HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 10 20131
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
September 10, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3 :03:46 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Kathy Kershner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. BRIEFING ON THE 2016 URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW PROCESS (AB2013-
303)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file) and gave a staff report. The phase 1 technical report assigned
population shares to areas of the County by determining the shares of growth that occurred
in urban growth areas between 2000 and 2010, and assigned that same share of growth in
the future. City planners stress that these are preliminary technical allocations and can be
adjusted during the policy phase. They compared the Berk medium population allocations
currently in the Comprehensive Plan.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of the rationale for going from a 21 -year
timeframe for calculation versus a 10 -year calculation.
(3:14:55 PM)
Aamot continued the presentation on phase 1 and current County Comprehensive
Plan population projections for each city and its urban growth area (UGA).
Brenner asked for a graph of in- migration for each urban growth area. Aamot stated
they have the information countywide, but not for each UGA.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of the population doubling in areas outside
UGAs rather than in the cities and UGAs. Aamot stated the Comprehensive Plan projections
represents a policy statement that included the recommendations from the cities. The Berk
phase 1 medium report projects into the future the growth they've actually had over the last
ten year.
Kremen stated and there was discussion of lowering the projections for Blaine and
Ferndale, and the cities' reactions.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/10/2013, 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
Brenner asked to see information on historical average growth for the cities in the
past 20 years.
Aamot continued the presentation on the employment rates. Berk recommends an
employment rate for Whatcom county at 46 percent, a bit above the state rate. The current
rate in the Comprehensive Plan is 49 percent. Berk took out the agriculture, mining, and
forestry jobs before allocating the employment to urban growth areas. Most of those
workers don't work in urban growth areas. The phase 1 technical report allocated
employment shares by determining the share of employment in 2010 based on a Council of
Governments study, and then assigning that same share to urban growth areas over the
planning period. There isn't a good 10 -year track record of employment data, so Berk just
used a point in time in 2010.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of commercial and industrial land in the
Columbia Valley.
Aamot stated the phase 1 report is a mathematical exercise meant to be a starting
point that leads to policy discussions. He concluded the presentation on the next steps.
The cities and County agreed to have preliminary numbers that can be tweaked at the
starting point. The final numbers would be adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner asked the staff to have the cities to provide their in- migration information
for each year for the last 20 years in graph form.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether there is any value in this study.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SCHEDULE FOR JOINT COUNTY AND CITY
REVIEW OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS (AB2013 -303A)
Knutzen moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE
ASSESSMENT (AB2013 -290) (3 :41:32 PM)
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of an email from Aubrey Stargell and
additional information from the Seftons.
Erin Osborn, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted handouts
(on file) and gave a staff report. They are receiving fewer open space applications. There's
no guarantee of approval, and a $525 application fee, which is a deterrent.
Timber management plans must be submitted when there is a sale or transfer in
ownership. The County doesn't charge a fee for that review. She recommends increasing
the fees to cover those costs.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/10/2013, 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
Brenner asked and there was discussion of County staff who review those plans and
whether the County is monitoring timber management activities.
Keith Willnauer, County Assessor, answered questions about monitoring the timber
management plans.
Osborn continued the staff report on the State Department of Revenue audit of the
County's current use program. Certain City of Bellingham applications are pending and
others must be re- rated. The Planning Commission is concerned that the public benefit
rating system is not adequate to measure public benefit. If the Council is interested, she
can present a more in -depth program overview for the councilmembers.
Mann asked and there was discussion of how much time this program takes for Ms.
Osborne.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether the County must participate in
the program.
Osborne described her recommendations for providing more public notice and public
notice to sites that allow public access. She submitted and gave a presentation on the
resolution and Sefton applications (on file), including the property attributes and amenities.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of how the timberland application approval
process differs from the others and if the Sefton public benefit rating system score is low.
The threshold for acceptance may be too low.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of who invented and approved the benefit
rating system and when.
Knutzen stated and there was discussion that designated open spaces should be
counted toward the total acreage of parks and recreation in the county.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether there is another property
designated open space abutting the Sefton property.
Kremen stated and there was discussion of keeping track of whether the public
actually accesses properties that offer public access.
Osborne stated the rating system is old and not finely tuned. Staff must spend a lot
of work reviewing past applications to ensure the ratings are consistent. It's important to
review the process overall. Now, decisions are only reviewable for arbitrary and capricious
actions. Applicants are generally committed to providing access.
Regarding the Sefton application in general, the Planning Commission recommends
denial.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of what is required from staff to update the
process.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/10/2013, 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
Weimer asked and there was discussion of publishing the locations of all the
properties that offer public access.
Kremen stated and there was discussion that the Sefton application does not have
any development rights, so there is no special benefit to water resource protection, yet it
gets a score of 15.
Michelle Luke, Planning Commission Chair, described the Planning Commission
recommendation to update the benefit rating system and of the Sefton application.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of the Sefton's options if the Council doesn't
approve the application.
Osborne gave a staff report on the Kennedy application and described the Planning
Commission recommendation, new information, and the site attributes.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether forestry can be done in a buffer.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of the timberland applications receiving a
score of 100 percent, and the Sefton application receiving a score of only 75 percent.
Personius stated there will be a public hearing on these three applications tonight.
Staff will incorporate the suggestions about the process into next year's work plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
Council Clerk
- Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Bill Knutzen, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/10/2013, Page 4