provisions exist for necessary services and facilities.

C. Residential building permits may be issued on lots within recorded final plats prior to the construction of all required public improvements subject to the following conditions:

1. Performance bonds or financial guarantees required under Section 40.540.080(8) have been accepted and approved for those public improvements which have not been constructed.

2. Public improvements are substantially completed.

40.350.030.C C. Specifications for Design and Construction ********


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

4. Transportation Construction Specification.

********

j . Issuance of Building Permits. Building permits and certificates of occupancy may be issued once the public improvements are substantially completed. In order for a model home/temporary sales office to be constructed , a building permit for one (1) dwelling unit may be issued prior to substantial completion of the public improvements.

k . L Record Drawing. The applicant shall submit a reproducible set of plans for all public improvements showing all construction changes, such as location of culverts , alignment and grade changes, added and deleted items, location of utilities, water valves, stormwater facilities , sewer connections, etc. The record drawings shall be prepared and stamped by a licensed engineer or surveyor, and submitted prior to acceptance of any improvements for provisional maintenance by the county.

t ~- Acceptance by County. Roads, drainage, landscaping, irrigation , and any other required right-of-way construction may be accepted for provisional maintenance by the county upon receipt of a workmanship and materials bond (or other secure method) in the amount of ten percent ( 10%) of the construction cost and the recommendation of the responsible official. Final acceptance will not be made for two (2) years from the date of provisional acceptance and the developer must repair any failure within the two (2) year period . The applicant may request inspection of the constructed facilities for release of the said workmanship and materials bond (or other secure method) at the end of the two (2) year provisional maintenance period .

m. L Construction Revisions and Modifications to Construction Specifications. Revisions made during construction drawing review or during actual construction which do not conflict with conditions of development approval or the road standards may be authorized by the responsible official. Written consent between the responsible official and the developer is required. The developer will be responsible for informing the construction contractor of all approved changes. In unique circumstances the responsible official will consider requests for variation from the above listed construction specifications. It shall be the developer's responsibility to furnish supporting documentation as required by the responsible official to substantiate the requested variation.


l Rationale: Members of the development community and Public Works were 2 engaged in discussions about possibly expanding the opportunities for bonding 3 improvements to allow earlier issuance of building permits. During the course of 4 the discussions, it was determined that options were already available under the 5 existing code, but legal staff suggested that the location of the authority to issue 6 building permits should be changed from the transportation standards to the land 7 use standards. 8 9 Subsection "B" deals with issuance of building permits for a limited number of

1 O model homes, which are desired to be built in the earliest phases of a 11 development. Engineering services must authorize the issuance of the building 12 permit to ensure that "adequate provisions" exist for necessary services and 13 facilities. "Adequate provisions" generally means that roads and other 14 infrastructure improvements are sufficient to allow trucks and emergency 15 vehicles access, but the improvements are less than "substantially complete", 16 which is defined in 40.100.070. 17 18 Section "C" is intended to apply to "regular'' homes, permits for which would not 19 be limited in number. Thus, improvements must be more complete before the 20 County issues building permits en masse. 21 22 34. Sectjons 4.3 and 4.3 of the Hjqhwav 99 Oyerlay standards - Clarify 23 that Condjtional yses are permjtted yses jn the Highway 99 oyerlay only for 24 Condjtjonal yses allowed ynder the "regylar'' ynder!yjnq zonjnq of the sjte. 25 26 4.2 Activity Center 27 28 Permitted Uses 29 30 Additional uses permitted : 31 •All housing types shown in Table 4.1. 32 • All the uses shown as Review and Approval are permitted and are not subject 33 to the Review and Approval procedures or requirements. All uses shown as 34 conditional in Chapters 40.220 and 40.230, All conditional uses. as allowed by 35 the appl icable zoning district except for those listed below, are permitted , and are 36 not subject to the conditional use requirements of Section 40.520.030. 37 38 The following uses are still subject to conditional use review and requirements: 39 Event facilities in excess of 50,000 square feet 40 • Hospitals 41 Outdoor paintball facilities 42 • Drive-in theaters 43 Stadium arena facilities 44 Zoos 45 Solid waste handling and disposal sites 46 • Type Ill wireless communication facilities


1 2 3 4.3 Transitional Overlay 4 5 Permitted Uses 6 7 • Additional uses permitted: 8 All housing types except for single family are only permitted when part of a 9 mixed-use development (vertical or horizontal mixed-use, as defined in Chapter

10 10) 11 12 ·All the uses shown as Review and Approval are permitted and are not subject 13 to the Review and Approval procedures or requirements. All uses shown as 14 conditional in CCC Chapters 40.220 and 40.230, All conditional uses, as allowed 15 by the applicable zoning district except for those listed below, are permitted, and 16 are not subject to the conditional use requirements of CCC 50.520.030. Section 17 40.520.030. 18 19 The following uses are still subject to conditional use review and requirements: 20 Event facilities in excess of 50,000 square feet 21 Hospitals 22 Outdoor paintball facilities 23 Drive-in theaters 24 Stadium arena facilities 25 • Zoos 26 Solid waste handling and disposal sites 27 • Type Ill wireless communication facilities 28 29 Rationale: The Highway 99 Overlay is an additional layer of code that affects 30 certain aspects of the underlying zoning, but in most cases, uses are still limited 31 to those allowed by the underlying zoning. In Transitional and Activity areas, both 32 residential and commercial zoning exists. 33 34 A recent code change to clarify that more than one zoning designations occur in 35 Activity and Transitional Areas inadvertently appears to allow all conditional uses 36 that are listed in either the underlying multifamily or commercial zoning districts 37 as Permitted uses, regardless of the site's underlying zoning. 38 39 For instance, hotels are a Conditional Use in a Neighborhood Commercial zone, 40 and as written it may be interpreted that this type of Conditional Use could be a 41 Permitted use in an Activity Center or Transitional Area even if the underlying 42 zoning is residential. 43 44 That was not the intent of the prior code change, and this amendment corrects 45 the potential confusion. 46


MINOR POLICY ITEMS 2 3 35. Redyce the tjmeframe to fi!e an appeal with the weed board

4 7.14.090 Right to a hearing-Notice-Hearing procedures.

5 (1) Notice. Upon request, any owner shall be entitled to a hearing before the 6 board on any charge or cost, including the cost of controlling noxious 7 weeds and civil penalties resulting from civil infractions issued pursuant to 8 RCW 17.10.170. The weed board shall send notice by certified mail to 9 each owner at the owner's last known address as to the cost or charge and

IO a right to hearing. The request for appeal must occur within fifteen (15) 11 thirty (30) days of notice; failure to request a hearing within fifteen (15) 12 thirty (30) days shall be considered a waiver of the right to a hearing.

13 (2) Hearing Procedure. The weed board shall , upon timely request for the 14 same, hold a hearing as to any charge or cost challenged by the owner. I 5 The hearing shall be held within forty-five (45) days of the request.

16 (3) Decision . Within fifteen (15) days following the close of the hearing, the 17 weed board shall enter its written decision and mail a copy thereof by 18 certified mail to the appealing landowner. Such decision shall contain 19 findings and conclusions.

20 (4) Appeal. Any appeal of the decision of the weed board shall be to superior 21 court by writ of certiorari filed within fifteen (15) days of the date the 22 decision was entered.

23 Rationale: Title 7 is proposed for amendment because Environmental Services 24 no longer exists as a separate department. As part of the Title 7 amendments, 25 the appeal period is proposed to be changed to be consistent with RCW 17.10 26 and RCW 7.80.

27 The Planning Commission did not review this item, as it is not a development 28 regulation per se.

29 30 36. Table 6.14Q.Q3Q 1 Establish tees for certain "aajna in place" 31 projects. 32 33 Rationale: This item has been removed from consideration. 34

3 1 2017 biannual code amendments 12/12/17 hearing Attachment "A"

1 37. 14.06.105.2 - Remove the current byj!djnq permjt exemptjon for 2 floatjng homes

3 14.06. 105.2 Work exempt from permit. 4 Section R105.2 (Work Exempt from Permit) of the IRC is amended and replaced 5 with the following:

6 105.2 Work Exempt from Permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this 7 code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any 8 manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances 9 of this jurisdiction. Unless otherwise exempted, separate plumbing, electrical and

IO mechanical permits may be required for any of the following exempted items. I 1 Permits shall not be required for the following :

12 1. One-story detached accessory structures not used for human habitation, 13 provided the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 m2

).

14 2. Reserved.

15 3. Retaining walls which do not support more than 4 feet of unbalanced fill or a 16 surcharge. Retaining walls may be subject to setbacks under Section 17 40.320.010.F.

18 4. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 19 gallons ( 18, 925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 20 to 1.

21 5. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and 22 not over any basement or story below.

23 6. Painting, papering, tiling , carpeting , cabinets, counter tops and similar finish 24 work.

25 7. Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep.

26 8. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to a one- or two-family 27 dwelling .

28 9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than 29 54 inches (1 ,372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional 30 support.

31 10. Minor construction and alteration activities for which the total valuation as 32 determined in Section 108.3 does not exceed fifteen hundred dollars; provided, 33 that the construction and/or alteration activity does not affect any structural 34 components, or reduce existing egress, light, air, and ventilation conditions. The 35 permit exemption does not include electrical , plumbing, or mechanical activities 36 which will require separate permit(s).


1 11 . Floating structures and floating bridges. This permit exemption does not 2 apply to replacements or remodels of existing floating homes or floating on-water 3 residences. Floating homes and floating on-water residences are also subject to 4 the limitations and requirements in Sections 40.460.630.K. 11 and 5 40.460.630.K.12.

6 12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which does not project more 7 than 54 inches {1 ,372 mm) from the wall .

8 13. Signs less than or equal to eight feet in height above grade.

9 14. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than 18 10 inches above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve 11 the exit door required by Section R311.4 of the IRC.

12 Rationale: Three floating homes burned in 2016, which raised the question 13 about whether building permits would be needed to replace them. Until recently, 14 it was understood that the County didn't have building permit jurisdiction over 15 floating homes, but it now appears that no other jurisdiction has either. The 16 County does prohibit new floating homes, but replacements and remodeling is 17 allowed, subject to the Shorelines code.

18 Building Safety has long dealt with evaluating what is minimally required when 19 new work is proposed on older structures that predate modern building codes. In 20 addition to requiring the specific new work to meet current codes, fire , smoke, 21 and carbon monoxide detection is usually required if not already in place, and 22 imminently hazardous violations would need to be addressed.

23 The Planning Commission did not review this item, as it is not a development 24 regulation per se. -

25 38. 40.100.070 -Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to allow more 26 flexjbility jn the desjgn of flag lots 27 28 "Lot depth" means the horizontal distance between the midpoint of the front and 29 opposite, usually the rear lot line. In the case of a corner lot, the depth shall be 30 the average length of the longer dimension of the lot. In the case of flaglots. lot 31 depth shall be the average length of the longer dimension of the main body of the 32 lot. See Figure 40.100.070-2.

33 Rationale: The definitions of "flag lot", "front lot line" and "lot depth" technically 34 results in flag lots that are supposed to have the long dimension of the main body 35 of the lot parallel with the driveway easement. This can result in unnecessary 36 manipulation of the easement such that the lot depth will meet the technical code 37 requirement. This change would allow greater flexibility and avoid unnecessary 38 easement contortions. See flaglot figure attachment. 39


1 The planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item without 2 significant discussion. 3 4 39. Table 40.210.050-1 - Allow contractor's storage offices. storage 5 byjldjngs. and yards jn the CR-1 and CR-2 zones 6

Table 40.210.050-1. Uses CR- CR- Special 1 2 Standar ds

20. Other Uses. a. Temporary uses p p 40.260.2 20

b. Private use heliports x x 40.260.1 70

C. Solid waste handling and disposal sites c1 c1 40.260.2 00

d. Medical marijuana collective gardens x x e. Marijuana-related facilities x x f. Contractors offices, storage buildings, and storage

40.320.0 10.D yards 7 8 Rationale: Contractor's warehouses and storage yards are not permitted in 9 either urban or rural commercial zones. It is not uncommon that requests and

1 o assumptions are made for such uses in the rural center areas. 11 12 The planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item without 13 significant discussion. 14 15 40. Add RV park standards jn the Specjal Uses standards 16 17 40.260.172 Recreational Vehicle Parks

18 ==A==. =====P=u=zrn=o=s=e=. ==R==e==cr==e==a==ti==o=n a==l==v==e==h==i c==le==-=( R==V==)"'="'=pa==r==k==s==a==re===i n==te==n==d==e==d==t==o='p==r==o==v ·,,.,1d..,,e ... f==o==r t ... h ..... e 19 accommodation of visitors who travel by recreational vehicle and reside in 20 that vehicle for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days.

2 I =B==. =====P==e=rm=i==tt==e=d==U==s=e=s==. ==R==e==c==re==a==t==i o==n==a==I ==ve==h==i==c==I e=!(C::to====i n==c==I u==d==e==m=====ot==o==r==h==o==m==e=s==a==n==d 22 recreational trailers) and caretaker's units. Storage of RVs on site are 23 prohibited unless such use is allowed by the zoning district.

24 =C==· ====D=e==ve==l==o~p=m==e==n==t=S~ta~n==d==a==rd==s~.

25 1. Minimum size of an RV park is two (2) acres.

26 2. Landscaping.


I a. Perimeter landscaping and buffers shall be those as required by 2 Table 40.320.010-1 except that those portions of the perimeter of 3 the site that abut residential land uses. regardless of zoning. shall 4 be landscaped to an L-4 standard.

5 b. Interior landscaping shall be provided at the rate of one tree per 6 everv two RV spaces. Location of trees can be grouped. but each 7 RV space shall be no further than 50 feet from a tree. Trees shall 8 be protected from damage by a curb stop or other approved 9 method. and shall be maintained in accordance with Section

I 0 40.320.01 O.G.6.

11 3. Interior accessways and circulation.

12 a. Access drives shall be paved to a width of not less than twenty-four 13 (24) feet.

14 b. One-way road systems may reduce the access drive width to not 15 less than twenty (20) feet.

16 c. Minimum turning radii of access drives shall accommodate 17 emeraency vehicle access.

18 d. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided per Chapter 15.

19 e. Parked vehicles shall not encroach into the required access drive 20 width .

21 4. Recreational amenities. A minimum of 100 square feet of recreational 22 space such as. but not limited to. pool areas. sports/play fields and 23 game courts. shall be provided for each RV space. Areas shall be 24 consolidated into usable areas with dimensions of not less than 80 25 feet. Interior recreational areas that provide amenities such as arcade 26 or game tables may be counted as 150% of the required square 27 footage. and are not subject to the minimum 80 foot dimensional 28 requirement.

29 5. Individual RV spaces. Individual spaces shall be designed to: 30 31 a. Accommodate an RV and one standard vehicle parking space. 32 33 b. Provide sufficient width such that the minimum vehicle separation 34 between spaces (including slide outs) shall be at least 10 feet: 35 36 c. All unpaved areas shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 37 40.320.01 O: 38 39 6. Utilities 40


1 a. All RV spaces shall be provided with electrical. potable water and 2 sewer connections. All utilities shall be provided underground and 3 shall be subject to purveyor's requirements. 4 5 b. Drinking water connections shall require a minimum six (6) inch 6 riser. Confirmation of the approved water system must be obtained 7 from the public water purveyor or Public Health. and have backflow 8 protection in conformance with state and purveyor requirements . 9

1 O c. Confirmation of connection to an approved public sewer system or 11 on-site sewage system must be obtained from the public sewer 12 provider or Public Health. 13 14 7. Sanitarv Facilities: 15 a. One (1) toilet. lavatory and shower for each sex for every twenty-16 five (25) recreational vehicle spaces or fraction thereof shall be 17 provided within an enclosed build ing. 18 19 b. Toilet. lavatory and shower facilities shall be located not more than 20 four hundred (400) feet from any recreational vehicle space. 21 22 c. Laundry Facilities. One (1) washing machine and dryer shall be 23 provided for every fifty (50) recreational vehicle spaces or fraction 24 thereof. 25 26 d. A minimum of one sanitation station per each 100 RV spaces or 27 fraction thereof shall be provided. Sanitation stations shall be 28 located within the park in such a manner so as not to be obnoxious 29 to the tenants of the park or and shall be set back at least 50 feet 30 from all property lines and at least one hundred < 1 OOl feet from 31 property lines that abut residential development.

32 8. Solid waste. Solid waste. Solid waste collection areas shall be 33 provided at the rate of at least one hundred (100) square feet for every 34 thirty (30l spaces. Such areas shall be equally distributed throughout 35 the site and meet the design requirements of Section 40.360.030.

