HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 11 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
March 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Ken Mann called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:04:56 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Barbara Brenner and Rud Browne.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Carl Weimer, Pete Kremen, Barry Buchanan and Sam Crawford.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION BY WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION AND OPENS SPACE PLAN,
FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (AB2014 -119)
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, submitted and read from
a presentation (on file) and answered questions. They updated the 2008 plan in -house and
contracted out the public survey and meeting facilitation. The plan will set priorities in
terms of areas that are of the most interest to the public. It helps staff put together a
budget. The Council has used it for identifying priorities.
Brenner asked if the online survey and the random survey were the same.
McFarland stated they were. He continued the presentation regarding the 2014 results.
Mann asked if it's typical nationally that passive recreation is more important to
people than active recreation. McFarland stated east county residents want more active
recreation, and west county residents want more passive recreation. Statewide, the results
are similar, but vary by community. The northwest part of Washington State is more
engaged in large natural areas and spaces.
Brenner asked if a community can apply to the Recreation and Conservation Office
(RCO) for a grant directly or must apply through the County. McFarland stated communities
can apply through cities, nonprofits, and other agencies. This plan will support an
application. Also, the RCO looks at a statewide survey and prioritizes projects from that.
Brenner asked if different agencies can work together to make a better application.
McFarland stated they can, and they've done that in the past. He continued the
presentation beginning with survey respondent satisfaction.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2014, 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
Browne asked and there was a discussion of food and vending concessions and
whether the survey asked if respondents were all- terrain vehicle (ATV) users.
McFarland continued the presentation beginning with survey results regarding
funding and funding options.
(3:33:17 PM)
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether they can tell if one person
submitted multiple surveys. McFarland stated they could have identified slanted results.
Buchanan asked the number of online survey respondents. McFarland stated there
were 196 random respondents and 62 online respondents.
Browne stated the survey size was not statistically significant. McFarland stated the
study was not statistically significant, but the results are similar to the 2008 survey, which
validated the results.
Browne stated an alternate survey structure could ask fewer questions to a much
larger group of people and rotate the questions that are asked. They could also offer people
an incentive for responding. McFarland explained how the surveys were conducted. They
will change survey questions next time there is a survey.
McFarland concluded the presentation on the next steps that need to be done.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of why this isn't the same process as the
County Comprehensive Plan.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of which department writes the recreation
chapter of the County Comprehensive Plan.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions and described the relationship between the two plans.
Mann asked if they can incorporate the parks plan into the recreation element of the
Comprehensive Plan by reference. Personius stated they could.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of which version would receive more public
process.
Crawford asked if Mr. Personius would like the parks plan to be a part of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan process. Personius stated ideally, the Council would adopt the park
plan, and they would amend the recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate changes in the parks plan. He assumes that same process will occur. Issues
have arisen through public comment about consistency between the two plans and whether
the parks plan should be a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It's one thing if the question
is about public process. It's a different thing if the question is about making a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, which requires an entirely different legal requirement.
Crawford asked if including the parks plan in the Comprehensive Plan is optional.
Personius stated it is.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2014, 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
53
Crawford stated the County government does a lot of things. He asked the
relationship to parks for County planning. Personius stated the main component is level of
service and potential impact fees.
Browne stated the cost of collecting impact fees is too much to make impact fees
worthwhile. McFarland stated impact fees don't pay 100 percent of a facility, and the fees
have to be applied within a certain period of time and matching funds are required.
Brenner stated they can discuss that in the Public Works, Health, and Safety
Committee because she would like to understand it better.
McFarland stated councilmembers can let him know of any changes they would like
to see in the draft plan. He'll be working on it for the next several weeks before it comes to
the Council for approval.
Mann stated he's interested in the Birch Bay community's efforts. McFarland stated
it's already identified in the new plan. Inclusion in the plan will support grant funding
efforts.
Mann asked if they don't need to include specific project tasks. McFarland stated
they don't need to.
Delaine Clizbe stated look at how this plan was put together. The Bike - Pedestrian
Advisory Committee did not provide input. She would like information on how the
consultants were selected to work on the plan and if they are qualified. Only 187 people
filled out the survey, so the sample size is too small. The survey was very confusing and
convoluted. She also has concerns with the Parks Commission member selection process,
how much can be built on the available park land isn't identified, the capital improvement
program doesn't have continuity, and the level of service recommendations are inconsistent.
Wendy Harris stated she doesn't have concerns about spending for parks or the
online survey. There should be one comprehensive plan for parks. She has concerns about
the public process and all the obscure planning processes and the lack of an open space
plan and wildlife habitat planning. The scoping document for the environmental impact
statement doesn't include any field inventory. They are obligated to take care of habitat
and wildlife.
Todd Citron, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Commissioner, stated he has a
concern about the reconveyed lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed. There is no specific
plan in terms of water quality protection, forest planning, or habitat planning. He's
concerned the decisions made in this plan will memorialize the plans for the reconveyed
lands. Make sure the plan is specific about the uses on the reconveyed land. Don't overlay
the park plan on the reconveyed lands. Make sure the plan takes water quality impacts into
account.
Jack Petree stated the Planning Commission process is required in the
Comprehensive Plan process. The recreational element is no longer optional once adopted
into the Comprehensive Plan. It's unclear whether this plan or the 1989 plan is a part of the
Comprehensive Plan. This plan is not consistent with the 1989 plan. This isn't due until
2016. It won't be needed for funding opportunities until then. Put it through the Planning
Commission process. Do the planning processes in conjunction with each other.
Implementing documents must be consistent.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2014, 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
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether this plan can be adopted by
reference.
Karen Brown stated she agrees with comments from Delaine Clizbe about the Parks
Commission. The survey questions were leading. Put this through the Planning
Commission.
Jeff Carrington stated he would like to know how they prioritize recreation projects
each year. A project in Birch Bay has been on the list for 37 years, but hasn't been done.
He has information that many people want an active park, not a passive park.
Greg Brown stated he agrees with Wendy Harris about the planning process. There
are a lot of questions about this process. He questions the request to change the level of
service. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan, this item should be docketed.
Patrick Alesse stated there must be a public process. He described the history of
restroom and parking facilities available in Birch Bay. He submitted a handout (on file).
Mann asked and there was discussion of the process for developing a park plan for
the reconveyed land. McFarland stated they want to settle the broader parks plan before
getting into a specific plan for the reconveyed lands, sometime in April.
Mann asked and there was discussion of the public process for this plan and how it's
different from past public processes, whether there were Planning Commission hearings for
the last plan, whether this needs to be done now or by 2016, whether the Council can send
this plan to the Planning Commission for review, and how they prioritize park acquisitions
and development.
Browne stated and there was discussion of planning to integrate the park system
with a trail system, food and beverage, accommodation, and public transport.
Personius stated the Planning Commission is booked until April. The Council has
approved the Comprehensive Plan docket, which includes an item to review and amend the
park and recreation level of service standards. One option is to amend the docket to
expand that item beyond just the level of service change, to address issues of adopting the
plan by reference and make the language less inconsistent between the two plans. He
would coordinate with Mr. McFarland. It would update the recreation element ahead of
schedule. He can bring forward language on March 25.
Mann stated the Council will discuss it at the evening meeting.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE REGARDING LOT CLUSTERING STANDARDS IN THE RURAL
(R) DISTRICT (AB2014 -113) (4:34:48 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, gave as staff report.
Browne stated the Planning Commission seems to have general consensus that this
make sense.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2014, 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
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Ken Mann, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2014, Page 5