HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 25 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 25, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Ken Mann called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:02:32 PM)
Present: Ken Mann and Rud Browne.
Absent: Barbara Brenner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON THE MULTI -
JURISDICTIONAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ALLOCATIONS (AB2014 -056B)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file).
Mann asked and there was discussion of the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
small area estimates proposal (SAEP) population growth share table.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is
scheduled for public hearing on March 11, 2014. It gives all the planners, jurisdictions, and
facilities with a solid number to start their planning efforts. It's nonbinding. Consider the
range in the environmental impact statement (EIS).
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the Council and community must realize that if
the cities don't take their share of the growth, it artificially raises the County's percentage
as a whole. In the future, unincorporated Whatcom county must plan on growing 11,000
people over a 20 -year growth period. If none of the cities grow, it affects the county. The
County must monitor and be aware of what's going on. Cities must put together rules and
regulations for infill. If they continue to discuss percentages and any city doesn't accept
their portion, it will artificially inflate the percentages for others.
Mann stated setting a number artificially high doesn't make sense either. He's glad
Bellingham is being ambitious. The nonbinding resolution won't determine where people go.
He's interested in being accurate, too.
Browne asked how city annexation of urban growth areas (UGAs) skew the numbers.
Davis stated it won't affect the numbers. The geography includes both the city and the
unincorporated portion of the urban growth area. The overall geography remains the same.
Personius stated they're talking about urban growth area populations versus the
non -urban growth area populations.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Browne asked what happens with the resolution if it's nonbinding.
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the City /County
planner group came up with the idea of a nonbinding resolution among all parties to develop
capital facility plans, an EIS alternative, a transportation model for the Council of
Governments (COG), and the land capacity analysis. The planning process requires some
agreement to do other components of the planning process.
Mann stated the cities and the Planning Commission did a great job. He would like
to take seriously the notion of putting a transfer of development rights (TDR) program in
place. This may be an opportunity to do that. Only two jurisdictions are proposing
expanded UGA boundaries. Include language in the resolution that ties TDRs into the
expansion of UGA boundaries.
Greg Aucott, City of Bellingham, stated they are not suggesting a change to the city
of Bellingham UGA at this time. They haven't made that determination yet. At a staff level,
they would support such TDR language. The city has TDR receiving areas now.
Browne asked how much the process can tolerate, in terms of making TDRs
economically viable. Aucott stated the in -lieu fee program set the value at $5,000 for an
additional development right. That was the market value at the time. No one has used the
program.
Marian Beddill stated she isn't clear about how a transfer in development value
would work. She asked if receiving areas have to be predefined with a standard
development level, and then there would be a second level of density restriction with a
maximum number transferred development rights. Not having any upper restriction on
density is troubling.
Mann stated that's a reasonable concern that they will address when they define and
write the TDR code.
Aamot asked and there was discussion of who would purchase the development
rights in the case when a city proposes expanding an urban growth area. Mann stated they
would figure that out when developing a TDR program.
Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning, stated small cities would not have available capital
to buy TDRs in exchange for an expanded URG. An alternative is that the County allow the
UGA to expand with a condition that the developer would purchase or transfer those
development rights at the point of annexation and development.
Mann asked what incentive a builder would have if they allow UGAs to develop at
urban densities without annexation. Harper stated that would be an issue for the small
cities, which are holding the line at annexation before urban services are provided.
Mann suggested and there was discussion of adding language to the nonbinding
resolution, 'Whereas the County Council has directed staff to work with the cities to develop
an effective and robust TDR program as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, and
Whereas any request by a City to expand its UGA boundary shall be contingent upon a
proposal to purchase or otherwise retire TDRs in unincorporated Whatcom County." Make
the jurisdictions aware there is a mutually beneficial trade -off and that the County will ask
the cities to purchase TDRs when they want to expand their UGAs.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Browne asked and there was discussion of the effect of the proposed language being
a requirement instead of a request. He can support it now as a request. He'll have to
consider it as a requirement.
Personius stated staff would help develop language. The trigger for a TDR on a UGA
expansion would not be the expansion, but on the rezone to an urban zone.
Mann stated and there was discussion of the right time to require a TDR purchase
and making sure a TDR program doesn't keep getting overlooked.
Personius described the staff's current work on a TDR program.