36 9. Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided for vehicles as follows:

37 a. Each individual RV space shall provide one (1) standard vehicle 38 parking space in addition to the RV space itself. Such spaces shall 39 not encroach into the required minimum access drive width .

40 b. One (1) visitor parking space shall be provided for every ten (10) 41 recreational vehicle spaces or fraction thereof in addition to parking 42 spaces needed for office or caretaker's units. 43


1 c. In addition to standard vehicle parking spaces for office uses and 2 any caretaker's unit required by Section 40.340.010. parking areas 3 for RVs shall be provided near office or check-in structures. and 4 shall not obstruct traffic circulation or emergency vehicle access. 5 6 10. All storage of supplies. maintenance. materials and equipment shall be 7 provided within a storage area. Such storage areas shall be screened 8 from adjoining properties by a minimum L3 landscape buffer. 9

1 O 11 . Lighting shall be hooded and positioned away from abutting properties. 11 Light standards shall be a maximum of eighteen (18) feet in height.

12

13 12. Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. Office parking. individual 14 RV spaces. and other site facilities such as restrooms and recreational 15 areas shall be reviewed for compliance with current ADA guidelines. 16 17 13.A caretaker's residence which meets applicable building codes shall be 18 provided. 19

2 O ==D==. = ==P==e==rf==o==r==m==a==n==c==e ==s==ta==n==d==a==rd==s 21 1. Length of Occupancy. The period of time that an RV shall occupy the 22 park shall not exceed ninety (90) consecutive days. or ninety (90) 23 calendar days of a year. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

2. Wheels or similar devices shall not be removed from recreational vehicles. nor shall any fixture other than awnings. etc. that are an integral part of the vehicle be added which will prevent the recreational vehicle from being moved.

3 Site Management. a. A caretaker responsible for the maintenance of the park shall reside

on the premises of the park at all times when the park is occupied.

b. Management of the RV park shall ensure compliance with the noise standards of WAC173-60.

c. Lighting generated from RV or camping spaces shall not cast glare on abutting properties.

40 Rationale: Currently there are no standards for RV parks, making it difficult to 41 determine what level of internal and external landscaping, solid waste, min imum 42 area for the RV spaces, public health requirements , and recreational open space 43 to apply. Staff reviewed other counties' standards , and consulted with other 44 County departments and the DEAB to develop this proposal. 45


1 DEAB recommends that the 90 day stay be extended to 180 days to 2 accommodate those that winter in the south and stay in this area during the other 3 half of the year. 4 5 Written comments regarding these provisions were provided by Delta 6 Management. See attached comments and alternate provisions drafted by staff 7 that would reflect their comments . 8 9 The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (one abstained) to not approve the

IO proposed new standards through the biannual code process, but wished to revisit 11 them under a different process with more public involvement. See pages 52-64 12 of the PC Minutes. 13 14 41. 40.340.010.A.8-Al!ow exjstjnq grayel parking lots jn the rural area to 15 remajn jn yse ynder some cjrcymstances. and !jst other exjstjnq 16 exceptjons to payjnq. 17 18 8. Surfacing. All parking and loading spaces and related access drives, 19 maneuvering, and vehicle storage areas shall be paved to standards, 20 including the use of permeable pavements, as approved by the 21 responsible official except as follows: 22 a. Driveways leading to parking and maneuvering areas for unoccupied 23 utility and wireless communication facilities need not be paved, 24 except as required by Section 40.350.030(8)(7)(c) (this still requires 25 the first twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) feet of driveway to be paved so 26 gravel does not enter the paved road) ; 27 b. Three (3) or fewer parking spaces serving unoccupied utility and 28 wireless communication facilities need not be paved; 29 c. Transitional uses such as coffee and food stands approved under 30 Section 40.260.055; 31 d. Driveways used only for fire access purposes; 32 e. Parking areas for uses that receive access from unpaved roads; a00 33 f. Re-use of existing legally placed parking areas in the rural area of the 34 county provided that proposed new parking and required ADA parking 35 spaces and ADA accessways are paved; 36 g. Agricultural stands and markets as allowed under Section 37 40.260.025: 38 h. Rural kennels as allowed under Section 40.260.11 O: 39 i. Wineries as allowed under Section 20.260.245: and. 40 f:-1 Other uses as approved by the responsible official. 41 42 Rationale: This is being proposed as a means of reducing pavement 43 requirements for re-development projects where maintenance of gravel parking 44 lots may be acceptable. Subsections 8 g, h, and i have been added only to call 45 out other circumstances where the code already allows gravel parking lots. 46


1 The planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item without 2 significant discussion. 3 4 42. 40.350.030.B.4 - Redyce the reqyjred djstance from jntersectjons for 5 resjdentja! corner drjyeways. and allow shared drjyeways to exceed 6 jndjyjdya! wjdth reqyjrements: also. jn the Narrow Lot Standards. jnc!yde a 7 reference to this sectjon 8 9 40.350.030 (8)(4) Street and Road Standards I Access Management

10 11 4. Access Management. 12 a. Applicability. As noted in Section 40.350.030(A)(2) , this subsection also 13 applies to applications for building permits and applications for access to 14 public roads. 15 b. Access to Local Access Roads. 16 (1) Driveway Spacing. 17 (a) Excepting the bulbs of cul-de-sacs, driveways providing 18 access onto non-arterial and non-collector streets serving 19 single-family or duplex residential structures shall be located 20 a minimum of five (5) feet from the property lines furthest 21 from the intersection an interior side property line or zero (Q)

22 feet as a shared driveway approach. Where two (2) 23 driveways are permitted , a minimum separation of fifty (50) 24 feet shall be required between the driveways, measured 25 from near edge to near edge. 26 27 (b) Corner lot driveways shall be a minimum of fifty (50) ~ 28 (40) feet from the projected intersecting property lines curb 29 line or edge of pavement. as measured to the nearest edge 30 of the driveway, as long as the parked cars in the driveway 31 are outside of the sight distance triangle. Gf--ffi In the case of 32 medium and high density residential developments <R-12. R-33 18. R-22. R-30 and R-43). or when lots less than forty (40) 34 feet wide are allowed in Mixed Use, Density Transfer, and 35 Planned Unit Developments where this ffi may be 36 impractical, the driveway may be limited to twenty (20) feet 37 in width and located five (5) feet from the property line away 38 from the intersection or as a joint use twenty-five (25) foot 39 wide shared driveway at this property line.,.. and the 40 applicant's professional engineer may propose traffic control 41 devices. including stop signs. to preserve or manage sight 42 distance. The County Engineer. in reliance upon the 43 determination of the applicant's professional engineer that 44 the proposal for a stop sign meets the criteria above. may 45 authorize the installation of a stop sign(s). Where a 46 residential corner lot is located at the intersection of a non-


1 arterial or non-collector street with an arterial street, the 2 corner clearance requirements of Section 3 40.350.030(B)(4)(c)(2)(f) shall apply to the non-arterial or 4 non-collector street. 5 6 (c) Flag lots and joint driveways serving between two (2) Gf

7 three (3) and four (4) lots are exempt from the requirements 8 of this subsection . 9 (d) Nonresidential driveways are prohibited from taking access

IO from an urban access road as defined in Table 40.350.030-2 11 unless no access exists or can be provided to a collector. 12 13 Rationale: Current corner lot driveway code requires driveways to be 50 feet 14 away from the right of way line. The current proposal reduces this to 40 feet 15 away from the actual edge of pavement. This means that driveways can be 15 16 feet closer to an intersection than current code allows. To offset the reduction , 17 the proposed code adds the caveat that parked cars in the driveway can 't block 18 sight distance. 19 20 When the driveway does block sight distance, a new provision provides an option 21 to allow the use of stop signs at intersections to drastically reduce sight distance 22 requirements. The applicant's engineer would need to propose them , and the 23 County would be able, but not required to approve the stop signs. This stop sign 24 option would only apply in multifamily zones, where lots are typically smaller. 25 26 Another change is that a 25' wide shared driveways may be used on these 27 corner lots, and in combination with the abutting shared driveway, that they 28 exceed the standard width of 36 feet. 29 30 Last, the change to (c) is merely a consistency update that reflects a prior code 31 change which allows four lots to obtain access via a joint driveway, not just three 32 as the existing code infers. 33 34 The DEAS supports the text, but recommended that the stop sign option be 35 extended to all R1 -5 and R1-6 zoned developments, Mixed Use, PUDs and 36 possibly to density transfer developments, all of which can allow for lots less than 37 60 feet wide. 38 39 Staff has revised the proposed text to include Mixed Use, PUDs and Density 40 Transfer developments where those applicable codes allow residential lots less 41 than 40 feet wide, but respectfully suggests that they not be extended to "regular" 42 R1-5 and R1-6 zones, since minimum lot widths in R1-5 and R1-6 are 45 and 50 43 feet, respectively , and those developments have more flexibility to provide wider 44 (approximately 60 feet wide) corner lots that can meet the code without the use 45 of additional stop signs. 46


I The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve (one member abstained), with 2 the amendment to extend these provisions to R1-5, R1-6, PUD, and Mixed Use 3 developments as well as multifamily. See pages 64-70 of the PC minutes. 4 5 Also. update the Narrow Lot Standards as follows: 6 7 40.260.155.C 8 9 2. Corner Lots. The minimum lot dimensions in Tables 40.220.020-4 and

Io 40.220.020-5 shall not apply to corner lots. The minimum dimensions of 11 corner lots shall be determined by the follo1Ning: 12 13 a. Development on corner lots shall meet minimum sight distance 14 requirements of Section 40.350.030(8)(8). , unless the application 15 complies with the reduced sight distance standards for narrow corner 16 lots in the Standard Details Manual. 17 18 b. Corner lot driveways shall meet the minimum driveway intersection 19 spacing requirements for narrow lots in the Standard Details Manual. 20 the requirements in Section 40.350.030.B.4.b.(1 )(b). 21 22 Rationale: When the Narrow Lot standards were established in 2011 , it was 23 anticipated that certain traffic calming methods could be developed and included 24 in the Standard Details Manual that would address narrow corner lot situations 25 without the use of stop signs. This proved difficult, and those Standard Details 26 were never developed. The proposed corner lot driveway provisions in 27 40.350.030.B.4 b (1)(b) above will address the issues that the hoped-for 28 Standard Details were supposed to address. (This item was recently noticed , 29 and is intimately related to the changes in 40.350.030.B.4 b (1)(b) above; thus it 30 is included as part of item #42) 31 32 43. 40.350.030.B.4.e - Remove Coynty reqyjrements for road access onto 33 State Roytes 34 35 40.350.030(4)(B)(e) - Access to State Routes. If the access serving a 36 development is onto a state road or highway, required dedication and/or 37 improvements thereto must meet the requirements of the Washington 38 Department of Transportation. In no case may the requirements be less than the 39 access requirement to a principal arterial in urban areas or a major collector in 40 rural areas. 41 42 Rationale: This code section applies certain county access standards to state 43 routes that in some cases are greater than what the state requires. This 44 requirement puts county staff in an awkward position when WSDOT approves 45 the access under different standards and we have to require the applicant to go 46 through a separate process again with the county. An example is requiring a road


1 mod for driveway spacing or deficient sight distance for driveways onto state 2 routes. It's questionable whether the County has the authority to close or move a 3 driveway onto state route when WSDOT has already approved it or willing to 4 approve it as proposed. Legal staff has expressed concerns with this code 5 section. Please note that for the developments that abut city roads, the County 6 conditions the projects to meet their requirements. 7

8 The planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item without 9 significant discussion.

10 11 44. 40.350.030.8.5,c. Defer certajn frontage jmproyements jn Ryral 12 Centers yja a coyenant that regyjres payment of a fajr share for fyture road 13 jmproyements 14 15 c. Deferral. 16 (1) In the event that required frontage road improvements are 17 included as a portion of a county road project on the county's six 18 (6) year transportation improvement program scheduled to be 19 undertaken within six (6) years, the developer, in lieu of 20 constructing or guaranteeing the construction pursuant to 21 Section 40.350.030(C)(4)(i) of such frontage improvements, 22 may be permitted to contribute a proportionate share towards 23 the cost of such county road project by an agreement consistent 24 with the requirements of RCW 82.02.020. 25 26 (2) The development approval authority may defer frontage road 27 improvements, in whole or in part, where the current 28 development proposal is for lots in the R1-5, R1-6, R1-7.5, R1-29 10 or R1-20 zoning districts larger than one (1) acre and a 30 covenant running with the land is recorded requiring such 31 improvements to be undertaken when redivision is proposed at 32 an urban density. 33 34 (3) The development approval authority may defer frontage road 35 improvements. in whole or in part. where the development 36 proposal is located in a rural center. and a covenant running 37 with the land is recorded requiring the owner to contribute their 38 share to a laraer road or frontage improvement project when 39 undertaken by the County. For the purooses of this subsection. 40 "share" of the cost of deferred frontage improvements includes 41 the then-current cost of engineering and frontage 42 improvements required at preliminary development approval 43 divided by the number of lots. Deferrals of improvements under 44 this subsection may be denied when: 45


1 (a) Conditions are. or will be caused to be inadequate to 2 provide a minimum level of service as specified in Section 3 40.350.020: or. 4 5 (b) A significant traffic or safety hazard would be caused or 6 materially aggravated by the proposed development: or. 7 8 (cl The development must provide safe walking conditions per 9 RCW58.17.110.

10 11 12 Rationale: Frontage improvements are required by code in Rural Centers. 13 Sometimes, piecemeal improvements can be challenging to blend into existing 14 improvements. This proposal would allow applicants to defer improvements, 15 provided a covenant is recorded with the property such that when the county 16 undertakes a project in the area that landowners would committed to contributing 17 a "fair share" to the improvement. 18 19 The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the proposal. See pages 32-39 of 20 the PC Minutes. 21

22 45. 40.430.010.8.3.b - Require geohazard review for replacement or 23 expansion of structures that do not meet setbacks to geohazard areas

24 40.430.010 (Geologic Hazard Areas) Introduction

25 A. Purpose. 26 The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard public health, safety and welfare 27 by placing limitations on development in geologically hazardous areas 28 consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and WAC 29 365-190-080.

30 B. Applicability and Exemptions. 31 1. Applicability . This chapter applies to all construction , development, earth 32 movement, clearing , or other site disturbance which requires a permit, 33 approval or authorization from the county in or with in one hundred (100) 34 feet of a geologic hazard area except for exempt activities listed in 35 Section 40.430.010(8)(3) . Regulated geologic hazards include steep 36 slope hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, and 37 volcanic hazard areas. 38 2. Shoreline Master Program. With in shoreline jurisdiction, development 39 may be allowed for those uses in the Shoreline Master Program 40 (Chapter 40.460) either through a statement of exemption or through an 41 application with a geohazard review as part of the shoreline permit 42 process.

43 2017 biannual code amendments 12/12/1 7 hearing Attachment "A"

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

3. Exempt Activities and Uses. The following activities and uses are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

a. Emergency activities which require immediate action to prevent an imminent threat to health, safety or property. As soon as practical , the responsible party shall provide written notification to the responsible official and obtain all applicable permits;

b. The expansion , remodel , reconstruction or replacement of any structures which will be set back from the geologic hazard area a distance which is greater than or equal to the setback of the original structure and which will not increase the building footprint by more than one thousand (1 ,000) square feet inside a steep slope hazard area, landslide hazard area or their buffers; Residential remodels that do not alter the footprint or increase the gross floor area of the structure.

Rationale: The existing code allows substantial improvements and even replacement of existing structures within potentially hazardous geologic areas without an evaluation of the safety of the site. The fact that a structure in a potential gee-hazard area has existed for years without incident is no guarantee that a site is safe over the long term.

For those situations where a platted lot has already undergone geohazard review, the county should still have a record of the geohazard review. Depending on whether or not the previous review is still relevant to the proposed project, additional geohazard review may or may not be requ ired .

The planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item. See pages 39-41 of the PC minutes. Regarding the PC's question as to what constitutes a remodel versus a replacement or rebuild : Replacement of more than 60% of the floor area of structure constitutes a rebuild .

46. Sections 1.6 and 5.5.1 of the Highway 99 oyerlay standards - Reqyjre that resjdentjal deyelopments meet parkjng regyjrements jn the Highway 99 Overlay

(note: changes to two sections of the Highway 99 Overlay standards are needed for this item)

1.6 Incentives The economic development strategy for both the county and within the Highway 99 Sub-area Plan are designed to support businesses by promoting private sector investment and compact forms of development in urban areas. While there are obvious limits to the types of economic activities the county may undertake, it is strategiacally investing public funds to promote desired development and help businesses. Below are a number of incentive features built into to this code: ********


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

• Developments Non-residential developments are exempt from complying with CCC40.340.010.B parking and loading standards.

