HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 27 20091
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 27, 2009
Committee Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Bob Kelly None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Seth Fleetwood
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2009 -021)
Weimer nominated Caskey- Schreiber by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398)
Erin Osborne, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
Crawford stated section 20.82.011 applies to all residential neighborhoods in the
short -term planning areas. It adds to the cost of housing and restricts design standards. A
better approach would be to have the County develop interlocal agreements with the cities
to apply the cities' design standards if they want. Each city will have a different vision for
how their city streetscapes should look. Don't apply a blanket design.
There are cities that have adopted the 50 percent garage door coverage design, but
no counties have adopted it. Snohomish County and another county have imposed some
design standards. No county has gone so far as to have a blanket regulation in all urban
growth areas. Drop section 20.82.011. Keep 20.85, and have a new public hearing. This
ordinance has not been thought out well. The building community hasn't spent time
analyzing this regulation.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, 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
Caskey- Schreiber asked the last time there was a new street in a UGA. She asked if
these rules would trump a city's design standards. Osborn stated that in unincorporated
Whatcom County, these rules would apply. If annexed, the street would just exist, and the
regulations would no longer apply to the surrounding areas.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there would be a problem that this leads toward more
impervious surface, since there may have to be back alleys. Osborn stated the Planning
Commission was very concerned about the impacts of impervious surfaces. She constructed
the amendment to have that be strictly voluntary. When low impact development standards
come into effect, they would apply to get those density provisions. Now, there's nothing
stopping anyone from developing a rear lane alley.
Fleetwood stated the cities haven't objected to this. He asked if the City of Lynden
expressed an opinion. Osborn stated that since the City of Lynden isn't willing to extend
urban services to the urban growth area, it would be moot and wouldn't apply, according to
their city planners.
Kelly asked if staff have considered and responded to Councilmember Crawford's
concerns. Osborn stated that in order to really promote livability in neighborhoods, a
comprehensive approach is required. One common, small measure is to regulate the
placement of the garage relative to the streetscape, include front porches, reduce front yard
setbacks, or use rear lane alleys. Based on the limited scope of applicability, this is a
modest attempt to promote a more pedestrian- orientation to the streetscape. That's his
reason to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as written.
In terms of affordability, she talked with the County planner assigned to the
Community -wide Housing Affordability Task Force. Once builders are used to these
regulations, they will begin to stock these types of plans.
Weimer asked why the cost of such a house would be more. He likes the idea of
making these designs match what the cities want. These regulations should match with city
design guidelines. He moved to recommend approval to the full. Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 21, LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS,
REGARDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, EXEMPT LAND DIVISIONS AND
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY
LONG SUBDIVISIONS, FINAL LONG SUBDIVISIONS, SURVEYS AND
DEDICATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS (AB2008 -404A)
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a staff report.
Staff hasn't made any recommendations for changes from two weeks ago, other than the
committee's recommended changes.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated they received concerns from the
Building In Association (BIA) about vesting. He's not comfortable okaying the
ordinance without reviewing their concerns.
Stalheim stated he hasn't reviewed those concerns, either.
Weimer moved to hold this item in committee for two weeks. He asked how long
they will have to hold this item if they get more legal information in two weeks.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 2
1 Buckingham stated that's up to the Council. He would be more comfortable looking at it. If
2 he gets something else at the last minute, he will spend one minute going through it and try
3 to determine if it's a concern. This item seems to be a concern.
4
5 Fleetwood stated people from the BIA are here at this meeting. He hopes this
6 discussion serves as notice that any other information should be submitted soon.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.75, SCHOOL
11 FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, AND CHAPTER 20.97, DEFINITIONS (AB2009-
12 063)
13
14 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
15 staff report.
16
17 Crawford asked the role of the school district in setting fees. Stalheim stated the
18 County has the regulatory authority and sets the fees. Whatcom County is adopting the
19 school districts' capital facilities plans, calculations, and fees by reference. The impact fees
20 are collected at the time of the issuance of the development permit. The impact doesn't
21 occur until there's construction. The land division doesn't create demand for school.
22 facilities.
23
24 Crawford stated the Lynden City Council doesn't want to create a disparity between
25 the City collecting fees and the County not collecting fees, which would push growth into the
26 county. The City of Lynden was ready to adopt their impact fees, but was waiting until the
27 County was also ready to adopt impact fees.
28
29 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's correct.
30
31 Crawford stated part of the Meridian School District is in Bellingham. He asked how
32 these will line up with the City's impact fees. Stalheim stated he thinks the cities are
33 adopting the school district capital facilities plans. The City of Bellingham is not collecting
34 school impact fees for the Meridian School District, just the Bellingham School District.