Mann moved to forward this resolution and the exhibits to the County Council for
introduction, with amendments, "Whereas the County Council has directed staff to work
with the cities to develop an effective robust TDR program as part of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan update, and Whereas any request by a City to expand its UGA
boundary should include a proposal to purchase or otherwise retire TDRs in unincorporated
Whatcom County."
Aamot suggested language, "Whereas, it's the County's intention that any request to
expand an urban growth area will include a proposed interlocal agreement to transfer or
retire development rights when annexation occurs." It would trigger an interlocal
agreement that development rights would be transferred at a later date when annexation
occurs.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated that if
developers have to pay these things, they won't. Home buyers pay them. Consider
affordable housing. The City of Bellingham lacks affordable housing. Some city
assumptions are based on affordable housing.
Mann accepted the suggestion and amended and restated the motion to
amend the draft joint resolution, "Whereas, the County Council has directed staff to work
with the cities to develop an effective, robust TDR program as part of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan update; and Whereas it's the County's intention that any request to
expand an urban growth area will include a proposed interlocal agreement to transfer or
retire development rights in rural or resource lands when annexation occurs."
The motion to amend the resolution carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Browne (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner (1)
Mann moved to recommend introducing the resolution as amended.
Browne asked and there was discussion of whether this amendment would cause
problems for approval by the other jurisdictions.
The motion to recommend introduction as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Browne (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner (1)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Browne stated TDRs and PDRs are similar, particularly the mechanism for valuations.
Explore the idea of reverse auctions for establishing a fair and free market in a prompt and
efficient manner .
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ZONING AMENDMENTS (AB2014 -098) (3 :54 :00 PM)
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and
read from a presentation (on file).
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether there will be any updates to best
practices for the critical areas ordinance and how much of the critical areas ordinance is
founded on science versus on political decisions.
Browne asked for a description of the public participation plan for the work program.
Personius concluded his portion of the presentation regarding the 2014 work plan.
Browne asked and there was discussion of whether there is any geographic
information system (GIS) data that isn't on the website.
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the
presentation on the proposed docket.
Mann asked and there was discussion of the whether it matters if the lot is buildable,
frequency of updating the capital improvement program, and a park and recreation plan.
(4 :25 :41 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the
presentation on the proposed docket items beginning with the Slater /Elder Road request.
Browne asked and there was discussion of the process for conducting a code scrub.
Mann asked and there was discussion about the request to relocate the Birch Bay
Drive relocation.
(4:49:08 PM)
Personius concluded the presentation on the proposed docket.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether the Council may remove any of the
nine items previously docketed, whether they can classify land as agricultural lands of long-
term commercial significance without changing the zoning, clarifying rules about who can
host weddings and other events at a residence, and whether there is benefit to not
docketing the older docket items.
Wendy Harris asked if staff have done an environmental review on how the Birch Bay
promenade docket item would affect habitat.
Mann asked and there was discussion of the reason for the applicant to request a
docket for the Slater Road /Elder Road rezone, PLN2014- 00008.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Larry Stoner, applicant representative, answered questions and described item eight
regarding the Slater /Elder Road rezone.
Davis answered questions from Ms. Harris regarding the review for the Birch Bay
promenade proposed docket item.
Browne referenced item 12 and stated defer until after the Comprehensive Plan is
done. Unless there is a demonstrated public benefit, don't approve a fee waiver.
Mann moved to recommend Exhibit A as the 2014 docket.
Browne suggested a friendly amendment to remove item 12 regarding the Birch
Bay Drive relocation until after the 2016 Comprehensive Plan review.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Browne suggested a friendly amendment to remove docket items 13, 14, and
15 because a lot of people have worked on projections and they must resolve the current
GMA issues.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Browne asked and there was discussion of whether staff has had any response from
proponents Lummi Rock and North Star. He defers to legal counsel about the status of
those items.
Mann stated the Code should allow criteria for removing items that continue to roll
over on the docket, have had no action, and staff can't get in touch with the applicants. He
restated the motion to recommend approval of the resolution as amended by removing
items 12 through 15.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Browne (2)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner (1)
(Clerk's Note: The Committee took a two- minute break at 5:28 p.m.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF THE JANUARY 31, 2014, NON -URBAN POPULATION
MONITORING REPORT (AB2014 -097) (5 :30 :42 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced the staff
report beginning on Council packet page 103 and gave a staff report. This item is for
information only. He also made this presentation to the Planning Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned 5:32 at p.m.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Ken Mann, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2014, Page 6