********

5.5 Parking Standards INTENT

• To provide flexibility in how development accommodate parking . • To physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses.

To reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment.

5.5.1 Parking (1) Developments Non-residential developments are exempt from complying with CCC 40.340.010.81 =The following are encouraged and may qualify for limited fee reductions:

******

Rationale: Currently all developments in the Highway 99 overlay are exempt from complying with the required minimum number of parking spaces found in 40.340.010.B. Team 99 members have requested the change for residential developments to reduce overflow parking impacts to adjacent neighborhoods.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item without significant discussion.

47. Table 2.3 and Section 4.3 of the Highway 99 overlay standards -Increase hejght ljmjts from 2 to 4 storjes jn Transjtjonal Areas. and from 3 to 4 storjes jn the Actjyjty Centers of Minnehaha Gateway and parks Commons

Table 2-3. Activity Center Overlay height limits.

Map Activity Center Planning Areas Maximum Height 1 Index Overlays

Commercial and Mixed-Use Areas

Activity Center 6 Klineline 6 Commons, stories

99 Commons, Totem Town Center

Activity Center 4 Tenny Creek 4 Commons, Totem stories; Town Center 6 stories are permitted for

2 vertical mixed-use


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

j! 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Activity Center 3 Parks Commons, ~~

Minnehaha Gateway stories Village

1 See Section 4.0.6 and Chapter 10 ("Height, building" definition) for details on how maximum building height is measured.

2 See the definition for vertical mixed-use in Chapter 10 for details.

(note; the two definitions below are provided for reference to footnotes 1 and 2 above-no code changes are proposed to these definitions)

Height, building: The maximum building height is rreasured by the number of staies (as defined here in) above grade . The first step in determ ining the maximum build ing height on a particular site is to determine the ground floor/first story. To qualify as the ground floor/first story, the floor shall be no more than 6 feet above or below grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter (or the story closest to meeting this requirement if no single story does) . Exception for sloping sites: While the definition herein may allow portions of the building to exceed height limits along a street, building facades are limited to no more than one story above· the applicable maximum height limit. Upper level building stepbacks of at least 10 feet or more are not considered part of the facade for the purposes of this definition.

Vertical mixed-use: Refers to a building that features any combination of reta il, office , and/or residential mixed vertically within a building. For example, a vertical mixed-use building could use retail or office on the ground floor and residential above. Alternatively, it could include retail on the ground floor with office above or office on the ground floor with residential above. To qualify as vertical nixed-use, the retail or office on the ground floor must occupy floor area along at least 50 percent of the facade at a depth of at least 30 feet.

******** 4.3 Transitional Overlay

Building Height

Transitional Area = ~ ~ stories max.; 3 stories max. for permitted residential uses

Rationale: Recent development proposals have questioned the height limits for Transitional Areas and Activity Centers in the Highway 99 Overlays. In some areas, Multifamily Overlays which allow four stories abut Transitional Areas that


l only allow three stories. Community Planning staff has consulted with Team 99 2 members and recommend the increases to four, but not six stories. 3

4 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve with the amendment that the 5 height limits be increased to 6 stories in these areas. See pages 43-48 of the PC 6 Minutes. 7 8 48. Section 7.2.1 of the Highway 99 overlay standards- Remove 9 requirement for structured parking for Low-Rise Apartments

10 11 7.2.1 Low-Rise Apartment Description 12 Low-rise apartments refer to three to four story buildings served by elevators a.00 13 structured parking (within or under the building). These buildings could be single-14 purpose residential or mixed-use buildings with retail and/ or office on one or 15 more floors. 16 See Chapters 2, 3, and 4 for use provisions, permitted frontages, and overlay 17 district standards. 18 19 Rationale: The Board requested this item. 20 21 The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this item. See pages 22 46-48 of the PC Minutes. 23 24 49. 40.210.020.C.2 - Allow re-division of remainder lots approved under 25 prjor Ag or Forest clyster proyjsjons 26 27 40.210.020.C.2 28 2. Previous Land Divisions. Until the affected property is included within an 29 urban growth boundary, no remainder lot of a previously approved 30 cluster land division or lot reconfiguration sRa# may be: 31 a. Further subdivided or reduced in size below seventy percent (70%) of 32 the total developable area of the original parent parcel constituting the 33 cluster subdivision; or 34 b. Reduced by a total of more than one (1) acre. 35 c. Applications for reduction in remainder lot size consistent with this 36 provision shall be processed as a plat alteration pursuant to Section 37 40.540.120. 38 d. An exception Exceptions to Sections 40.210.020(C)(2)(a) and (b) 39 may be allowed as follows: 40 (1) A remainder lot with an existing residence may be short platted 41 further to contain the residence on its own cluster lot, subject to 42 the following : 43 (a) Process. Creation of the new cluster lot is subject to the 44 requirements of Section 40.540.030;


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

(b) Lot Size. The new cluster lot shall not be greater than one (1) acre in size, unless a greater size is required by Clark County Public Health;

(c) The new cluster lot must meet the requirements of Section 40.210.020(D)(3)(b) and the lot dimension and setback requirements of Tables 40.210.020-4 and 40.210.020-5;

(d) The reduced remainder shall not be further divided and shall be subject to the requirements in Sections 40.210.020(D)(3)(c)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) .

(2) A Remainder lot created through a cluster subdivision or cluster short plat authorized under Section 18.301 .090. Agricultural District or Section 18.302.090 Forest District. may be further divided if each of the following requirements is satisfied: (a) The property has been upzoned from Agricultural or Forest.

twenty acre minimum lot size to a more intensive zone: (bl There exists no plat note restricting redivision before the

property is brought into the urban growth area: (cl There is compliance with the plat alteration provisions (RCW

58.17.215) related to the plat/short plat creating the remainder. if applicable: and

(d) The division of the remainder lot meets the requirement of Chapter 58.17 RCW.

Rationale: There are approximately 26 older Resource cluster land divisions that have been re-zoned to Rural. Many of these Resource cluster plats contain a provision that the remainder lot can 't be re-divided until the zoning changes, but current provisions in the Rural zoning districts currently prohibit a remainder from any cluster land division from being re-divided until the site is brought into the UGA.

The proposed amendment would allow further division of these remainder lots whose zoning has changed from Resource to Rural. Note that other notes on the original plat could have a bearing on whether further division is possible, and if so, they would need to be changed with a plat alteration. Further, while the County would not enforce private CC&R's, applicants will need to investigate whether any private CC&Rs exist that prohibit further division of the remainder; such CC&Rs could give rise to civil claims.

The Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to deny this proposed change , citing overall density concerns. See pages 48-52 of the PC Minutes.


1 50. 40.540.070.C - Transfer fjnal plat approval from the Board of County 2 Coyncjlors to the Coyntv Manager 3 4 40.540.070 Final Plat 5 iA. A. Application Form. 7 8 An application form shall be provided by the department, and shall contain the 9 following information:

1 O 1. Plat name;

11 2. Name, mailing address and telephone number of owner and/or 12 developer, and surveyor of the plat;

13 3. Location;

14 4. Date;

15 5. Acreage;

16 6. Number of lots;

17 7. Zoning designation; and

18 8. Comprehensive plan designation.

19 B. Submittal Requirements.

20 All of the materials listed below must be submitted for a fully complete 21 application , unless otherwise authorized by the responsible official:

22 1. Completed application form ;

23 2. Application fee pursuant to Title 6;

24 3. Proposed final plat:

25 a. Proposed Final Plat - Map Data. The final plat shall be prepared in 26 compliance with the drafting standards in Section 40.540.060 and 27 shall include the following:

28

29

30 31 32

(1) Subdivision name;

(2) Legend;

(3) Location , including one-quarter (1/4) section , section , township, range, and, as applicable, donation land claim and/or subdivision;


2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22

(4) Boundary survey;

(5) Lot, block and street right-of-way and centerline dimensions;

(6) Street names;

(7) Scale, including graphic scale, north arrow and basis of bearings;

(8) Identification of areas to be dedicated;

(9) Surveyor's certificate, stamp, date and signature;

(10) Signature blocks for the following :

(a) County Engineer;

(b) County Auditor;

(c) Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners;

(d) County Assessor;

(e) Clark County Health Department (if septic or well systems are proposed) ; and

(f) The responsible official ;

( 11) Special setbacks (if any) ;

(12) Private easements (if any);

(13) Utility easements;

(14) Walkways (if any); and

( 15) Parcel areas of lots expressed in square footage for developments in the urban area and acreage for developments in the rural area.

23 b. Mathematical closures.

24 c. Proposed Final Plat - Copies.

25 26

27 28

(1) The number of copies ("bluelines") of the proposed final plat established by the responsible official , and

(2) One (1) reduced copy of the proposed final plat at a scale of one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet (1" = 200').


4. Final habitat permit and mitigation plan, if applicable.

2 5. Construction plan approval letter, sight distance compliance letter or 3 county approved approach permit.

4 a. Where improvements are required , construction plan approval letters 5 for the design of required improvements pursuant to 6 Section 40.540.080 shall be submitted.

7 b. For developments that do not require the submittal of construction 8 plans, a Sight Distance Compliance Letter and/or a copy of the 9 associated county approved approach permit shall be submitted. The

1 O compliance letter, verifying compliance with Chapter 40.350, shall be 11 stamped, signed and dated by a Professional Civil Engineer 12 registered in the state of Washington.

13 6. Written acceptance of the final public and private improvements or 14 performance guarantee pursuant to Section 40.540.080, if appl icable.

15 7. Legal Documentation. The following signed and notarized original 16 documents shall be provided:

17 a. Certification for platting from a title company;

18 b. Dedication of Plat. A plat certificate shall be provided, including 19 dedications, if any (RCW 58.17.165). The intention to dedicate shall 20 be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat 21 or short plat showing the dedication thereon; and, the acceptance by 22 the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing ;

23 c. A treasurer's certificate;

24 d. Legal description of the boundary which has been certified by the land 25 surveyor shall be provided, with seal and signature as being an 26 accurate description of the lands actually surveyed;

27 e. Conditions, covenants and restrictions, notes, and/or binding 28 agreements as required by this code, SEPA, conditions of preliminary 29 plat approval or other law, including but not limited to the following:

30

31

32

(1) Private road maintenance agreement, if applicable;

(2) Recorded conservation covenant, if applicable; and

(3) Latecomer's agreement, if applicable;

33 f. Utility letter(s) from the respective water and sewer service providers 34 verifying the services have been installed, inspected and approved;

5 1 2017 biannual code amendments 12/12/17 hearing Attachment "A"

1 g. Other legal documents required pursuant to the preliminary plat 2 decision;

3 h. Copy of recorded public and private off-site easements and right-of-4 way dedications for required improvements; and

5 i. Developer Covenants to Clark County.

6 8. Supporting Documentation. Additional fees and documentation may be 7 required, including the following:

8 a. Receipt showing payment of concurrency modeling fees;

9 b. Verification that fees have been paid for stormwater and roadway 1 O improvements, if applicable.

11 c. Copy of recorded public and private off-site easements and right-of-12 way dedications for required improvements;

13 d. Verification of the installation of required landscape. Prior to recording 14 the final plat, the applicant shall provide verification in accordance 15 with Section 40.320.030(8) that the required landscape has been 16 installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan(s); and

17 e. Other supporting documents required pursuant to the preliminary plat 18 decision.

19 9. Mylar and Digital File. Upon compliance of the final plat and the 20 construction plans with all preliminary plat conditions and with all 21 applicable, adopted statutes and local ordinances, the responsible 22 official shall request submittal of the final plat Mylar(s) for signature and 23 submittal of a digital file for layers specified in Section 40.540.060 that 24 conforms to all applicable requirements discussed in 25 Section 40.540.060. If the applicant chooses, the county will prepare the 26 digital file based upon the submitted Mylar. The applicant shall provide 27 payment for the preparation of the digital file in accordance with Section 28 6.110A.020(2)(8)(111). Additionally , the responsible official shall forward 29 the digital file to the Department of Assessment and GIS.

30 C. Final Plat Procedure.

31 1. Final plat applications are subject to a Type I review pursuant to 32 Section 40.510.010.

33 2. An applicant requesting final approval of a plat shall submit to the 34 responsible official copies of the materials specified in 35 Section 40.540.070(8) .


1 3. The responsible official shall review each submittal package for counter-2 completeness before initiating processing. Incomplete submittals will be 3 returned to the applicant. An application shall not be deemed fully 4 complete until all legal requirements and conditions of approval that are 5 required to be fulfilled before final plat have been met.

6 4. The department shall coordinate the final subdivision review among the 7 appropriate county departments. The applicant shall be responsible for 8 coordination with other agencies.

9 5. Upon consideration of the approval criteria below, the responsible official 1 O shall sign and forward the final plat to the OOaffi County Manager as 11 provided by RCW58.17.150 RCW58.17.100.

12 a. The plat is in proper form for record ing as established by the submittal 13 requirements;

14 b. The final plat map and mathematical closures are in compliance with 15 the survey standards set forth in Section 40.540.100;

16 c. All required improvements have been completed or the arrangements 17 or contracts have been entered into to guarantee that such required 18 improvements will be completed ;

19 d. The final plat is in conformance with conditions of preliminary plat 20 approval. Final plats for commercial and industrial properties shall be 21 in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat if lot sizes are 22 within the range of lot sizes proposed for the preliminary plat;

23 e. The final plat complies with the requirements of this chapter and all 24 applicable, adopted statutes and local ordinances.

25 6. The board, County Manager. upon consideration of the final subdivision 26 at a public meeting, shall sign the final plat accepting such dedications 27 and easements as may be included thereon. Written notice of the 28 board 's County Manager's decision shall be provided to the applicant 29 and the applicant's representative. 30 7. Recording . Upon approval of the final plat by the OOaffi County 31 Manager, and after all other statutory requirements have been met, the 32 plat shall be recorded by the County Auditor pursuant to Section 33 40.540.110. In addition, if copies of conservation covenants pursuant to 34 Section 40.540.070(B)(7)(e) and public and private off-site easements 35 and right-of-way dedications for required improvements pursuant to 36 40.540.070(B)(7)(h) have not previously been recorded , they shall be 37 recorded concurrently with the plat. 38 39 Rationale: This is a proposed code amendment to give the County Manager the 40 authority to approve final plats. Currently the Board of County Councilors is


1 delegated this authority, which has been consistent with state RCWs; however, 2 the RCW was amended last July to allow administrative approval.

3 Under the current process, staff reviews proposed final plats to make sure 4 conditions of approval are met, and that the plat meets technical requirements. 5 Then staff forwards the plat, along with a staff report, to the board for final approval 6 on the consent agenda. Getting the plat on the Board's consent agenda usually 7 takes approximately two weeks.

8 Having the County Manager sign instead of the Board should streamline the 9 process significantly.

1 o The Planning Commission voted to approve this item at their November 16 11 hearing. PC minutes are not available at this time.


Alternate proyjsjons that reflect Delta Management recommendations

Yellow highlights indicate Delta Management's recommended changes to staff's version in Attachment "A"

40. Add RV park standards jn the Specjal Uses standards

40.260.172 Recreational Vehicle Parks

A. Purpose. Recreational vehicle (RV) parks are intended to provide for the accommodation of visitors who travel by recreational vehicle and reside in that vehicle for a period not to exceed ninety (90) one hundred eighty (180) days.

B. Permitted Uses. Recreational vehicle (to include motor homes and recreational trailers) and caretaker's units. Storage of RVs on site are prohibited unless such use is allowed by the zoning district.

C. Development Standards.

1. Minimum size of an RV park is ti.vo @) five (5) acres.

2. Landscaping.

a. Perimeter landscaping and buffers shall be those as required by Table 40.320.010-1 except that those portions of the perimeter of the site that abut residential land uses, regardless of zoning , shall be landscaped to an L-4 standard.

b. Interior landscaping shall be provided at the rate of one tree per every two RV spaces. Deciduous trees used for interior landscaping shall be fully branched. have a minimum caliper of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. and a minimum height of eight (8) feet at the time of planting. Evergreen trees used for interior landscaping shall be fully branched and a minimum of six (6) feet high at the time of planting. Location of trees can be grouped, but each RV space shall be no further than 50 feet from a tree. Trees shall be protected from damage by a curb stop or other approved method, and shall be maintained in accordance with Section 40.320.01 O.G.6.

3. Interior accessways and circulation .

a. Access drives shall be paved to a width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet, and provided with sidewalks meeting ADA requirements on each side.

b. One-way road systems may reduce the access drive width to not less than twenty (20) feet.