35
36 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL - COMPREHENSIVE
41 PLAN
42
43 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
44 CHAPTER FOUR, CAPITAL FACILITIES (AB2009 -064)
45
46 Weimer moved to recommend concurrency to the full Council.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously.
49
50
51
52
53
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, 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
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
4. REVIEW AND FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
REGARDING DIRECTION ON RURAL FOREST CLUSTER ORDINANCE
(AB2009 -089)
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
staff report.
Brenner stated she wanted to see the minutes of the Planning Commission discussion
of this item.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this would affect a relatively small number of users who
are likely to do a cluster in the rural forestry zone. She doesn't want to put a lot of
resources into something that is not a problem.
Fleetwood stated there have been only a handful of applications in the past ten or 15
years to cluster in the rural forestry zone. He doesn't believe many would be affected. He's
inclined to agree with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber.
Brenner stated people were just starting to use the option of clustering in the rural
forestry zone. People were starting to develop in the county. That was part of the problem.
There are very significant impacts to rural forestry land. She supported the cluster to begin
with, but Councilmember Nelson mentioned concerns that made sense.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that maybe they should let this moratorium die because it's
not a big issue.
Crawford stated the concept is a good one. However, it could be stated a lot better.
If they really want to use clustering as a tool to preserve development rights while
promoting forestry, the ordinance can be a lot better. However, they don't have the staff or
budget to do that now. Create forestry buffers between the clustered area and remainder
tract. They could covenant the remainder tract to be used for forestry purposes. There are
many things they could do to make this work. Reverting back will not protect the things
that Councilmember Nelson was worried about. Some aspects of this is troubling. They
aren't resolving his issues.
Weimer stated he's not in favor of letting the moratorium disappear. They've
identified a number of problems that they wanted to deal with, but can't right now. It would
be more appropriate to make the interim moratorium permanent until they can fix the
clustering provision.
Fleetwood asked if there is a cost to making the interim ordinance permanent.
Stalheim stated there is not.
Fleetwood stated the other option is to renew the interim ordinance. Stalheim stated
that is an option. However, he doesn't want the Council to ask him every six months when
the permanent ordinance will be done. They should be aware of that.
Kelly stated the most important thing is to protect forestry. Making the ordinance
work is a secondary thing. He is more in favor of making the moratorium permanent, as
long as they address this as soon as possible.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 4
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated the staff can bring forward a permanent ordinance to
2 remove clustering provisions from the rural forestry zone. Councilmembers can be ready to
3 make modifications, if necessary.
4
5 The committee concurred.
6
7
8 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
9
10 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE LUMMI
11 ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN (AB2009 -088)
12
13 Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, gave a staff report.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
16
17 Middleton continued to give his staff report.
18
19 Kelly asked about the results of the groundwater study. Middleton stated the State
20 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official determined that the report done in the 1970's was
21 very inadequate. Nothing had been done in detail. The County hired Aspect Consulting to
22 create Appendix C, the proposed methodology to protect the aquifers, and Appendix D,
23 which is the actual groundwater study. Much work must still be done. The plan includes
24 recommended future measures. They studied enough to bring forward protections that
25 would be necessary and appropriate at this time. He described the recommendations.
26
27 Weimer stated the language in the plan about lot consolidation is confusing. He
28 asked whether lot consolidation is mandatory or not. Middleton stated the people who
29 originally wrote this plan are no longer with the County. He didn't address lot consolidation.
30 They're going to have to go through each of these elements and work things out. He
31 doesn't know why things were written the way they were originally. If they notice
32 something that isn't clear, make a note of it and start working on it.
33
34 Kelly asked if the State Department of Ecology has a role in this. Middleton stated
35 they don't, that he's aware of.
36
37 Crawford asked the outcome of this. Middleton stated he and the consultants met
38 with many island residents. The real change is that they are moving toward a science -
39 based decision - making process for protecting the aquifers, rather than a geographic
40 depression area. In general, he doesn't see that this will affect a lot of change regarding
41 downzone.
42
43 - Weimer stated the difference will be 65 development units. Middleton stated the real
44 change will be the proposed protections to the aquifer. That will be expensive.
45
46 Caskey- Schreiber stated forward questions about the plan to Mr. Middleton, and he
47 will begin to prepare answers to those questions for the next discussion. Hold in committee
48 for two weeks.
49
50 The committee concurred.
51
52 Wynn Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated there are other issues of concern
53 to the community. She has concerns that they don't know what kind of water they have,
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 5
1 except the increasing documented problems. The plan needs to include more things that
2 would help. The information in the plan now isn't sufficient to protect what they have
3 already.
