HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 12 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 12, 2008
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Bob Kelly
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN TO AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY
OF BELLINGHAM UGA FOR APPROXIMATELY 305 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF
DEWEY VALLEY AND THE MOUNT BAKER HIGHWAY (AB2008 -086)
Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is to
amend the interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham regarding annexation. She
described the area and submitted a map (on file). There will not be any transportation cost
reimbursement. It's a simple, straightforward amendment.
Fleetwood asked at what point in time does the annexation technically happen.
Craver explained the annexation procedure.
Crawford asked if this is the last time the Council looks at this, and if the Council
makes the final annexation decision. Craver stated the County does not make the final
decision. The City of Bellingham makes the final decision. The residents are applying to
annex into the city. This is the last time the Council will see this item.
Crawford asked about the area to the west of the Olympic Pipeline and to the south
of Bakerview Road. It is the most southern area marked for light impact industrial (LII)
use. That is the Sandell property. In the past, the City wanted that area changed to some
sort of dense residential zoning. The County Council wanted it to be light impact industrial,
which it is now. The property owner did not want to change from LII. He asked if that
parcel will remain LII, or if the City plans to change the zoning of that area. That was a
contentious issue between the City and County at the time. Craver stated this is one of the
areas that is part of the urban fringe subarea plan. This LII zone was voted on by the City
Planning Commission and City Council. The City brings this area into the city with
comparable zoning. If there is any discussion about changing that zoning in the future, the
City will have an entire separate process.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the City has made comments during the urban growth area
(UGA) process about its desire for more industrial land. The City may now see the value in
keeping that land industrial.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 1
1 Crawford asked if the City will inherit the problem of the stop sign at the corner of
2 Dewey Road, at the bottom of the valley. There is a problem there. The flood problem is to
3 the north of there. The County must still deal with that. He asked the timeframe for
4 annexation for this area. Craver stated she doesn't have a date. Fire District 4 and the City
5 of Bellingham Fire Department must work out some contractual issues. As soon as this
6 amendment is approved, the annexation goes to the Boundary Review Board. She doesn't
7 know their timeframe or the City's timeframe. There may be issues with the transfer of
8 services.
9
10 Crawford asked if the City would like Fire District 4 to continue servicing the area.
11 Craver stated she doesn't know the issues.
12
13 Crawford stated Trickle Creek Boulevard is eventually meant to connect with East
14 Bakerview Road. The Dewey Road problem may go away some day if Trickle Creek
15 Boulevard were more modern and up to standards.
16
17 Caskey - Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
18
19 Weimer asked what the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) plans to do
20 with their land in the area. Craver stated she doesn't have that information.
21
22 Crawford stated this may be one of the sites the DNR wants to unload. The City may
23 take it and zone it for residential.
24
25 Weimer stated this is one of the densest pipeline areas in the county. There are four
26 pipelines in the area. To some degree, a zoning amendment would take into consideration
27 how they should develop high density residential development on top of pipelines. He
28 would hate for that to get lost in this annexation. He asked if the Council should mention
29 the pipelines in Exhibit D, and that there is a zoning amendment working its way through
30 the system to address this issue. Trickle Creek is a national example of how development
31 shouldn't happen around pipelines.
32
33 Fleetwood stated Exhibit D refers to governmental service providers, not private
34 service providers.
35
36 Crawford stated they may be able to attach it to the agreement somewhere.
37
38 Weimer stated make sure at least a letter goes with the agreement. He spoke to the
39 City Council about this.
40
41 Crawford stated Councilmember Weimer can add language to the amendment, as a
42 second Agreed statement, "2. Whatcom County has docketed a zoning amendment, the
43 intent of which is to address public safety from a current lack of coordination and attention
44 to building development in close proximity to high pressure transmission pipelines."
45
46 Weimer stated they must get the map right, and include the fourth pipeline.
47
48 Fleetwood stated the agreement can make reference to the zoning amendment.
49
50 Weimer stated it doesn't necessarily have to be attached.
51
52 Caskey- Schreiber asked if Olympic Pipeline also goes through Alabama Hill, which
53 also has many residences.
54
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 2
1 Crawford stated those residences are all adjacent to the pipeline. No one is on top of
2 a pipeline.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the City has its own policy regarding this.
5
6 Weimer stated the City doesn't have any policy. The County has better policies
7 regarding pipelines. It requires a buffer of 660 feet on each side of the pipeline.
8
9 Caskey- Schreiber stated that the area will totally be under the City's jurisdiction if
10 the City annexes the area. It would be better to lobby the City to do their own
11 Comprehensive Plan amendment.
12
13 Weimer stated he's already done that. He doesn't want this to get lost in the
14 transfer from County to City. This only asks the City to be aware of the issue. If they really
15 want a change, get the City to modify their Comprehensive Plan.
16
17 Fleetwood stated the sole purpose today is to satisfy the provision in the interlocal
18 agreement that says they will update the agreement with a description. Saying that the
19 City and County will ensure public safety could mean many different policy initiatives that
20 they haven't envisioned. The County doesn't have any idea of whether the City would
21 agree to that today.
22
23 Weimer stated he's not asking the City to agree to it. He's asking the City to be
24 aware that it's happening.
25
26 Caskey- Schreiber stated it would be just as effective to draft a letter to inform the
27 City of the County's proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, and suggest that the City
28 consider the same sort of amendment. She asked if this is an amendment the Council can
29 make. Craver stated the City Council approved the amendment at its meeting yesterday.