Delta Management recommended changes

c. Minimum turning radii of access drives shall accommodate emergency vehicle access.

d. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided per Chapter 15.

e. Parked vehicles shall not encroach into the required access drive width.

4. Recreational amenities. A minimum of 400 ten (1 Q) square feet of recreational space such as, but not limited to, pool areas, sports/play fields and game courts, shall be provided for each RV space, but in no case shall be less than 1.500 square feet. Areas shall be consolidated into usable areas 'Nith dimensions of not less than 80 feet. Interior recreational areas that provide amenities such as arcade or game tables may be counted as 150% of the required square footage, and are not subject to the minimum 80 foot dimensional requirement.

5. Individual RV spaces. Individual spaces shall be designed to:

a. Accommodate an RV and one standard vehicle parking space.

b. Provide sufficient width such that the minimum recreational vehicle separation between spaces (including slide outs) shall be at least 1 O feet~ separation between passenger vehicles and recreational vehicles shall be a minimum of 5 feet.

c. All unpaved areas shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 40.320.010;

6. Utilities

a. All RV spaces shall be provided with electrical, potable water and sewer connections. All utilities shall be provided underground and shall be subject to purveyor's requirements.

b. Drinking water connections shall require a minimum six (6) inch riser. Confirmation of the approved water system must be obtained from the public water purveyor or Public Health, and have backflow protection in conformance with state and purveyor requirements.

c. Confirmation of connection to an approved public sewer system or on-site sewage system must be obtained from the public sewer provider or Public Health.

7. Sanitary Facilities: a. One (1) toilet, lavatory and shower for each sex for every twenty five @§)

fifty (50) recreational vehicle spaces or fraction thereof shall be provided within an enclosed building.

2 Delta Management recommended changes

b. Toilet, lavatory and shower facilities shall be located not more than .fGHf hundred (400) five hundred (500) feet from any recreational vehicle space.

c. Laundry Facilities. One (1) washing machine and dryer shall be provided for every fifty (50) recreational vehicle spaces or fraction thereof.

d. A minimum of one sanitation station per each 100 RV spaces or fraction thereof shall be provided. Sanitation stations shall be located within the park in such a manner so as not to be obnoxious to the tenants of the park or and shall be set back at least 50 feet from all property lines and at least one hundred (100) feet from property lines that abut residential development.

8. Solid waste. Solid waste. Solid waste collection areas shall be provided at the rate of at least one hundred (100) square feet for every thirty (30) spaces. Such areas shall be equally distributed throughout the site and meet the design requirements of Section 40.360.030.

9. Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided for vehicles as follows:

a. Each individual RV space shall provide one (1) standard vehicle parking space in addition to the RV space itself. Such spaces shall not encroach into the required minimum access drive width .

b. One (1) visitor parking space shall be provided for every ten (10) recreational vehicle spaces or fraction thereof in addition to parking spaces needed for office or caretaker's units.

c. In addition to standard vehicle parking spaces for office uses and any caretaker's unit required by Section 40.340.010, parking areas for RVs shall be provided near office or check-in structures, and shall not obstruct traffic circulation or emergency vehicle access.

10. All storage of supplies, maintenance, materials and equipment shall be provided within a storage area. Such storage areas shall be screened from adjoining properties by a minimum L3 landscape buffer.

11 . Lighting shall be hooded and positioned away from abutting properties. Light standards shall be a maximum of eighteen (18) feet in height.

12. Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. Office parking , individual RV spaces, and other site facilities such as restrooms and recreational areas shall be reviewed for compliance with current ADA guidelines.

13. A caretaker's residence which meets applicable building codes shall be provided.


D. Performance standards 1. Length of Occupancy. The period of time that an RV shall occupy the park

shall not exceed ninety (90) consecutive days, or ninety (90) (180) consecutive days. or one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of a year.

2. Wheels or similar devices shall not be removed from recreational vehicles, nor shall any fixture other than awnings, etc. that are an integral part of the vehicle be added which will prevent the recreational vehicle from being moved.

3 Site Management. a. A caretaker responsible for the maintenance of the park shall reside on

the premises of the park at all times when the park is occupied. 8 maintenance manager that is able to respond to emergencies shall be available at all hours.

b. Management of the RV park shall ensure compliance with the noise standards of WAC173-60.

c. Lighting generated from RV or camping spaces shall not cast glare on abutting properties.


Flag Lot I

I

I

Flagpole

Flaglots

front setback

line across top of flagpole is front lot line

Lot 2 I

... I

I; ·-1 I ------- ~·

I n-1 ~ 1

Lot 3 I

l I ~ I ' ""''''' Lot4

Street

Lot I is a flaglot whose flagpole is part of the lot.

I• so' >I I• 100' >I

Lot Deoth

J:: ....., Lot 6 a

0 Q)

a 0 ....., ..... 0 _J

I I

Lot 5 I I

Lots 2, 3 and 4 are also flaglots because they obtain access via a narrow strip of easement that is part of Lots 3 and 4.

The area within the driveway easement is included in the lot area calculations for Lots 3 and 4.

Lots 5 and 6 illustrate that the flag can be parallel, or perpendicular, to the easement or flagpole.

0 l.f'\

5'

ROW

CURB

CORNER LOT SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE

~ 0 Q::

NEAREST EDGE OF DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED CODE

CURRENT CODE

\

I

co Q:: ~ (_)

-1

I <£

I

I <£

I

4'

80' \

~--

I~ I

I

NOT TO SCALE

Planning Commission Hearing Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page 22

MORASCH: No, we're going to decide it --

JOHNSON: -- or 18, we're not going to deal with those today at all?

MORASCH: That would all be decided at the November hearing.

LEBOWSKY: Real quick. There are 47 CPU properties.

MORASCH: 47, not 46.

LEBOWSKY: Right. Correct.

MORASCH: All right. The 47. So we wou ld be deciding them all in the November hearing. Now, that's not to say we couldn't have further deliberation on those other parcels if there's something you wanted to deliberate about. But I don't think we want to make a decision in a piecemeal fashion on some parcels tonight and some parcels on November, so we would have to reopen the whole thing for public testimony and then make a decision in November. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Dick?

BENDER: I second the motion.

MORASCH: Oh, it's already been seconded.

BENDER: Oh, sorry.

JOHNSON: I asked for clarification .

MORASCH: Any other discussion on the motion? All right. Then I will take a roll call on the motion, Sonja.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON : AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: AYE

MORASCH: All right. So the motion passes unanimously. We will see everyone that wants to show up for this exciting item again at our next meeting on November 16.

So with that, we will move on to the second public hearing item, the biannual code


amendments. Jan, are you --

JOHNSON: Are we going to be able to just -- never mind.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, continued

Bl-ANNUAL CODE CHANGE ITEMS - FALL 2017

No. Title/Chapter /Section Description

Scrivener's Errors

1 40.210.010.C.4 Fix incorrect reference to the Lot Reconfiguration

standards in the Resource zoning section

2 Table 40.210.030-3 Correct side setback footnote

-- --- - -- -- --- -

3 40.220.020.C Fix duplicate numbering in 40.220.020.C.5

-

4 40.240.050{A)(4)(g)(2)(i) Correet-mis-spelling of "Sight distance" ~k - -- - r - -- - -- - - -

-- -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - --- - --

5 40.260.157.E.2.a Correct the reference to the type of park amenities that

can be added to a park that do not require additional site

plan review

6 40.410.040 Correct the reference to a deleted CARA subsection ,

7 Table 4-0:-S-10:050""1, line Correct misspelling of "Sight distance"

9.c.(2)(j)

8 40.530.010.D.3 Correct the reference to the Urban Holding overlay in the

non-conforming uses section

Reference Updates

23 40.260.250.G.2.b.2.h.iii Update the reference to a Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife Priority Species Area and correct

formatting in the County's wireless code. Cr


24 Table 40.310.010-3

25 40.500.010.B.4

26 40.570.090.E

"""' ,,-, ' . ..:.-: ""''"' 't-

27 40.100.070

28 40.100.070

29 40.100.070

30 40.100.070

31 40.230.085.D.3

32 40.250.110.C.2,Urban

-

Holding Overlay (UH-10,

UH-20}

33 40.260.175.C and

40.350.030.C.4.j

Remove Mixed Use sign standards in 40.310 to eliminate

conflicts between 40.310 and the sign standards in the

Mixed Use Design Guidelines

Remove an extinct reference to timeline extensions

Update references to SEPA WAC exemptions

Clarifications ~ ,

Amend the definition of "Access" to state that all

residential lots must have at least 20 feet of access

Remove the unnecessary and inaccurate definition of

"Building Setback Line"

Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to include "Average

Minimum Lot Depth"

Create a separate definition for "Urban Holding Lot Area" and amend the Rural and Urban Lot Area definitions Clarify fence standards in the Business Park zone

Correct and clarify the purposes of Lot Reconfigurations

in the Urban Holding Overlay

Relocate the allowance to issue building permits prior to

the completion of all public improvements from the

transportation standards to the special uses section.

34 Sections 4.3 and 4.3 of the Clarify that Conditional uses are Permitted uses in the

Highway 99 Overlay Highway 99 overlay only if allowed by the "regular"

standards zoning of the site.

Minor Policy Changes .

37 14.06.105.2 Remove the current building permit exemption for floating homes

38 40.100.070 Amend the definition of "Lot Depth" to allow more

flexibility in the design of flag lots


39 Table 40.210.050-1

40 Chapter 40.260

41 40.340.010.A.8

42 40.350.030. B.4

43 40.350.030(4 )(B)( e)

44 40.350.030.B.5.c.

45 40.430.010.B.3.b

46 Section 5.5.1 of the

Highway 99 overlay

standards

47 Table 2.3 and Section 4.3

of the Highway 99 overlay

standards -

48 Section 7.2.1 of the

Highway 99 overlay

standards

49 40.210.020.C.2

r• Allow contractor's storage offices, storage buildings, and •

yards in the CR-1 and CR-2 zones

Add Special Use standards for RV parks

Allow existing gravel parking lots in the Rural area to

remain in use under some circumstances

Reduce the required distance from intersections for

residential corner driveways, and allow shared driveways

to exceed individual width requirements

Remove County requirements for road access onto State

Routes

Defer certain frontage improvements in Rural Centers via

a non-remonstrance agreement

Require geohazard review for replacement or expansion

of structures that do not meet setbacks to geohazard

Gt areas

Require that residential developments meet parking

requirements in the Highway 99 Overlay

Increase height limits from 2 to 4 stories in Transitional

Areas, and from 3 to 4 stories in the Activity Centers of

Minnehaha Gateway and Parks Commons

Remove requirement for structured parking for Low-Rise

Apartments

Allow re-division of remainder lots approved under prior

Ag or Forest cluster provisions


MORASCH: I'm waiting for Jan. All right. Jan, staff report on the biannual code amendments.

BAZALA: All right. Good evening.

MORASCH: And I think we'll probably try to take these in groups at le~st until we get down into some of the more complicated ones.

BAZALA: Okay. All right. Good to know. All right. Good evening, Jan Bazala with Community Development. We're here to review the list of all biannual code amendments.

The code amendment process is aimed at fixing errors and ambiguities in the code as well as providing for some minor policy type changes. They're called biannual code changes because sometimes we do them twice a year, lately we don't get to them sometimes even once_ a year. Many of the items ·come from staff, some have come from the development community working in concert with staff. Some have come from Team 99, the citizen group that was involved in the Highway 99 overlay standards, and some have been requested by the Board.

We have 32 total items tonight; 8 Scriveners, 4 Reference Updates, 8 Clarifications and 12 Minor Policy items. Copies of the amendment were sent to SEPA agencies. Public notice of the hearing was provided and the Development and Engineering Advisory Board reviewed the amendments and staff worked with the DEAB with a couple of these items. The DEAB endorses the proposed items; although, they do have a couple of requested changes. One to the RV park standards, which is Item No. 40, and the corner lot driveway standards which is Item 42, and I'll discuss those when I get to those sections. Representative from the DEAB is here tonight, so if you have specific questions or want testimony from them, they should be available to testify.

We got a separate public comment today regarding the RV park standards, you should have a copy of that comment up on your desk at this point. Also tonight, you should have a copy of the revisions to the corner lot driveway standards, which is Item No. 42, so I'll discuss that item later on.

So we talked about these items at the October 5th work session, and I can basically start with the scrivener's items, if you want. These are items 1 through 8 and basically they're typos, essentially. If you want to discuss any of those, I can go into further detail.

MORASCH: Does anyone have any questions or discussion on the Scrivener's Errors? I'm thinking I'll take these in groups starting with the Scrivener's Errors. Okay. So I think, unless you have anything to add on the Scrivener's Errors, I'd like to open up the public hearing just for the Scrivener's Errors and then we'll close that public hearing and we'll make a decision on the Scrivener's Errors. And then we'll do the same thing for Reference Updates and Clarifications, and then when we get to Minor Policy Changes, we'll take them individually if that sounds all


right with you, Jan.

So I will open the public testimony for Scrivener's Errors, that's Items 1 through 8, and I've got a sign-in sheet, there's three people on it. Do any of you who have signed in want to talk about Scrivener's Errors? Anyone else in the audience want to talk about Scrivener's Errors? All right. Then I will close the public hearing on Scrivener's Errors and turn it back over to the Planning Commission for either deliberation or a motion on Items 1 through 8.

JOHNSON: I make a MOTION we accept the Scrivener's Errors Nos. 1 through 8.

SWINDELL: I'll second it.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Scrivener's Errors Items 1 through 8. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON: AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: AYE

MORASCH: All right. The Scrivener's Errors have passed. Moving on to Reference Updates.

BAZALA: Okay. These are Items No. 23, 24, 25 and 26. Basically they're updates to changes in various agencies and changes that the codes have made.

MORASCH: Any questions for staff on the Reference Updates? All right. With that, I will open the public hearing on the Reference Updates. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on the Reference Updates? No one. All right. I will close the public hearing on the Reference Updates and turn it over to Planning Commission for deliberation and/or a motion.

GRIMWADE: I'd make a MOTION that the updates be accepted.

JOHNSON : Second.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded that Items 23, 24, 25 and 26 to the Reference Updates be accepted .


HOLLEY: Who seconded?

JOHNSON: I did.

MORASCH: Seconded by Karl. Any discussion on the motion? All right. No discussion on the motion. Can we have roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIM.WADE: AYE JOHNSON: AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: AYE

MORASCH: All right. The Reference Updates 23 through 26 have passed, which moves us on to Clarifications.

BAZALA: Okay. Clarifications are Nos. 27 through 34. These are intended to clarify current code that may not be specifically clear. I might note that No. 31 could have a little more meat to it regarding fence standards in the business park zone. So if you've looked at that and are good with that, that's fine; and if you want to discuss that one, I am happy to do that.

MORASCH: All right. Does anyone have any questions about the Clarifications for staff before we open the public hearing? All right. With that, I will open the public hearing, and I know there is a DEAB member in the audience. If you have any questions about Clarifications or want to comment on the business park fence standards, now is the time. Anyone else in the audience want to discuss any of these Clarifications or the business park fence standards, now is the time to come down or forever hold your peace? All right. No one wants to talk on this. So we will close the public hearing, turn it back to the Planning Commission for any further questions of staff, deliberation or a motion.

JOHNSON: I make a MOTION we accept the Clarifications 27 through 33 as written .


WRIGHT: Through 34.

JOHNSON : Excuse me. 34. One more. Sorry.

MORASCH: All right. It has been moved and seconded to accept the Clarifications 27 through 34. Is there any discussion on the motion? No? Okay. Roll call, please.


ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. We are moved on to No. 37, the first of our Minor Policy Changes, and I think we'll go ahead and take these individually.

BAZALA: All right. And I believe this should be No. 38 according to the attachment. I'm not sure if the --

MORASCH: The agenda says, 37, remove the current building permit exemption for floating homes.

BAZALA: Oh, yes. That one is not for your consideration. I'm not sure why you have that, if that's a previous version. Everybody else on -- anyway, No. 37 is a building code issue.

MORASCH: But before we move on to 38, I guess I'll just ask, is there anyone in the audience who wants to testify about this No. 37 since it is on our printed agenda? No one wants to testify. All right. You're free to move on.

BAZALA: All right. No. 38, and there are some gaps in the numbering due to the master list that's going to the Board, just so if there's any question. So No. 38 is to amend the definition of lot depth to allow more flexibility in the design of flag lots.

The definition of flag lot and front lot line and lot depth technically results to flag lots that are supposed to have the long dimension of the main body of the lot that's parallel with the driveway pole or driveway easement, and sometimes it results in unnecessary manipulations of easements so we can get it to meet the code. It's, you know, not -- it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So we're proposing that the change that would allow the main body of the flag lot to be oriented either parallel to or at 90 degrees or some other angle to the flag pole or the lot easement. It makes perfect sense in staff opinion.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions for staff on the flag lots? All right. With that, I'll open it up to the public. Does anyone in the public want to talk about Item No. 38, the definition of flag lots? All right. Well, no one does. I will close the public hearing and turn it back over to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.