4
5 She has issues with monitoring. Some people are reluctant about considering
6 serious data collection, such as metering everyone. Now, measurements are voluntary.
7 They need data about incremental development, which requires a complete look at quantity
8 and quality issues. A number of residents on the island have been involved in this since the
9 beginning. Draw on that knowledge.
10
11 Caskey- Schreiber asked Ms. Lee to write a letter to the Council about the specific
12 concerns and suggested solutions.
13
14 Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, described the history of this
15 process. The most objectionable items were deleted after a controversy on the island. The
16 island community doesn't speak with one voice. Toward the end of the process, there was a
17 concerted effort by islanders to derail the process. The result is the plan that was
18 developed.
19
20 Mandatory lot consolidations aren't legal. They are vested rights. Regarding the
21 water problem, the amount of water available will serve a density of one house per acre.
22 The downzone will affect his property, which isn't a recharge area.
23
24 There are issues regarding trespassers. People want trails on Lummi Mountain. The
25 Department of Wildlife doesn't want anyone up there. It is a resource conservation area of
26 the State of Washington, which doesn't want anyone up there. His company doesn't want
27 anyone up there. This summer, there were two unintentional arson fires up there. The
28 place is a tinderbox, and people shouldn't be up there. Delete references to trails. His
29 family owns Inati Bay and is leased by the Yacht Club. It isn't open to the public. Delete
30 the reference to Inati Bay.
31
32 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he was on the Planning Commission when it
33 originally worked on the plan. The original group that worked on the plan wasn't
34 collaborative. There was a consultant who didn't provide much guidance. The water is a
35 problem. Arsenic in the water is also a problem. That problem can be treated. However,
36 they are taking away a property right if they refuse the property owner to allow that water.
37 They will not allow an individual to treat the water.
38
39 Middleton stated water can be treated for arsenic, but that isn't the issue. If
40 someone drills into a section of the aquifer that has a high arsenic content and starts to
41 pump that water through, the arsenic will be spread throughout the aquifer. That's why this
42 will be expensive and difficult. The owner will have to abandon the well and move it.
43
44 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS REVIEW PROCESS,
45 INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT HEARING WITH THE PLANNING
46 COMMISSION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (AB2009 -052)
47
48 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, gave a status update.
49
50 Brenner stated the elected officials of the small cities agree that this process is going
51 too fast. She agrees. They are supposed to support the public. She asked what grants the
52 County isn't getting. Consider talking to the Growth Management Act (GMA) Hearings
53 Board judges about getting an extension. No matter what happens, this isn't public
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 6
1 process. The City of Ferndale Planning Director told the Ferndale City Council last night that
2 the County has initiated a change to their urban growth boundary. Some people who
3 attended were very upset. The Ferndale Planning Director claimed the County was
4 responsible for it.
5
6 Caskey- Schreiber stated they are all aware of the timeframe pressures. No one
7 other than Councilmember Brenner has expressed a need to change the timeframe.
8
9 Craven continued her staff report on the timeframe.
10
11 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
12 there are no decisions for today. They hope to have an executive session with the Planning
13 Commission before the public hearing to talk about some of the issues about what is
14 required by the June deadline. That question keeps coming up. They are doing what they
15 have to do, not what they want to do. Get the Council's specific questions to Ms. Craven
16 before that executive session so legal counsel can prepare answers.
17
18 Fleetwood stated there was a discussion at the last Growth Management
19 Coordinating Council (GMCC) meeting about phase two allocations, where the Council gets
20 to express what policies might influence how and why they allocate to a certain location.
21 That meeting with the GMCC is coming up soon. This Planning Committee and Council
22 should take a position on that before that GMCC meeting. Stalheim stated they will have
23 the land capacity analysis results in two weeks. It is about getting enough information to
24 inform the decision on the range of alternatives they will discuss at the public hearing. They
25 will discuss policy from the end of February through May. That issue about phase two is
26 something that happens after the public hearing. When they phrase the alternatives, a
27 policy consideration is what they are going to do with rural growth. Staff will provide a
28 recommendation on that in the alternatives. Think about that.
29
30 Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a lot of discrepancy between their past forecast and
31 what actually happened. Some of that was deliberate, because they didn't want to project a
32 high growth rate into the unincorporated area. Then they would have to facilitate that
33 projection. It's not necessarily true that the actual growth was unintentionally wrong. They
34 want to steer growth into the urban areas. If that doesn't happen, there isn't much they
35 can do.
