HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 7 20091 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 July 7, 2009
5
6 Committee Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
7 in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Bob Kelly None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Seth Fleetwood
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
19
20 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING A PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
21 ZONING MAP FROM RURAL FORESTRY (RF) TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL 4
22 (UR4) ON 80 ACRES WITHIN THE COLUMBIA /KENDALL URBAN GROWTH
23 AREA (AB2009 -302)
24
25 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, gave a
26 staff report and stated there is a substitute map.
27
28 The following people spoke:
29 Wendy Harris, Silver Beach Resident, stated don't rezone forestry land to
30 urban residential. She described the purpose of rural forestry. Protect
31 resource lands.
32 Heather Wolf, Applicant Representative, stated consider the Findings of Fact
33 in the proposed ordinance. The zoning is not compatible with the
34 Comprehensive Plan UGA designation.
35 Jack Hovenier, Holly and Associates and S.C. Goshen LLC, described the
36 Planning Commission vote and the history of his application. The zone is
37 incompatible with the UGA. The land currently is not prime forestry land.
38
39 Discussion included when the Council would negotiate a development agreement;
40 the new development potential; current urban growth area (UGA) review; deferring decision
41 until UGA review is complete versus making a decision based on current regulations; the
42 Planning Commission's vote on this issue, and; transfers of development rights (TDR)
43 program for County UGA's, and; the appropriate zoning for any future areas that are
44 removed from the UGA.
45
46 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval, including the substitute map, to
47 the full Council.
48
49 Motion failed 1 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber in favor.
50
51
52 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
53
Planning and Development Committee, 7/7/2009, Page 1
1 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW PROCESS
2 (AB2009 °052)
3
4 Rebecca Craven, County Council Policy Analyst, gave a staff report and referenced
5 the memo in the Council packet, a handout on historic growth rate, and the final Growth
6 Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) recommendations, and read a presentation (all
7 on file).
8
9 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, continued
10 the staff report.
11
12 Discussion included the difference between historic and current growth; getting a
13 staff report on likely future growth based on new historic growth information; the staff
14 recommendation of a total growth number being between 250,000 and 256,000; making
15 sure smart growth policies are in place; the next steps in this process; revisiting the growth
16 number through the 2011 process; growth allocation; whether small towns can generate
17 additional jobs for their additional population; on what data the Council should make its
18 questions, and; Birch Bay's infrastructure and potential for incorporation.
19
20 Caskey- Schreiber referenced the question to Council on Council packet page 137 and
21 stated the purpose today is to determine whether councilmembers agree with a range for
22 the total growth number of 250,000 to 254,000.
23
24 The Committee concurred.
25
26 Stalheim referenced and described Questions to Council' one through five on Council
27 packet pages 138 and 139.
28
29 Caskey- Schreiber referenced Council question one on Council packet page 138.
30 County job centers are in Bellingham and Ferndale, so the most growth will occur along the
31 Interstate 5 corridor. It's dangerous to allow more housing in the rural areas. The small
32 towns aren't really able to generate more jobs.
33
34 Fleetwood stated the proposal is to allow Bellingham to take less than they have
35 previously. Bellingham will continue to grow. He asked for a summary of information on
36 the discussion of this by the GMCC. Philosophically, the cities should grow in ways that
37 make them less dependent on having to drive those distances.
38
39 Weimer stated he's fine with Bellingham not growing as fast as it has in the past,
40 and allowing the small cities to grow faster. The allocations seem too severe. Pick a middle
41 ground.
42
43 Brenner the job allocations are a wish list. They have no way to make jobs locate in
44 any area. She likes the idea of establishing a middle - ground. The allocations are a
45 statement of what people may like, not what will happen.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated the largest employers in the county are in Bellingham, and
48 those employers will continue to grow. The County must give those employees an
49 opportunity to live near where they work. The County is not doing that now. Since they're
50 going to revisit this again in a couple of years, she is willing to modify growth allocations
51 toward the small towns. However, people will still be drawn to live in Bellingham, where the
52 services are located.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 7/7/2009, Page 2
1 Craven stated that if they don't make an employment allocation to the small towns,
2 and their commercial and industrial land base isn't sufficient to allow a new employer, they
3 foreclose the possibility of this model working. The purpose is to provide those small towns
4 the potential for a new employer. That won't require a huge amount of acreage in the small
5 towns. The GMCC recommends that the rural allocation be increased from six to 14.5,
6 including all the limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) study areas and
7 Sudden Valley. It's still a declining growth allocation from recent history, but is a
8 continuation in a decline they've seen in the last few years. They want to provide sufficient
9 urban lands so the growth can be urban instead of rural. That doesn't mean over - sizing
10 them. To attract growth to the small towns, and reduce growth in rural areas, the growth
11 will have to be in conjunction with job growth, which is beyond the ability of the County to
12 affect other than by providing zoning.