WRIGHT: I MOVE we accept change No. 38 regarding the definition of lot depth.

BENDER: Second.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. No. 38 passes. No. 39.

BAZALA: 39 is a proposal to allow contractor storage offices, storage buildings and yards in the CR-1 and CR-2 zones. Contractor's warehouses and storage yards are not permitted in either urban or currently the rural commercial zones. Staff gets a lot of requests for this type of use in rural centers and, you know, essentially a lot of rural centers don't have the real urban feel that the other commercial districts do, so the Board has been receptive to this idea. And oftentimes contractors are located in the rural area and for them to have to drive into an industrial zone or someplace in a city might not be the most efficient use, so that's the proposal. Outside storage areas are required to screen to an F2 standard which basically requires a six-foot high fence, so screening would be provided for these types of uses.

MORASCH: All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff on Item 39? All right. With that, I'll open it up to the public testimony. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to Item 39? No one? So I will close the public hearing and turn it back to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

BENDER: I make the MOTION that we accept change 39 . .

GRIMWADE: Second it.

MORASCH: Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Roll call, please, Sonja.


ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. 39 passes. We're going to skip, well, not skip, but we're going to postpone 40 till the end because I'm going to recuse myself from 40. So can we move to 41, Jan.

BAZALA: All right. No. 41 is to allow existing gravel parking lots in the rural areas to remain in use under some circumstances. Basically the idea here is if in the rural area, if there's an existing parking lot that's been in use, and you want to you come through site plan review for a business, you can reuse that existing gravel lot. If you propose new spaces, those would need to be paved and ADA and ADA accessways would need to be paved. But otherwise, if the gravel has been serving the acceptable purpose, the idea is that you could continue to use these in the future.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions for staff on Item 41? All right. With that, I'll open it up to public testimony. Does anyone in the audience want to speak to Item 41? Seeing no one, we will close the public testimony and turn it back to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion. A motion.

WRIGHT: MOVE we accept change 41.


MORASCH: Moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we'll have a roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH. All right. 41 passes. We're going to postpone 42 to the end and move to 43.


BAZALA: Okay. No. 43 is to remove County requirements for road access onto State routes. The code section being amended requires the applicant to meet the access standards that the County requires similar to the County arterial road. Sometimes the State does not require that high of a standard, and so the applicant and the County are in an awkward position of requiring something more than the State would require. So we are proposing just to get the County out of the approval for the access and let the Statetake over, should streamline the process and make it much more simple and less confusing to applicants.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions for staff on No. 43? With that, I'll open it up to the public. Does anyone in the audience wish to testify about Item 43? Seeing no one, we will close the public testimony on Item 43, turn it back to Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

SWINDELL: I make a MOTION we accept Item No. 43 as changed.

BENDER: Second.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded to accept Item 43. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. 43 passes. That brings us to 44.

BAZALA: All right. This is a proposal to defer certain frontage improvements in rural centers via covenant that commits a property owner to pay a fair share towards a future road improvement project.

Now, this is different than existing provisions in the code, that if there's a project on the transportation improvement program, the six-year program, one can already pay into a proportionate share into that improvement and not construct the improvement. This is different in that the road isn't already on the transportation improvement program.

This would be for, you know, like I say, for rural centers, and if the proposals are not -- I'm sorry -- if the needed improvements aren't going to create a traffic hazard or safety hazard or


result in an inadequate level-of-service, or not provide safe walking distance conditions when it should, then the County could defer these improvements.

The idea is that the property owner would enter into an agreement with the County, provide a covenant stating that in the future they would pay their fair share towards a future road improvement project. So this wouldn't be like -- this is different than bonding that they wouldn't be paying for any improvements immediately, it would just be a covenant that says in the future whoever owns this property would be responsible to pay their share of that improvement based on the basic amount of money that it would have cost them at the time their development was approved.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions of staff on Item 44?

BENDER: Yeah. I would like a little more definition. I hate to say this, but the remonstrance agreement, a little definition.

BAZALA: Well, that's actually -- that's -- that term should not be used actually. It really is going to be a covenant instead. That was early language that they should have deleted. In some cases -- well, I won't even go there because I'm not really sure exactly what they are, I've never been involved with them.

Basically this would just be a covenant that you sign saying you would provide a calculation as to how much money these improvements are going to cost you. And then you'd sign a covenant so that in the future, if a number of projects come in and it makes sense to construct the road all in one fell swoop, it can certainly be more efficient than each developer coming in and doing their own little small improvement which sometimes has to be ripped out when a new improvement comes in next to it or ultimately when the County does work.

BENDER: And you want to change it now?

COOK: Where is it?

BAZALA: It's just in the header.

COOK: It's just in the heading --

BAZALA: It's not in the code itself.

COOK: -- it's not in the code.

MORASCH: And my understanding after looking at the code that's in our staff report is that, you know, the details of, you know, what the covenant would say and how, you know, how it would read and all that would be worked out at the time of the application. Jan, are you


listening to me? I'm asking a question.

BAZALA: Okay. The details. I'm sorry.

MORASCH: My understanding of reading the staff report is that the details of the covenant would be worked out at the time that the covenant was entered into at the time of development, that this doesn't have a lot of detail about what that covenant --

BAZALA: Right.

MORASCH: -- would actually entail --

BAZALA: Right.

MORASCH: -- other than it's going to be some kind of proportionality analysis of what the fair share is that they're going to pay.

BAZALA: Right. Right. You know, my understanding is that many developer agreements are like that, so I kind of see it as sort of a developer agreement.

MORASCH: And some of those are fairly detailed. Yeah . Did you have any further questions? I didn't mean to interrupt your question, but I just wanted to get that clarification out.

BENDER: You're fine. Yeah, appreciate that.

MORASCH: Any other questions? All right. With that I will open it to the public. Anyone wish to talk about Item 44, deferral of certain road improvements in the rural centers via covenants? No one coming forward, I will close the public hearing on Item No. 44 and return to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

BENDER: I make a MOTION that we accept change 44.


MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded to accept change No. 44. Any discussion?

WRIGHT: Yes. I understand that presently there can be problems that arise when improvements are not made all at one time, differences in grade and so forth, drainage, but I think this solution is worse than the problem.

I think you're putting cost on people that aren't expecting it and it isn't going to be the developers that are going to pay these covenant costs 10, 15 years down the line when the

Planning Commission Hearing

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Page 35

road is built, it's going to be an unsuspecting property owner and they may find that they have a 10,000 or a $15,000 payment to make to complete their frontage.

And so recognizing that life is not perfect and we can't find a code that's going to make things perfect, I will vote against this because I think the solution is worse than the problem.

SWINDELL: Can I ask. Will something be recorded on the deed of this agreement?

BAZALA: Yes. The covenant would be recorded and would show up in the chain of title.

SWINDELL: So when somebody goes to purchase, they'll see that and they'll know it and they'll decide that will be the deciding factor for them.

BAZALA: Yes, they should.

MORASCH: I think the issue Commissioner Wright's concerned about is not everyone is sophisticated enough to realize that their title report that says covenant regarding road improvements in a rural center agreement means that they're going to have to pay $20,000 or something. I mean, is that your concern?

WRIGHT: Exactly. And in addition, the amount set forth in the covenant may not be anywhere nearly adequate to pay the proportionate share in 10 or 15 years when that road is actually built, so there's another problem, the County is going to have to eat that cost as well.

BENDER: Is the covenant retroactive to current property owners?

BAZALA: You mean to --

BENDER: If I own a piece of property and we pass this, and all of a sudden I've got a covenant on my property. No?

COOK: A covenant is an agreement. So it would -- it's not something that's imposed upon you, it's something you sign. So there would be a condition of approval if the frontage improvements were deferred requiring this covenant. If you own a piece of property and you're not developing it, then there's no opportunity for this to happen.

BENDER: It would be future property owners who bought the piece of property we're talking about hypothetically.

COOK: I'm sorry?

BENDER: It's if the person that has the property now is not affected by this covenant, but if he goes to sell, it would then be --


COOK: Only if the person who buys it is going to be developing it such that frontage improvements would be required.

MORASCH: Any other deliberation?

SWINDELL: So if I'm understanding correctly, the reason why we're proposing this is because we've had issues where one parcel will develop say a sidewalk and then there's nothing on either side, and then someone two blocks down did develop something and they don't match or line up and it's better to just say let's wait, create an agreement, when all this gets ironed out later, then we can decide what we want to do.

BAZALA: That 's the idE:!a, yes.

SWINDELL: That's the idea.

GRIMWADE: How frequently does that situation occur and has there been any assessment on the economic impact of delaying versus ripping up those interim improvements?

BAZALA: I don't have experience with that in either case. Ali Safayi with Public Works is here. I don't know if he has anything to add about how often this situation comes up.

MORASCH: Well, and how often does it come up in rural centers because this only deals with rural centers, so it's probably a lot less often than in general, but, go ahead, please. State your name.

SAFAYI: Good evening, Commissioners. Ali Safayi, Public Works. The rural center requires that the road be widened to the standard and also a sidewalk constructed . As you know, in rural centers or rural area, there are like ditches on the side of the rural area and topography is not similar to the urban area. So most developers have a difficult time to try to do a piece of just 100 feet of frontage and try to improve that. So they approached the County and tried to see if there are any ways that this whole improvement could be done at a later date when the grade is, and the design is more advanced.

As far as how often it happens, every single rural center that redevelops, and we have a lot of them in the like north and south of 219th Street that are coming for redevelopment as the area becomes more urbanized, and we've had a few just last year, probably five, six cases, and they had a hard time trying to see how they can design the frontage.

Besides, the stormwater is triggered and that is also an issue for the developers because it can get easily really involved. So you would try to have a stormwater facility for a piece of road as opposed to having, I mean, the entire road improved, so.. . But, again, you know, it 's happening more than it used to as the area becomes more urbanized.

Planning Commission Hearing Thursday, October 19, 2017

Page 37

MORASCH: Okay. Any questions?

WRIGHT: Yeah. Ali, you I'm sure over the years you've had a number of occasions to deal with covenants that were made 10, 15 years prior, have you ever had any trouble getting those to be paid?

SAFAYI: Actually, we used to have those covenants back in the '80s and the accounting and keeping track of them was not easy. So I'm hoping that with this new code there will be, I mean the accounting will be more managed and, you know, be able to keep track of all those properties that have promised to pay their share of the improvement when the improvement is going to be implemented.

WRIGHT: It sounds like a good hope.

SAFAYI: Hope.

COOK: Commissioner, I would suggest that maybe the .brand-new WizBang software that Community Development has been developing and will be rolling out is better able to flag and track such things than he's capable of doing.

MORASCH: Oh, I think Commissioner Wright's question wasn't so much could the County track it, but do you have problems when you go to collect from the owner who isn't the same person who entered into the covenant. It's some buyer that's bought the property, and ten years later may or may not even be aware, you know, that they have this in their title report.

SAFAYI: Yeah. The covenant transfers with the land and they should have a copy of it in their deed document, but it's always, you know, a question. Somebody could claim that they were not told by the seller, you know, what --

MORASCH: They didn't see the notice that -- they didn't understand what the notice meant that they got. I think we heard that from an attorney earlier tonight on another matter.

COOK: Yeah.

SAFAYI: Yeah. So there are two options; one to have them do it and most likely get torn up because it doesn't work, you know, for drainage or for the grade, like a throw away and a piece of sidewalk, you know, in the middle of nowhere. I don't know what type of a use it would have. The other option to at least try to put all our money together and try to do something decent.

GRIMWADE: Is there anything that prevents you from determining the cost of the development at the time, taking that money, putting it into an investment account and then


dealing with that development in years to come?

COOK: I don't think we can do that.

SAFAYI: Yeah. There is a legal issue about that.

GRIMWADE: That's a legal issue or is it a policy issue?

COOK: Yes, sir. Yeah . The County is not an investment fiduciary and cannot be one.

GRIMWADE: And is that purely in the state of Washington or does that apply in the state of Oregon?

COOK: I couldn't tell you.

SAFAYI: Yeah. I believe there is a clause that talks about the, how much, how long you can keep somebody's money. There is a window, usually I think like five years, but I don't know where that number comes from, that you -- because if you don't do it, that means it was not needed as a result of the development, so there is an issue there, but ...

COOK: But regardless, I don't think Clark County has any interest whatever in being a fiduciary.

WRIGHT: I guess in summary, I just repeat that I recognize the existing problem, I think you're creating more problems based on at least my history with the County in trying to enforce some of the covenants that have been so eagerly signed in the past and so conveniently forgotten when the time came to pay for them, so .. .

MORASCH: Maybe the covenant should be entitled covenant to pay X dollars right in the title of the covenant.

COOK: Not a bad idea.

MORASCH: Anybody that gets that on their title report, because otherwise you get this thing that says covenant to blah, blah, blah, and you don't know what that is unless you go get the documents. It might not be a bad idea to put that right in the title of the document covenant to pay X dollars. Any other questions for Ali while he's up here? All right. Any other deliberation?

SAFAYI: Thank you .

MORASCH: Then I would take a motion . Don't everybody jump at once with a motion.



Page 39

GRIMWADE: Okay. So I'm going to make a MOTION that Item 44 NOT be approved.

WRIGHT: Second.

MORASCH: All right. It's been moved and seconded to not approve Item 44. Any deliberation on the motion? All right. Could we get a roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON: AYE SWINDELL: NAY WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: NAY

MORASCH: Okay. So the motion passes 4 to 2 to recommend against adoption of Item No. 44. That brings us on to Item No. 45, geohazard review.

BAZALA: All right. This would require geohazard review for replacement or expansions of structures that don 't meet setbacks in geohazard areas. The existing code has an exemption in it so that you can replace or substantially expand a residence that is affected by a geohazard area or a potential geohazard area.

So the Building Official pointed this out recently, and given other events that have happened, like the situation in Oso or something else, that he didn't feel that we should have this exemption to the geohazard code in it.

Basically, th is allows a complete replacement of a house that could be potentially in danger. So this would require a review of any expansion of a house or a replacement of a house. It could be that everything's fine, but it should be subject to the geohazard code which would require a professional engineer to analyze the situation and evaluate whether the site is · actually safe or not, even though this house could be there on the site for 50 years, geologic time that's not much, things can happen.

So we're proposing to get rid of the exemption, limit it to residential remodels that do not alter the footprint or increase the gross floo r area of the structure. So you wouldn't have to always do it, but if you're going to expand or increase the floor area, then a geohazard review should be done.

MORASCH: Any questions?

BENDER: Yes. Is there a definition of the geohazard areas in the main body?


BAZALA: There is in the geohazard code.

COOK: Geohazard areas are one of the critical areas and they are mapped and available on GIS.

BENDER: Okay.

MORASCH: I have a question. You may not be able to answer it, but why -- I understand we're going to keep the exemption if we adopt this for remodels that do not alter the footprint, and that makes sense, but what's the issue with the gross floor area, why is building a two-story instead of a one-story home on the same foundation something that would trigger the geohazard review?

BAZALA: Well, the idea is that you're not substantially increasing an investment in area, yet you could have a small home and double the size of it and is that a good thing for the County to be endorsing. Also perhaps the foundation, maybe it's good for one floor and the additional second story on top could cause a problem.

MORASCH: Well, on the investment issue, I mean if someone wanted to, they could take the building down and completely rebuild it which would be a significant investment, but if it's the same exact footprint and gross area, then they don't have any --

BAZALA: If they take it down, they would have to --

MORASCH: They would have to.

BAZALA: They would have to.

MORASCH: So this is only for a remodel --

BAZALA: They would be subject to review.

MORASCH: -- and remodel would not include taking it down to the foundation and rebuilding it. Do we have a definition of remodel that distinguishes it from --

BAZALA: That's a good point to clarify that. Well, it would have to not alter the footprint or increase floor area.

MORASCH: Right.

BAZALA: But you could replace a like-for-like under this.


MORASCH: Theoretically you could come in with an old house that's been there for 100 years and tear it down to the foundation and rebuild a modern house that's the same gross floor area on the same foundation, it would be exempt.

BAZALA: The way that it's written, yes, it appears that it would. But we may have a definition for a remodel versus a rebuilt, I personally don't know that. That's a very good question.

SWINDELL: I believe the code states, and I'm not an expert on this, but I believe the code states that you have to have at least one wall standing to be considered a remodel. If you tear down every wall down to the foundation, then you're rebuilding the home, it doesn't qualify, I believe one wall. Someone else can clarify that I'm sure.