36
37 Fleetwood stated the expectation back then was to have a policy gap. The City and
38 County were then to implement policies that would ensure they would meet those targets.
39 They didn't do that successfully.
40
41 Craven stated staff has a limited budget. They have funding for only three
42 alternatives. According to SEPA, they must have one no action alternative, which really
43 leaves them two alternatives. They must highlight the important differences. So far, the
44 discussion has been about focusing the land use policy choices that would implement the
45 policy alternatives rather than low, medium, and high alternatives.
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
48
49 Brenner stated it's not appropriate for planners to get together and present
50 something that's been pre- determined. She was told by a city planner that a map was
51 given to them by the County. The Chair of the GMCC said this is not the way to do public
52 process. It isn't fair that they're being handed papers from the planners. The public isn't
53 engaged or involved. The County is being portrayed as giving them maps of what they'll
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
do. Stalheim stated he can only describe what has happened, not second -hand information.
During the last GMCC meeting's alternatives discussion, they said they want alternatives
that are meaningful for the public. Because the timeline is tight, they need targets for
people to comment on. That is one way to spur public discussion. This is the public process
they can do within the timeline they have. Last year, he recommended defending the
County's action it took last February. The County chose to not do that. If the Council wants
to choose another deadline, it can make that decision. There have been comments about
the process going too fast. The Council is the only body that can slow down that process.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they can't put something before the public for comment
until there is some kind of agreement about where they're headed.
Brenner stated the problem isn't the speed. It's about dramatically changing things
without first telling people in affected areas. She was told by a City Council Member that
the map they were given, which included a dramatic shift in the urban growth area, came
from the County. Stalheim stated it came with collaboration between City and County staff.
Brenner asked if those meetings were taped. Everyone is pointing the finger at
someone else about these things. It's not right.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there could be more daylight on this process. Until some
decisions are brought forward to the Council for consideration, she doesn't have anything to
put forward for public comment.
Brenner stated that before, there was interaction in a public forum before anything
was determined at all. They are playing with people's lives.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that right now, the County Council doesn't have anything
before it to decide on. There is no agreement yet. When there is, this committee, the
Planning Commission, and the Council will weigh in on the recommendations. It's
premature to say that everyone is against things. Let things play out a little more until they
get some alternatives.
Stalheim stated the cities didn't want specific maps. The alternatives approach that
they're working on now doesn't include specific maps. He's concerned that the County
Council will have to make hard decisions. It may be better to have those decisions forecast
a little bit, rather than having it in May, 60 days before the decision. They've come up with
a good strategy to address the cities' concerns. It will require the County to get into those
policy discussions in the next three months. They will have to happen in a short period of
time. The Council will have a lot of information as background for the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council will receive each city's preference. Stalheim
stated the cities are more comfortable with a larger, global set of alternatives. They may
not see any details from the cities. They will have to set clear expectations of the cities
about when the County will need their proposals.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's unfortunate they are all under a short timeframe. Last
time, it took the City of Bellingham two years to come up with its population projections and
allocation. That made the County's plan so complicated.
Craven stated the cities know that the County welcomes their participation at the
public hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 8
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
Brenner stated the map sent to her was a massive change. Now there's a time
crunch. The map came from the County.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's just a proposal from County staff working with city
planners. There's nothing wrong with having a proposal to spur discussion.
Brenner stated there was only one map proposal. He said they wanted to do three
proposals. Stalheim stated there are three proposals countywide, not one for each urban
growth area. If they did three proposals for each urban area, there would be 30
alternatives. They can't do that.
Weimer stated he understands the frustration with the timeline, but there isn't a way
around it. Sooner or later, they each have to say what they're really thinking. It's out in
the public now. That's good.
Crawford stated that given the time constraints and the magnitude of what's on the
line, the planners are doing a fabulous job. He's not receiving any feedback that the
process is too rushed. Planning directors have concerns about how quickly they have to get
the work done. He heard the concern in terms of resource concerns, not public input
concerns. He has respect for the small cities' work with the County. The reality is that they
could just walk away at this point. So far, there is a spirit of cooperation. He complimented
Mr. Stalheim for his leadership. Keep going.
Caskey- Schreiber stated make sure the proposals are available for public comment
before the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Al
,••y�N C
N-T
1 �
idii3 0; !oun- 1 Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
✓ s
Laurie Caskey- chreiber, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 9
z
�� � ��_,�
�,,1 � 3p 1
n„ a
� � R R� , . y
o !'. ,lr.
a r`k .`aE_. .. ..
tl �� t
� � ���� 9
*4
.; a i
ne�" �� i� c� ti;
� o u