13
14 Stalheim stated he's hearing that the committee wants to move the Bellingham
15 numbers up, move the other numbers down, or do some sort of combination. Make small
16 shifts as they explore alternatives.
17
18 Weimer stated Ferndale wants to go from eight to 14 percent. A fifty percent
19 increase puts Ferndale at 12 percent, which reduces their allocation by 1,100 people over
20 the next 20 years. If they use a 50 percent factor for all the cities, 4,000 more people will
21 have to go somewhere, which could be Bellingham.
22
23 The Committee concurred with Mr. Stalheim and Councilmember Weimer's
24 50 percent factor.
25
26 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like information on how much the zoning would
27 have to change to provide a job base. She referenced Council question two on Council
28 packet page 138. They are concerned about the jobs forecast being related to reality. Her
29 answer is yes.
30
31 The Committee concurred.
32
33 Caskey- Schreiber referenced Council question three on Council packet page 138.
34
35 Brenner stated she's not in favor of making any radical changes to Birch Bay at this
36 time.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber stated don't take away Birch Bay's option of becoming a city.
39
40 Stalheim stated the policy question is whether Birch Bay should receive more
41 allocation than the City of Blaine. The historic growth rate is less than what the community
42 plan projected.
43
44 Weimer stated the Birch Bay and Blaine growth request recommendations are too
45 high.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Blaine and Birch Bay growth areas are both too big.
48 Consider the realities and details of how those areas will support growth, and then come up
49 with an appropriate number.
50
51 The Committee concurred.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 7/7/2009, Page 3
1 Fleetwood asked for a formula to reduce all the requests equally and rationally.
2 Craven stated those reductions can be based on the characteristics of the individual
3 jurisdiction. Being even - handed would be more arbitrary than being jurisdiction- specific.
4
5 Caskey- Schreiber stated let the staff make a recommendation on how the cities' UGA
6 requests should be reduced. Stalheim stated staff will look at options for Birch Bay.
7
8 Caskey- Schreiber referenced Council question four on Council packet page 138. The
9 methodology was very thorough.
10
11 The Committee concurred.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber referenced Council question five on Council packet page 139.
14 Regarding item a, do provisional UGA's. If cities adopt these standards of development, the
15 County will allow the Cities to access those UGA's.
16
17 Brenner stated she's concerned that land will just sit if they do that. Craven stated
18 this is aimed at getting the Cities to enact certain policies to increase their allocation.
19
20 Caskey- Schreiber stated she likes items a through c. Bellingham has an overall
21 lower density than most cities its size. There is work to do there. Regarding the annexation
22 extension, item b, make sure some of the UGA lands are annexed before they take in more.
23 Item c is absolutely necessary.
24
25 Weimer stated he generally agrees with items a through c.
26
27 Fleetwood stated talk about extracting value for upzones. Stalheim stated
28 transferring development rights out of rural or agricultural lands could be another mitigation
29 strategy, added as item d.
30
31 The Committee concurred.
32
33 Caskey- Schreiber stated they support question five as an alternative, once they
34 define what is beyond the current allocation. Stalheim stated the only City not beyond the
35 current allocation is Bellingham. Based on the committee's previous conversation, they may
36 look at allocating additional population for Bellingham.
37
38 The Committee concurred.
39
40 (Clerk's Note: Committee Member Kelly left the meeting. Councilmembers Brenner
41 and Fleetwood, not on the committee, also concurred with the above questions.)
42
43 Caskey- Schreiber referenced Council question one regarding agricultural lands,
44 including sub -items a and b, on Council packet page 140. They should explore mitigation
45 for any loss of agricultural and rural forestry land. The Comprehensive Plan may be the
46 place to mandate that mitigation. Mitigation should be mandatory. Figure out how to get
47 public benefit from any approved upzone.
48
49 The Committee concurred.
50
51 Stalheim stated the staff will prepare a package for the public hearing in September.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 7/7/2009, 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
Caskey- Schreiber stated begin discussions on this at the first meeting in October,
before the Council receives the Planning Commission recommendation.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meet in adjourned at 4:51 p.m.
1
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTE�J;`:``" i i i i i r r r rrrii
WHgr •
U
S)ana cMx*adP, Counc# Clerk
••
/ N G ,gyp
' `rh' •
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
aurie Caskey -S reiber, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/7/2009, Page 5