MORASCH: All right. I'm going to quote you next time. Any other questions before I open it up to public testimony? All right. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to the Item No. 45 regarding geohazard review for replacement or expansion of structures? No? Okay. I will close the public testimony and return to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

BENDER: Make a MOTION we accept 45 change.

JOHNSON: Second.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All right. Then could we get a roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. No. 45 passes. That moves us on to No. 46.

BAZALA: All right. Require that residential developments meet parking requirements in the Highway 99 overlay. Currently all developments in the Highway 99 are exempt for complying with parking minimum number standards. Team 99 members have requested that residential developments should comply with the parking minimum standards that apply everywhere else in the code. Apparently there's been at least one development that neighbors have felt has resulted in some overflow parking because the development did not provide sufficient parking


numbers. So that's the proposal.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions? All right. I will open it up to the public testimony on Item No. 46 relating to the Highway 99 overlay residential development parking standards. Anyone wish to speak on this issue? Is that a hand coming up?

STANEK: Yeah .

MORASCH: All right. Ila Stanek, please come down.

STANEK: It just needs a little clarification, guys, because it sounds like we didn't even think anything about parking, but we did. Ila Stanek, S-t-a-n-e-k. Initially the 2010 approval of the Highway 99 overlay included about five options that you could do if you wanted to have alternate planning for parking. You could do tandem things, you could share with your neighbors. And one of the last lines said, if you don't want to do any of this stuff, then it reverts to the requirements in Title 40. Somehow, I don't know how, nobody told me, they just took that line out and so now it sits there. You've got these little options, you don't want tp do there, there's no parking requirements. So it just has to go back in the way it was. That was how it was intended, we didn't forget it. That's it.

MORASCH: Okay. Before you go, any questions? No? All right. Well, thank you for coming and sitting through our whole hearing.

STANEK: Thank you .

MORASCH: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak to this item? All right. Well, then we will close the public testimony and return to the Plann_ing Commission for deliberation or a motion.

SWINDELL: Make a MOTION that we pass line Item No. 46 as presented.

WRIGHT: Second.

MORASCH: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON : AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: AYE


Page 43

MORASCH: All right. No. 46 passes. That moves us on to No. 47.

BAZALA: No. 47 is a proposal to increase the height limit from two to four stories in the Highway 99 overlay transitional areas, and from three to four stories in two activity centers, one is the Minnehaha Gateway and Parks Commons Activity Center.

So some recent development proposals have questioned the height limits in the transitional areas and activity centers. In some areas you'll have multi-family overlay which allows four stories right up against an activity center or transitional area which are intended to be more commercial. And so you can get four stories in the residential areas, and you are limited to either two or three stories in some of these other areas. So Community Planning staff consulted with Team 99 and both entities recommend the increase height limit.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions before we open the public hearing?

BENDER: Yeah. What's the stick framing limitation on stories?

BAZALA: I don't know for a fact. I don't know that it's relevant to this. I mean, the building it would be a building code question. There's no, nothing in the Highway 99 code that would require one type of construction over the other, that would be limited to the building code.

BENDER: Thank you.

MORASCH: Any other questions? All right. I will open it up to the public hearing Item No. 47, increase the height limits from two to four stories in transitional areas and three to four stories in activity centers, Minnehaha Gateway and Parks Common in the highway overlay. Ila Stanek, please come up.

STANEK: It's all about clarification, people. Ila Stanek, S-t-a-n-e-k. Originally because Highway 99 overlay subarea plan is form-based, so when you first set it all out, they made kind of a judgment call about what was going to be done here, what was going to be done there. Two stories seemed like a logical thing in these two areas, but we've had at least one project that wants to go higher. Part of what we did with Highway 99 in the beginning was deal with the community, they wanted flexibility. So this developer asked for flexibility and we voted as a team to recommend that that be done, so we put it forth to staff. That's it.

BENDER: What was your criteria for two versus more stories?

STANEK: Pardon me?

BENDER: What was your criteria for two stories only?


STANEK: Why did we do it at that?

BENDER: Yes.

STANEK: Well, we weren't -- initially that's what we thought that area would take. The area has changed since then and there has been more commercial buildings pulled in and apparently on their way to being pulled in. So that's -- it was a nothing kind of zone, and we thought two stories would work. It just won't work, so we gave them more. They asked for more; we gave them more.

SWINDELL: Can I ask you.

MORASCH: Before, yeah, it looks like we have more questions, so don't jump up right away. I've got a question too, but I'll let --

SWINDELL: Did you consider maybe going to six stories --

STANEK: No.

SWINDELL: -- or even higher? Was there any consideration, did you talk about it?

STANEK: There are areas along Highway 99 that do allow six areas, those are more major zones, if ever God would be good and give us 78th Street and Highway 99, you'd see some six-story buildings on those corners, but not that far down.

MORASCH: That was my question also.

STANEK: Well, darn.

SWINDELL: Did you not want to see six stories that far down or is it just didn't think anybody would want to do it?

STANEK: It isn't so much that. It is how the land lays, what we already have. You've already got a lot of residential development out there that's been there a long time, and so pretty much we were looking at what the area, the traffic and the community would handle. I don't think it would be the worst thing on the corner of 63rd and Highway 99, I could be talked into that, but nobody's come forward with something like that, so maybe we're just kind of waiting for the right developer to come forward and ask us for something else.

SWINDELL: Okay. Thank you.

STANEK: Anything else?



Page 45

MORASCH: All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

STANEK: Certainly.

MORASCH: Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak on Item 47? No? Okay. We will close the public hearing on Item 47 and I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

WRIGHT: Is this the one Ron sent us the e-mail about?

MORASCH: I believe it is, yes.

WRIGHT: He talks about Hazel Dell and Highway 99.

HOLLEY: Talks about what?

WRIGHT: We got an e-mail from Ron Barca, one of the Commissioners, and he is talking about six-story buildings in the Hazel Dell area. I think he meant Highway 99 because that's the area we're talking about.

JOHNSON: But he was also with this caveat of putting parking under the building, his idea was to --

SWINDELL: Well, I myself like the idea of giving developers the option, if probably it could be the cart before the horse kind of thing, but if you allow the option, someone might see the opportunity and then we'd have the opportunity to look at that and see if it made sense and then we can look at it. I like the idea of going to six.

MORASCH: And would you require parking under the building as a condition of that or would you just go to six and leave everything else as it is?

SWINDELL: I think I'd leave that up to planning and zoning. Wouldn't they handle that when they bring it in? I mean, we can recommend it.

MORASCH: I think what Ron is recommending in his e-mail is that --

SWINDELL: It be allowed to go to six, then they'd park --

MORASCH: Then you'd have to park under the building, but parking under the building adds a lot of increased development cost as going up to six might also, so.. . So I'm wondering if you are proposing that we just change fou r to six or are you proposing to add some language about parking in addit ion to changing four to six?


SWINDELL: I think just move it from four to six and allowing some flexibility.

MORASCH: All right. Any other discussion?

WRIGHT: I'd make a MOTION to what Matt just sounded like he was proposing, change the four to six in both of those entries.

SWINDELL: I would second it.

MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 47 with the amendment that four be increased to six stories in transitional areas and activity centers of the Minnehaha Gateway and Parks Commons. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. Item 47 passes with that minor amendment, and that moves us on to Item 48.

BAZALA: This is also Highway 99. This is to remove the requirement for structured parking for low-rise apartments. A developer is developing in that area and they were very concerned about the cost of providing structured parking, and so the proposal is to remove that structured parking requirement from that one apartment type.

MORASCH: Low-rise apartments?

BAZALA: Low-rise apartments.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions for staff on Item 48? With that, I will open it up to the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on Item 48? No? No? Okay. All right. No one in the audience --

STANEK: I changed my mind.

MORASCH : Yes, someone does. Okay.


STANEK: I'm sorry, guys, I know you all want to go home. I'm sorry. Clarify low rise for me.

BAZALA: Three to four-story buildings served by elevators. These buildings could be single purpose residential or mixed use building with retail and/or office on one or more floors.

STANEK: The particular area that they're looking at, the reason they require the structure is simply because the land won't hold, there's just not enough room for a parking lot. Three to four stories --

BAZALA: Yes.

STANEK: -- is that what you're telling me?

BAZALA: Yes.

STANEK: That's low rise? That's what you guys all think is low rise? Okay.

BAZALA: That's what the Highway 99 code defines it as.

STANEK: I know. I'm just going to have to try to explain six stories to them, so now I have to do that.

MORASCH: But the low rise is still that definition; right? What we recommended on Item 47 isn't going to affect the definition of low rise? I'm checking with Jan to make sure.

BAZALA: It would not.

MORASCH: It would not.

BAZALA: I mean --

STANEK: It makes sense, and it would get something in there we can't -- we don't have now which is always good. It's all about development.

MORASCH: Okay. All right. Before you go, any questions? No? All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to Item No. 48? No? All right. With that, I will close the public hearing and turn it over to the Planning Commission for deliberation or a motion.

SWINDELL: Can I just ask a clarifying question?

MORASCH: Yes, you may ask a question.

SWINDELL: Structured parking, does that mean structured parking is underneath, what does


that mean?

BAZALA: It says within or under the building.

SWINDELL: Within or under. Okay.

MORASCH: All right. Any other questions? A motion then.

JOHNSON: I make a MOTION we accept Item No. 48 removing the requirement for structured parking for low-rise apartments.


MORASCH: It's been moved and seconded to accept Item No. 48. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE


MORASCH: All right. Item 48 passes. That brings us to Item 49.

BAZALA: 49 is to allow the re-division of rural -- I'm sorry -- resource remainder lots that were approved under prior ag or forest cluster provisions. There's about 26 older resource cluster land divisions that have been rezoned to rural designations. Many of these resource cluster plots allow the remainder to be divided when the zoning changes. But there are other current provisions in the rural zoning districts that prohibit a remainder from being divided until any cluster -- I'm sorry -- prohibited from being divided -- I'm tired -- prohibited remainder from being redivided until the site's brought into the urban growth boundary.

So the proposed amendment would allow further division of these remainder lots when the zonings change to rural. There could possibly be other notes on the original plot that could have a bearing on whether future division is possible, and so those would have to be looked at, and plot alteration would have to be approved for that. But currently right now the code strictly prohibits any divider from being redivided until it's brought into the urban growth boundary.

MORASCH: All right. Any questions? Is there anyone in the audience, I will open the public


hearing on Item 49, re-division of remainder lots, does anyone in the audience wish to speak to Item 49? No? Okay. I will close the public hearing on Item 49 and turn it back to the Planning Commission for questions.

BENDER: I have a question for Bill. Bill, you're always talking about infrastructure. Jan, how many lots are we talking about?

BAZALA: There are 26 of these and the remainders vary in size. I think, I didn't look at each and every single one, but I think the biggest, I looked at like 6 or 8 of them today out of the 26 and I think the largest remainder I saw was about 30 acres. So let's take a guess here and let's assume that they would have to be redivided at a 5-acre density. So if on average there were let's say 15, if the remainders average 15 acres, then you'd get 3 additional lots times 26, and that's just strictly a guess, I did not do the analysis of each and every one, so ...

MORASCH: I have a question. You looked at 6 or 8 of these. Did it look like if we allow these remainder lots to get divided under current zoning, that the overall density, if you took all the land that was subject to the original subdivision, and looked at it under our current zoning, are they going to get more density with what we're proposing than they would if they took the original and came in and tried to divide it into the 5-acre lots?

BAZALA: Yeah. I did some analysis of that today and it looked like they would average about 2 and a half to 3 acres overall for the whole original subdivision.

MORASCH: Any other questions or discussion? That kind of makes me not so favorable to the proposal.

WRIGHT: Well, what was the thinking when this was brought forward? I can't recall if staff had a recommendation on this or not.

BAZALA: This came from the Board's office. There have been some requests that they should be able to rezone it. And the code does say, or those plots did say, you can't redivide it until the zone changes and in these cases the zones has changed.

WRIGHT: Has changed, yeah .

MORASCH: But I think the original intent was probably when it urbanized. And I'm all supportive of redividing these large remainder lots when they're brought into the urban growth boundary. I mean, I think that's good planning, but I'm not sure if I support redividing these cluster lots in the rural area, but I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners think about that.

SWINDELL: Did we tell them originally that this was the agreement? Was this the agreement we entered into with them that they would be able to do this?

Planning Commission Hearing Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page SO

BAZALA: I'm sorry. Say again.

SWINDELL: Originally when they did their cluster, was that the agreement we made, that when the zoning changed, you would be able to?

BAZALA: The common plot note is that something to the effect of re-division of the remainder lot shall not occur until the zone changes. Something to that effect, and I believe that was probably in the old code that required that.

Now, one thing of note is that these prior resource cluster developments, even if a property was zoned AG-20, that those provisions allow them to divide at a 5-acre density. So you could have 20-acre parcels that would be divided into cluster lots and you could, even though it may be ag zoning, you know, 20-acre zoning, they still allowed 5-acre density. So you'd get 4 cluster lots out of this one 20-acre ag zone, so I think that's part of the reason why the overall density is higher now.

MORASCH: So they've already had their 5-acre density when they did their cluster lot to begin with under these old codes.

BAZALA: That 's what it looks like.

MORASCH: And now we'd basically be doubling up on the 5-acre density if we say, okay, now you can take your remainder lot and redivide it at 5 acre. I see you shaking your head.

BENDER: I am, yeah. I'm leaning really heavily towards status quo.

MORASCH: Towards what?

BENDER: Status quo.

WRIGHT: So the Board may have some political reasons for an interest in this, but --

MORASCH: And they're free to overrule us.

WRIGHT: Absolutely. You know, we have technical, I've addressed rural zoning and densities in the past.

COOK: Bill.

MORASCH: She wants you to talk a little louder into the mic so we get it on the record .

WRIGHT: How far back do I have to go, last month? My comment was that the Board may


Page 51

have some political reasons for wanting this, but in the past we've looked at and shied away from increasing the densities in the rural area, and that's exactly what this would do.

JOHNSON: But isn't this a prior provision, a prior, I don't want to say agreement, but I mean it says when the zoning changes?

WRIGHT: Well, if it is such an agreement, why is any action necessary?

JOHNSON: Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too.

COOK: Well, because in the interim the code has changed. So they may have a plot restriction on their plot that is applicable to their property but that doesn't mean that they can do a land division under the rural code as it exists.

WRIGHT: But it sounds like the original contemplation was that the zoning would be changing to an urban zone.

MORASCH: Yeah. If they were getting the 5-acre density on their cluster - I have to agree with that - that the understanding would have been changed to an urban, not changed to a 5 acre, because they're already getting the 5-acre density at the time of the original cluster development.

COOK: I couldn't tell you what the intent was there. I haven't looked into it, but, you know, it was a while ago, so there aren't a whofe lot of them. The documentation is not uniform, and they're just kind of strange outliers. I mean, since that time it's been pretty clear that you don't redivide the remainder until you're in a UGB.

MORASCH: Any other deliberation or does somebody want to make a motion on Item No. 49?

BENDER: I make a MOTION that we don't accept changes to 49.

GRIMWADE: I'll second.

MORASCH: All right. It's been moved and seconded to recommend against adopting Item No. 49. Any further deliberation on the motion? All right. Roll call, please.

ROLL CALL VOTE BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON: NO SWINDELL: NAY WRIGHT: AYE MORASCH: AYE


MORASCH: All right. Item No. 49 passes. Well, the motion -- let me rephrase that. The motion to recommend denial of Item No. 49 passes on a 4 to 2 vote. And that brings us to Items No. 40 and 42, and I'm going to recuse myself from those since I have clients who are providing testimony. So with that, I will turn the hearing over to our acting chair, Karl.

JOHNSON: Acting acting.

MORASCH: Acting acting chair, Karl, and I will leave it to you . Have a good night everyone.

JOHNSON: Have a good evening, Steve. All right. Item 40, Jan.

BAZALA: All right. No. 40 is to add a recreational vehicle park standards in the special uses standards. Currently there are no special use standards for RV parks. They are allowed in the commercial zones and they're not conditional uses, so the staff doesn't have the ability to just sort of make up conditions, that's a bad term, but to create conditions that would make it compatible with the neighborhood.

So there have been a couple of RV parks come in for review. Actually, one came in for site-plan review and then we've had a couple other pre-apps. So the one that went under review, I personally did. It was difficult to determine what level of internal and external landscaping to apply, what the solid waste requirements were, how big the RV spaces should be, public health requirements, things like that . It was, you know, we didn't have anything to fall back on.

So we looked at other counties standards and then we consulted other county departments, Public Health was involved, and so we developed this proposal. Also consulted, you know, oddly enough with the City of Palm, they didn't consult with the City but Palm Springs. They had -- I go there on occasion to visit my in-laws when they go, and that gave me the idea to look at their code, and their basic format looked pretty reasonable.

So the staff recognizes that these are, you know, a first shot. Staff recognizes that they're a pretty big item to chew on, but we've been given the go-ahead from the Board to give it a shot. So the DEAB originally when the staff report was written did not recommend approval of it, and subsequently they did approve it. They did recommend that the length of stay go from 90 days to 180 days, and at this point they are recommending approval with 180-day length of stay. As noted, comments, public comments did come in today on this. So I don 't know if you want me to go into any detail on this or you've looked at it and are comfortable with me not going over the particular items one-by-one or the --

BENDER: Item 6, how did you derive the number of facilities for each one of the areas of a, b, c and d?

BAZALA: On which page are you on?


Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page 53

BENDER: 24.

BAZALA: Oh, 24. Sanitary Facilities?

BENDER: Yeah.

BAZALA: Looked at the other standards and Palm Springs 1 for 25. Whatcom County had 1 per 30 spaces. Also another county had 1 per 25. I think those were the only ones that actually had a number, so that's what we went with.

JOHNSON: Jan, did you accept DEAB's proposal of 180 or did you leave staff recommendation at 90?

BAZALA: We don't really have an opinion.

JOHNSON: I was going to ask you where you got the 90 and that was my next -- the same place, kind of looking around?

) ,

BAZALA: 90, sort of, kind of not -- some of the standards had no length of stay addressing, you know, provision at all, they just left it vague. We are cognizant of the fact that these are not intended to be permanent residences.

So currently other codes limit you to staying at an RV for 30 days or 60-calendar days or -- I'm sorry -- yeah, 30 days or 60-calendar days of the year. So 90 was chosen based on somewhere falling in between the 180 days that we have seen and the 90 days. I can't say that it's a scientifically proven number. The DEAB debated this number. They're basically, when they had their deliberations or discussions, I think they were divided like close on whether they should be changed to 180 days.

The idea that was brought up, well, what if I have, you know, what if somebody lives in Palm Springs half the year and they want to come back north during the warmer months and want to live the other half of the year here, so that's where the 180 days may have gotten its genesis, so ...

WRIGHT: Yeah. I have a question. This process seems a little unusual for a change of this magnitude. I mean, typically the County will form stakeholder groups and get opinions, not just from staff, not just from other cities or even engineers, but from people that actually make a living or try to make a living building and running RV parks. And it seems like we're being rushed to make decisions about technical issues that we certainly don't have any expertise, it's just, you know, pull a number out of the air and it seems better this way or that way. Why didn't you go back and have a stakeholders group and get some outside opinion?


BAZALA: Well, some of it is just lack of staff time, you know. If you're not comfortable in this process, then you certainly have the ability to say so, you know. The fact that some were coming in sort of highlighted the fact that we got nothing, so I think that was the idea of moving forward through the biannual process.

GRIMWADE: What notification was given to the public as you were going through this?

BAZALA: It gets notified in the newspaper of the public hearing.

GRIMWADE: So if you don't get the public newspaper, the public don't get to know about it?

BAZALA: That's right.

COOK: Well, also notice appears on the County web page and then the DEAB was heavily involved, which is a very particular segment of the public, but if we're talking about stakeholders, that certainly is a group of stakeholders.

GRIMWADE: And your usual process is to have an active discussion with stakeholders?

BAZALA: Say again.

GRIMWADE: Your usual process for going through these sort of major policy changes.

BAZALA: Well, when typically Community Planning does the bigger ticket items and they typically do hold, provide more public outreach .

JOHNSON: So just kind of a -- so these are for new parks. An existing park now, would they be subject to these new --

BAZALA: No.

JOHNSON: I know we've asked that kind of before, but, I mean, so ...

BAZALA: No, this would just be for --

JOHNSON: New.

BAZALA: -- new.

JOHNSON: New requirements.

BAZALA: Right.

Planning Commission Hearing Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page SS

JOHNSON: So the 90 or the 180 or 90 day, whatever we approve, that's not for existing parks?

BAZALA: That's correct. You know, and, you know, frankly, there is no code that addresses them. So we, you know, I think under some provisions, you know, if you have an RV on your own property and the neighbor complains about it, code enforcement uses a 30-day rule . But I don't -- we don't have staff there going around chalking tires, I think it was brought up at the Planning Commission work session .

JOHNSON: Any more questions for staff? Okay. At this time, we'll open public testimony. Is there any testimony?

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

DICKMAN: Good evening. Cody Dickman, D-i-c-k-m-a-n. I'm here representing Delta Development. Hopefully you had a chance to look over the comments and recommendations regarding the amendments to Chapter 40.260 that we sent in earlier today. Just a little background.

Delta Development has been developing and managing multiple recreational parks across the greater northwest for over 25 years. Currently we own and operate two parks; one in Multnomah County and one here in Clark County as well. We also are in the preliminary phases of an RV park, so that might have been weighed in on staff to make this code.

We fully support the County's efforts to adopt the standards for RV parks, but we also have some concerns in regards to the amendments to this chapter. I can go through each of these one-by-one if you want or you can address questions based on our recommendations, either way is fine .

WRIGHT: Well, I'd like to ask a question if that's appropriate. I'm interested in your letter. I just got the gist from reading it that you guys put together some kind of top drawer RV parks with amenities, landscaping.

DICKMAN: Sure.

WRIGHT: And yet at least in Clark County you're doing that without any ordinance requiring you to do so. And I'm wondering if that's really an impediment then that you, you know, you say you 're not against having an ordinance, but yet we're getting high-quality RV parks under the current status go and, whereas, you know, you probably have some folks that are willing to pay a pretty good price, you know, to have your amenities. There may be other folks that are not after that market niche, they may need to go a little more value. And so I guess I asked a question in there, and I could tell by your nodding your head that I think you answered it, but feel free to respond .


DICKMAN: Sure. Yeah. So when we develop our parks, over the years we've seen that the tenants and the occupancies of these parks really respond well to higher developed parks, so we pride ourselves in developing with full frontage. Landscaping is a huge, even amenities we supply at our parks that we develop.

There's a couple of things under the provisions that were proposed that would limit our abilities to add these amenities such as the two acres. Under our response we had five acres recommended and this is due to the fact that it would just, it wouldn't be feasible for us to develop an RV park if we had such large amenities. Landscaping would go take away from the RV spaces, kind of putting us in a situation where it would, just wouldn't be feasible for us to develop a site.

WRIGHT: Thank you.

BENDER: Your pads have power, water and sewer?

DICKMAN: That is correct.

BENDER: The thing that's bothering me about this change is basically that all RV's aren't created equal. There are RV's that have full facilities inside the unit, and there are RV's that do not --

DICKMAN: Sure.

BENDER: -- and if you build a lower-end RV park, you're going to get more lower-end RV's that's going, in my opinion, is not going to be adequately served by Item 6, sanitation, and Item 7, dump stations.

JOHNSON: Any other comments? Okay.

SWINDELL: Actually, yeah. I just want to clarify. So that right now the development standards say a minimum of two acres and you're saying you need at least five.

DICKMAN: Right. The proposed development standards say for two acres. Based on our experience five acres is what we deemed an appropriate acreage to build an RV park.

SWINDELL: So essentially our standards would be less than what you would want?

DICKMAN: Correct.

SWINDELL: So that shouldn't hurt you, I believe.

DICKMAN: Right . I guess the reasoning behind that, not only do we not want to see


developing RV parks pop up that pose an eyesore around the county, but also there's been a lot of other development sites particularly near Multnomah County where lower acreage lots have been built on and it brings a bad name to RV parks, so in a sense it hurts business.

BENDER: I happen to agree with you .

SWINDELL: I'd agree with you on that as well. And then you're also proposing -- I'm going to -- just a minute, guys, if you don't -- I'd like to ask a few, I have kind of a lot of questions. I wish I would have gotten this sooner to go through it.

DICKMAN: We were just told about this, so ...

SWINDELL: No. I appreciate you taking all the time that you did to put this in here. I have to agree with the Commission that this is a lot to adopt, you know, without having more time, so... Tree size, you're addressing tree size. What was the other one? Oh, the rest rooms. You're proposing instead of every 25 lots, every 50 lots?

DICKMAN: Correct.

JOHNSON: And is that standard?

DICKMAN: That's been standard in our developments. About around 50, for every 50 we have a rest room both per sex, a lavatory and showers as well.

BENDER: And that's workable because you have full facilities on each pad.

DICKMAN: Correct.

SWINDELL: Okay. I was just reading your response on the site management, I had a concern with that as well, requiring that they provide housing for someone to be a site manager. It seemed like that might be a little too much, but... Has staff had a chance to read this and go through --

BAZALA: Yes.

SWINDELL: -- have you had a chance to take a look at this?

BAZALA: Yes.

SWINDELL: Do you have any, I mean, I see some good things in here that are, you know, good, good things to take into consideration. They've been building and developing them, I haven't been building and developing RV parks, so ...


BAZALA: Right. Yeah. The rationale for having a full-time residence on the site, you know, perhaps that is could be, you know, overly restrictive so, you know. I think some of the concern was that some responsible person is always available to respond to parties or whatever. And I saw that in some of the codes where one of the jurisdictions had the applicant provide a plan to show how, you know, what are you going to do if there's complaints, or respond to emergencies, so that left it open. They didn't have a manager on-site necessarily, but some means of ensuring that somebody's around to take care of things so a neighbor wouldn't have to call the cops immediately if there were some, you know, big party going on that was inappropriate.

BENDER: Do your sites currently have a manager?

DICKMAN: Yes. Currently, not an on-site manager, we do have normal hours, normal business hours, 8:00 to 5:00, we have a maintenance team and we also have a maintenance guy who is staffed 24/7. He does not reside on the property, but in case of emergency calls, he's open 24/7 to come.

BENDER: And having a two-acre site would make that even more financially impractical?

DICKMAN: Sure. Yes.

JOHNSON: Any more questions for the public? Is there any other persons that want to testify? Mike.

ODREN: Yep .

JOHNSON: Come on up, Mike.

DICKMAN: Thank you.

SWINDELL: Thank you .

JOHNSON: Thank you .

ODREN : I'm Mike Odren, 0 -d-r-e-n, representing the Development and Engineering Advisory Board. We were presented with the - a little bit of background - we were presented with an older version of this when we were looking at the rest of the biannual code revisions and making recommendations to the PC, and we hadn't seen it, that was the first time we had seen it.

So we -- that's why we did not recommend approval of it at that time, it allowed us time to go through and provide our own comments with regards to, we had some considerations. And, in fact, I'll show you that we marked it up, I marked it up pretty good. We had concerns about


safety with regards to widths, vehicular lane widths with regards to emergency vehicles, some clarifications to some items and the language that came back was significantly better than where staff started.

I might just respond to Commissioner Wright's comment about it not going through a standard, typical, whatever process for something as significant as this. I believe it was more as Mr. Bazala had said, a timing issue that there were projects such as these coming up, and there was no review criteria, none. And so it might be viewed in that regard as some criteria, something on the books might be better than nothing on the books. The worst case scenario being, we're just going to have something that looks like a Walmart parking lot and we're going to call it an RV park.

Not necessarily every developer might be considered as well versed and considerate to their future tenants as Delta Development. There's going to be the lower echelon in that regard. We've seen it and that's why we have standards to begin with across the board, that's why there is a code.

I might just respond to, and I think that Delta's comments were great, I got those earlier today from them directly and would just like to make a couple of comments myself on them. Regarding the two-acre size, I think that that provides flexibility. If Delta chooses on their own to develop on a larger site and provide additional amenities outside of this, that's great, I think that that's fantastic. But we shouldn't necessarily limit others, particularly when you start looking at, you know, the number of developable lots out there in the urban area to be able to support something like this. So having that two-acre size, I'm sure it was, hey, let's start somewhere with regards to that and see how it plays out.

Moving on to the trees, the tree size. Being a landscape architect, I simply don't agree with the one-inch size. It's going to get broken right out of the gate. The two-inch size is appropriate. There are tree availability issues right now because of the past recession . Staff has been flexible allowing different size trees, maybe undersized from what the standard is in code with good reason, but I believe that the one-inch size that Delta has indicated in here is too small, that's maybe a five or six-foot tree that can be snapped off easily.

With regards to - and I'm not going to talk to all of these because they have more experience with these facilities - parking, whether it be tandem parking, say parking in front of the RV itself versus a side-by-side parking and spacing standards, that's going to be left up I think to the design, the depth of these stalls, but I do want to talk about the recreational amenity amount that he brings up, Item No. 4.

Staff has recommended 100-square feet per unit and Delta makes a good point in saying, well, gosh, you know, if you have 270 spaces, you need 27,000-square feet of recreational space, what would that look like, what would it be. If you say, have a 150-unit facility, that would be, you know, 15,000-square feet, that's a lot of area, that's a lot of area; however, what Delta has


recommended is 10-square feet, a tenth of what staff is recommending. Now, if you do the same math, 150-square foot facility, now you only have 1500-square feet of recreational area in which to deal with, and that's not very much either.

So having looked at this and, you know, with a new pair of glasses on outside of what staff had provided us before, I think there's some flexibility in here that the Commission should look at, staff should look at, with regards to recreational amenities in these facilities. Maybe somewhere in the middle would be more appropriate.

I don't visit RV parks, but I now own an RV and look forward to maybe doing that at some point in time, but I know that when we go camping, we enjoy having a large open space area in which to run the dog, and that's one thing here is that, you know, where do you take your dog to the bathroom and let it run around and get some exercise, so all of those kind of need to be considered also.

Numbers of facilities with regards to bathrooms, 30 per 40 per 50 per 25, you know, I think this is all new and that's why the biannual's are around, is that we can see how it actually works out in practice. But not having anything is, I believe a disservice to the County, especially when there seems to be a number of these projects coming up.

If we could be guaranteed that all of them would be developed as Delta develops theirs, then we wouldn't have any problems, but we all know that not everybody develops to the same standard absent any other standards they might want to follow, so... I can answer any questions that you might have also.

JOHNSON: Questions? Okay. Is there anybody else from the public that would like to testify? Seeing none, bring it back to the PC for discussion.

WRIGHT: Well, I have some real issues with this. I don't think it's a Minor Policy Change at all and I don't feel competent to be making decisions about how much exercise space should be available or how many units it takes until you have a wastewater dump station.

I would really like to see this go back to a more inclusive process where people who actually have some money in the game can comment and get some standards that are going to be more acceptable to the industry. Because not everybody has a Cadillac Escalade that's going to be building an Airstream trailer, you know. There's other folks that maybe have a Ford 150 pickup truck with a camper on the back that need a place to stay for a few weeks and they don't care if they have a tennis court or not, and I think we're just so prescriptive in this set up.

With all respect due to staff, you guys worked rea l hard on it and it 's, you know, it 's a very comprehensive document, but I can 't say myself personally that this is the right numbers and the right places. So I'm going to vote no on it.


BENDER: This is a major code change that I agree with you, Bill, I mean, it requires more background search to determine what's more standard out there in the industry and I'm also going to vote no on it.

SWINDELL: Well, I'd just, I'd like to say, I mean, staff's put a lot of time into it obviously, you really tried to, you know, do the best you could with the time that you had and the amount of staff time, and I understand restraints. I see the comments from someone who's in building these and they have a lot of good suggestions. I would have to agree that I think this is more of a major change than a minor, and I think this, I think it needs a little bit more time.

But with that, I do want to ask, this doesn't -- if we make a recommendation that they don't move forward, that it dies right here, it dies there, I guess you'd say with the County Council eventually, and there's nothing out there, when someone wants to develop an RV park at this time, what do we do with the process?

BAZALA: Well, I can only speak to the one that I did, basically had to convert the existing parking/landscaping code and propose it to the consultant and they were reasonable, I think in the fact that, you know, I couldn't point to an exact code requirement because a parking lot is not really an RV park but we negotiated something, it's around what this code proposes, you know, about that level.

Discussion about recreational area was had, and I requested that they put some recreational space in there and they didn't feel they needed it, you know, so I consulted with legal staff as to whether that cou ld be a SEPA issue, an environmental issue, legal staff did not think, thought it would be kind of a stretch to exert SEPA for something like that, so we ended up with none at all.

So, you know, rest rooms weren't proposed and, you know, I think they had them in their office maybe, but that was that. Solid waste storage was, you know, they provided one and it was really hard to determine how much solid waste they should have because it's really it's not a building really, you know, the only building they built was an office. Let's see.

Length of stay, all I had was the 30-day requirement saying that you can't stay more than 30 days. You know, again, granted, I'm not going to be out there every day putting crayons on tires, but that's what we have is, you know, you stay in your RV more than 30 days, it's a violation, it's not a residence, so... Those are the kind of things that we had to create. Let's see.

SWINDELL: So it's very difficult. It's a very difficult situation and we could end up with a Walmart parking lot kind of, I mean.

BAZALA: If there was somebody who didn't want to cooperate at all, it could be, that could happen.


SWINDELL: There you go.

WRIGHT: But you still have the Health District standards, I mean you're not going to have a Walmart parking lot with raw sewage running across it, so I mean we're a little advanced from that I think.

JOHNSON: Jan, you said you've only had one?

BAZALA: That I've reviewed. I've looked at past, you know, past RV parks, all I saw was an amendment to one old existing park and there's very little there. And because I was looking for guidance in what, you know, what we have applied in the past and there wasn't much there, so ...

WRIGHT: Jan, I don't want to sound harsh because I know you have put a lot of effort into it --

BAZALA: Not to worry.

WRIGHT: -- I just don't have the dartboard here to hit the right little boxes that have the numbers.

BAZALA: Right. Well, you know, all I can tell you is, and I can't say that these are the best numbers, you know. I've looked at six or eight different other codes, tried to hit a happy, you know, happy medium if the numbers varied, but you are, it is your discretion as to what you want to do with this and there's going to be no offense taken if you don't.

JOHNSON: Robin, did you have anything?

GRIMWADE: Yeah. I think from my perspective I think you've done a really good job in a short period of time. I think it makes an excellent base to work from. I definitely have concerns about a couple of the elements like the residential caretaker, the recreation space. I do have major concerns about where the two views have come in tonight.

As a recreation planner I can see some issues on both sides. My concern is that if the Commission were to say, hey, we want this to go back, how long a period of time would it be before it would come back to the Commission, because that to me indicates the likelihood of the immensity of the issues that could be having to be dealt with by the County. I also feel very much of, you know, act in haste, you're going to repent later down the line and you could create an enormous amount of unnecessary work.

And I'm a very strong advocate for giving the public the opportunity to comment, i.e., all stakeholders so you get a good rounded and balanced opinion reached. That doesn't mean that everyone's going to get what they want, but at least we understand where that's been in


the public arena.

BAZALA: Right. Yeah. I understand that. As for the Community Development doing it, I mean I think it probably be, we'd probably want to see Community Planning do this. That would be the standard, you know, to have more extensive outreach process, and I don't know what their schedule would be. I would be surprised if anything could get back to you in six months, I think that would probably be optimistic, but I don't honestly know.

COOK: Be clear that if you vote not to recommend passage, that does not mean that it's going back to staff, it means it's going to the Board with a recommendation of denial and then it's up to them as to what they do with it.

BENDER: Understood.

JOHNSON: Yeah. And I, I mean I'll just echo, I'll be really quick, Jan. I appreciate the work. I am stuck because I really I don't want you to have to recreate something all of a sudden, and I'm not worried about the Walmart scenario, I'm just worried about not getting it right. I agree with Robin where we're creating a bigger problem. So I just, when I looked at this in work session I went, that doesn't look minor. I mean, 1-- that was -- and that was before you spoke, so ...

I think we need to get it dialed in tighter. I think we've got some great information from both sides here that is relevant and gets us kind of in the right place. So I'm inclined to say for the record that I'm going to be voting against it, but I really would love to see this again with some experts in here saying here's where we're at, and I think some of this is in the middle, you know, it's not hard stuff, so... Again, thanks for the hard work.

BAZALA: You bet.

JOHNSON : Is there any other questions for staff. And I'll be happy to hear a motion or --

BENDER: I make a MOTION that we do NOT accept changes to No. 40.

SWINDELL: I'd second it.

JOHNSON : A motion has been made and seconded that we do not accept No. 40 which is adding special use standards for RV parks. Is there any discussion? Roll call.


ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: AYE GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON: AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE

JOHNSON: The motion passes to NOT accept Item No. 40, special use standards. Moving on to the last one of the evening, No. 42, reduce the required distance from intersections for residential corner driveways, and allow shared driveways to exceed individual width requirements. Jan, staff report.

BAZALA: All right. So today you should have a new revised copy of this item. So at the work session you brought up some good questions about whose engineer is approving this, and so this latest revision clarifies that. So basically to recap.

The current corner lot driveway code requires driveways to be 50 feet away from the edge of the right-of-way. The current proposal reduces this to 40 feet and that would be from the actual edge of the pavement. So effectively this can move the driveway over about 15 feet closer to intersection than what the current code allows.

Now, to offset the reduction in distance, the proposed code has the caveat that parked cars in the driveways can't block sight distance, but when the driveway really ends up blocking the sight distance anyway, the new provision in here allows an option to allow the applicant's engineer to recommend the placement of stop signs.

So when you have a stop sign at an intersection, you stop the car, you have a lot more time to see traffic coming at you. At an uncontrolled intersection, then you need a lot more distance, a lot more sight distance in which to see things, so parked cars can be a problem if they're in the sight distance triangle.

So basically this gives developers the options to put stop signs where the County historically has been reluctant to have them. So this gives the, you know, the onus is sort of on the developer's engineer to evaluate the situation and make the pitch why stop signs should work in this case.

This would be limited to the multi-family zones that have density requirements. So we allow single-family homes on individual lots and so they have minimum density requirements. And in order to meet those minimum density requirements, the lots have to be small, otherwise you're not going to meet the density. So that's been the concern with the development community is like this existing code, it's just too restrictive and how do we deal with it. So basically that's the proposal.


It's gone through a lot of review with the DEAB and County engineering staff. Originally when the staff report was written, the DEAB didn't entirely support it, but with this new change, they do support it. They did request that these provisions be also allowed in the Rl-S and Rl-6 zones which generally the minimum lot widths in those zones is 4S feet and SO feet respectively. Now those are minimums, those aren't maximums and staff at this point has not been willing to -- we don't recommend extending it to those larger lots because we don't feel that the density is as pressing an issue in those zones. But that's what the DEAB has requested, to extend to the Rl-S and the Rl-6 zones, possibly planned unit developments which allow smaller lot size that deviate from the norm and possibly the density transfer developments. But they approve the language, but would like to see it extended to more zones than just the multi-family zones.

And Ali Safayi is here if you have technical questions on this. I just handed out a diagram that hopefully helps explain the situation. It is a technical situation. So if you have questions on that, then I probably should defer to Mr. Safayi because he deals with this a lot more than I do.

JOHNSON: Questions for staff?

BENDER: Yeah. Go ahead, Bill.

WRIGHT: Jan, just to be clear, this specific proposal does not go to the S and 6,000-square foot lots though?

BAZALA: As it's currently written it does not.

WRIGHT: Okay. Thanks.

BENDER: Basically we have two variables here. We have the distance from the starting point of SO feet originally, and then we've gone down to 40 feet with the new starting point to the edge of the road . What's the total delta in feet that we're changing?

BAZALA: I believe it's like lS feet. Is that accurate?

SAFAYI: Actually from the face of the curb to 40 feet, there is 9 feet difference between the property line and the curb, so you have 9 feet closer.

BENDER: A total delta of 19 then?

SAFAYI: Yeah. And then -- yeah. And then 10 feet less so it's 19 feet actually.

BENDER: And what lot sizes are we talking about?


BAZALA: Well, in the~e multi-family zones, lots can be as narrow as like 18 feet now that we never -- well, like town, these would apply to townhomes. So basically, you know, we don't have a requirement for, we don't have a minimum corner lot size. Well, actually that's not true, entirely true. In the narrow lot standards, your lots have to be at least 40 feet.

BENDER: But the change would require a four-way stop?

BAZALA: That's something that the code would allow the applicant's engineer to propose a four-way stop sign or two way or whatever, however they felt was adequate to reduce the necessary sight distance.

SAFAYI: In some cases, could be just a stop on two legs and let the through go through. So it depends on the situation. If you have a larger road and more traffic in one direction, you could stop the ones that are, have less traffic coming to them.

BENDER: The stop signs would occur at the sight distance reduction at the corner?

SAFAYI: Yeah. Yeah. When you have a stop sign, then you are 15 feet behind the edge of the road and you need to see like 250 feet in each direction. So actually, that triangle doesn't fall on the lot anymore, it will be entirely in the street, it wouldn't cross the property.

WRIGHT: Ali, is it fair to say the County's excursion into high-density residential development like this has created a lot of unintended consequences and surprises for staff to deal with?

SAFAYI: Yeah, definitely there is a conflict between the planning code and transportation standards, that's for us, like the corner lot goes.

WRIGHT: Yeah. So probably the best we can hope for here under these circumstances.

SAFAYI: Correct.

JOHNSON: Any more questions for staff? Okay. At this time, we'll open the public testimony. Houston, are you coming up?

AHO: I appreciate the comments.

JOHNSON: Chris.

COOK: Yeah. I should comment later, yes.

JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't see you, Chris.

COOK: Not a problem.


AHO: Good evening. Houston Aho with Aho Construction. Aho is A-h-o. I'd just like to clarify right off the bat that this isn't a standard that is limited to narrow lots, this hits lots up to about 60 feet, you know. The big thing here is you can't park your car in your own driveway unless your lot is larger than 60 feet. So in an Rl-5 zone and an Rl-6 zone which has a minimum lot width of 45 feet and 50 feet respectively, it eats right into the core of affordable housing in Clark County for your traditional affordable housing, your single-family detached, so it's not just limited to multi-family.

I think, I worked extensively with the County staff and DEAB on this issue as well . I think the one zone that DEAB had proposed, or I had proposed to DEAB and they related forward was the mixed use, I think that one has just been overlooked. I think the residential portion of mixed use is R-12 to R-43, so I think that one's a glaring one that should be added most definitely, because that conforms with kind of what the staff's already agreed.

The PUD, you're already getting, you know, you get design flexibility in a PUD, so there should be some consideration for PUD's as well, as well as a density provision in certain PUD's. So if you're at an Rl-6 PUD or an Rl-5, with that density provision you can actually be in an R-12 zone. Or another case in a PUD, if you're mixing two zones like an Rl-6 and an R-22, you can effectively have an R-12 zone in there. It definitely gives you the flexibility even to go narrower than either one of those zones would allow you to with your product standalone. So there is some, you know, a little bit of overlook.

I think we worked with staff and I think we made a compromise on, you know, what we thought would work and everybody's in agreement with it with the exception if you add Rl-5, Rl-6 in there, a mixed use in consideration for density bonuses or transfers and PUD provisions. Because right now you have lots that are built and developed that you can't park your car in, so to explain that to a buyer or a homeowner who currently has a home under construction, it's going to be tough, okay. You know, there's economic impacts to this for everybody and I can't go rip out my lots and make them larger, you know.

Making corner lots larger is something we already do in the building industry or the developing industry, okay. I am fortunate that I develop most of the lots I build on, so my lot, corner lots are already a little bit wider if possible because you have a street side setback of 10 feet. So we usually, you know, cushion for that so we can have a standard product for interior lot and the same on the, you know, the exterior lot as well or the street side corner lot.

But there is other restrictions with the corner lot, it's typically with the sight distance. You have to set them further back and that already pushes the driveway there. So now if you can't park your car and you got a long driveway, it's really not good for affordable housing and it has density impact too, because if now everybody has to make their, you know, lot 60-feet wide in a zone that allows 45 feet, you're going to have to start dropping lots and prices are going to increase along with affordable housing. So that's just a brief, you know, recap, that it's not


just hitting multi-family.

JOHNSON: Any questions?

SWINDELL: So are you asking for the Rl-5, Rl-6 and provision for PUD, is that what you're proposing?

AHO: That's what I'm proposing. I proposed that to DEAB and DEAB had passed that forward as long, or with the recommendation to staff at the DEAB meeting.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

AHO: Thank you.

JOHNSON: Is there any more testimony? Seeing none, bringing it back for discussion.

BENDER: I see a couple of problems that I have some firsthand knowledge of. When you impede traffic with a stop sign, that car comes to a halt or the vehicle comes to a halt, when you impede traffic with a stop sign and that car or the truck or vehicle comes to a stop at that stop sign, they have to then accelerate away. You've already got a small lot with the residence there, and if it was a flow through, the amount of noise pollution that they're enduring is X, but if you put a stop sign there you increase X dramatically. Plus, again, I'm not in favor of impeding traffic when not necessary.

WRIGHT: What I'd like to point out, that the proliferation of residential area stop signs that are not warranted other than by this situation is not a panacea. In fact, studies have shown there's a very high rate of folks violating residential stop signs, as I recall, I think it might be 30 percent or so. That being said, I think you have so many compromises and shoehorn forcing things to fit in these high-density developments that something has to give. And if you're going to have these sorts of developments, I think you just have to accept the risk of these stop signs and all the downsides that you pointed out, Richard. People are going to live here and they're going to like it, or if they don't like it, they're going to go somewhere else, but they're going to get the whole meal deal.

JOHNSON: Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none, I'm waiting for a motion.

WRIGHT: I'd MOVE we accept change No. 42, is it?

JOHNSON: Yes.

COOK: Mr. Chair, I have a comment.

JOHNSON: Oh, sorry. That's the second time.


COOK: I'm sorry. I was bothered by the wording somewhere around Line 34 or 35 and then Jan spoke the wording that I think is much better. So it now says and the applicant's professional engineer may use traffic control devices. I would suggest an amendment to change the word "use" to "propose."

SWINDELL: That's a good catch.

GRIMWADE: Good point.

WRIGHT: I'd AMEND my motion to incorporate that change that Counsel just suggested.

JOHNSON: And by the way, your motion is as written on 42?

WRIGHT: Yes.

SWINDELL: I would second that motion.

JOHNSON: Motion's been made and seconded to accept reduce the required distance from intersections for residential corner driveways, and allow shared driveways to exceed individual width requirements. Any discussion?

SWINDELL: Yes. I'd like to talk about the Rl-5, the Rl-6 and the PUD proposal, and I personally dealt with this in developing land and in building homes myself. And you have, I mean he's pointing out a good - I'm sorry - Houston pointed out a good point that when somebody's buying a piece of property and they can't even park their car in their driveway, and I think it extends beyond just the proposed zones, it goes into the PUD'S like he was saying. I mean, you're getting into those higher densities and we want that, that's what we're wanting, we don't want the sprawl, we don't want it out there, we want it -- but then they're restricted because of that and I think we should amend, I would like to propose an amendment to the proposal or whatever it is that we include the Rl-5, the Rl-6 and the PUD.

WRIGHT: I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

JOHNSON: The motion receives the amendment of accepting the Rl-5, Rl-6; is that correct?

SWINDELL: And the PUD's.

JOHNSON: And the PUD's.

BAZALA: One quick interruption, and the idea was brought up about mixed use as well and that was discussed, you know, at the DEAB meetings and that. So I think Houston's comment is well taken if you're going to extend it to these.


SWINDELL: I would extend it in mixed use as well, I propose that as well.

WRIGHT: I thought that's what I said.

JOHNSON: The motion is made and seconded. Any discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, roll call.

ROLL CALL VOTE

BENDER: NAY GRIMWADE: AYE JOHNSON: AYE SWINDELL: AYE WRIGHT: AYE

JOHNSON: Item 42 pa?ses! _ And that's it.

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

SWINDELL: Very good job. You did a very good job.

ADJOURNMENT

The record of tonight's hearing, as well as the supporting documents and presentations can be viewed on the Clark County Web Page at: https://www.clark.wa.gov/community-planning/planning-commission-hearings-and-meeting-n otes

Proceedings can be viewed on CVTV on the following web page link: http://www.cvtv.org/

Minutes Transcribed by: Cindy Holley, Court Reporter/Rider & Associates, Inc. Sonja Wiser, Program Assistant, Clark County Community Planning

Sonja please forward this to the Planning Commission for tonight's hearing.

Concerning the change to the zoning in Hazel Dell, I would like to propose to the Planning Commission and Co

untyCouncilors that the goals ofGMA and the marketplace be served better by eliminating the master planning

distinction between 4 story and 6 story buildings. Six story buildings would better serve the community by incr

easing job and housing density while tucking parking under the building. Acres of open parking is a problem fo

r storm water containment and treatment. A poor use of land, it make smaller projects difficult to pencil out. De

nsity helps pay for the higher cost of the development with consumption of land for unproductive infrastructure

being avoided. Therefore make all of Hazel Dell a standard for 6 story development in high density zoning with

the expectation that parking would be under the structure.

Thanks,

Ron Barca

In Alabama

3605667735

2017 biannual code amendments clark county board … · 4 december 12, 2017 board of county...

Documents