30 An amendment would require the City to look at the amendment again. That would take
31 some time, and the County may miss the deadline for getting a packet to the Boundary
32 Review Board. Sending a letter would be beneficial. The City's Comprehensive Plan
33 includes language about adopting an ordinance to provide minimum setbacks for pipelines.
34 The City Planning Department and Public Works Department must also mark pipeline areas
35 for potential new developments.
36
37 Weimer stated he is fine with sending a letter.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 2. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLETION OF THE URBAN GROWTH AREA
42 REVIEW (AB2008 -082)
43
44 Fleetwood stated there is a substitute resolution.
45
46 Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the Growth
47 Management Act (GMA) requires counties to review their urban growth areas (UGA's) every
48 ten years. The Planning Commission's review and recommendation is in the Council packet.
49
50 The GMA also requires Comprehensive Plan updates every seven years. The next
51 one is due in 2011. They used the best available data to evaluate available land supply
52 during the UGA review. The Bellingham UGA land supply data reflects the same figures and
53 boundary the County Council approved in July, which is scheduled for adoption during this
54 evening's meeting.
55
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 3
1 The Columbia Valley land supply data reflects the current UGA boundary. Staff did
2 the original land supply analysis during preparation of the Foothills Subarea Plan update last
3 year. That original data reflected the draft plans recommended UGA boundary. For this
4 review, staff adjusted that land supply analysis to reflect the current UGA boundary. The
5 analysis is based on the existing approved density of four units per acre. The population
6 projection was from the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, not the draft subarea plan
7 recommendations. The draft subarea plan doesn't have a bearing on this review. The
8 Commission took comments from County citizens who were concerned that the two were
9 related. The Commission wrote findings to address that issue. The Commission asked staff
10 to make it clear in the staff report that this review isn't tied to the draft Foothills Subarea
11 Plan.
12
13 The review also looked and UGA densities to make sure planned and achieved
14 densities meet the requirement for urban density. No city zoning regulations have
15 minimum lot sizes above one - quarter acre, except Bellingham's half -acre zoning in two
16 established neighborhoods.
17
18 Based on a study of all lots created in the last ten years, all the UGA's appear to be
19 achieving urban densities, except the Columbia Valley UGA. The only lots created were
20 large lot short-plats in the Columbia Valley UGA.
21
22 The review also analyzed population growth taking place in the UGA's in the last ten
23 years. The population growth overall in the county UGA's exceeds what they planned in the
24 1997 County Comprehensive Plan.
25
26 GMA requires counties to use population projections based on the most recent ten -
27 year Office of Financial Management (OFM) projections. The last ten -year projections were
28 released in 2002. Five -year projections were released in late 2007. Those are extensions
29 of the 2002 projections. Staff used the population projections for the county and UGA's
30 adopted in the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan, which is in the range of both the 2002
31 and 2007 OFM projections. That is to provide a consistent countywide analysis.
32
33 The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED)
34 advised that the best approach to this review is to compare the best available land supply
35 data with the adopted population projections based on the ten -year OFM figures. Those
36 results are in the Council packet.
37
38 All the UGA's have adequate land supply to accommodate the projected 20 -year
39 population growth. The two UGA's that show a deficit of available landare Birch Bay and
40 Sumas. However, they have sufficient land available within the UGA boundary in the long -
41 term planning area. The long -term planning area can be added to the available land supply
42 when transferred to the short-term planning area through a rezoning process. The UGA
43 with the greatest surplus of land supply is Blaine.
44
45 The County completed the UGA review as required by RCW 36.70A.130(3)(a). The
46 resolution finds that all the UGA's can accommodate the projected 20 -year growth. The
47 resolution also states the County will work with cities to evaluate the UGA's as part of the
48 Comprehensive Plan update process. Any changes to the UGA's would be considered
49 through the Comprehensive Plan revision process, as required by RCW subsection .133(B).
50 That process will allow for the adoption of updated population projections, countywide land
51 supply analysis methodology, and extensive public participation.
52
53 The Planning Commission added a finding saying that the County will work with the
54 City of Blaine to further evaluate the UGA as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 4
1 by the end of 2009. That finding is in the proposed resolution. The Comprehensive Plan
2 update is due for completion in 2011. The work begins tomorrow.
3
4 Fleetwood asked about the issue of shrinking the City of Blaine. The City of Blaine
5 agreed to make a recommendation by 2007 on how the County could shrink its UGA. That
6 didn't happen. Now the City wants until the end of 2009. He asked why it would take the
7 City an additional two years.
8
9 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the 2009
10 deadline came from the Planning Commission, not the City of Blaine. The City of Blaine has
11 a draft Comprehensive Plan update. They are interested in scaling back that boundary. The
12 2009 date was something the Planning Commission wanted so it wouldn't go on to 2011.
13
14 Weimer stated the City of Blaine asked the County Council last year to shrink it's
15 urban growth area (UGA). The Council said it would do that during the ten -year review
16 process. Now it's getting put off. Stalheim stated the City doesn't have a proposal before
17 the County. If the City wants to propose something, it can. The County intends to do that
18 across all the small cities and urban growth areas in a cohesive fashion.
19
20 Weimer stated asked if there was a lot of cooperation from the cities or if the cities
21 were annoyed. Davis stated staff worked with the cities to get their best available data on
22 land supply and to achieve density. There weren't any expressions of annoyance. The
23 understanding was that this is a review of the best data that exists now, and any
24 subsequent changes to UGA boundaries would take place during the Comprehensive Plan
25 amendment process in conjunction with the 2011 Comprehensive Plan update.
26
27 Fleetwood asked if the City of Blaine agrees with the Planning Commission findings.
28 Davis stated they are aware of and seem to approve of the data and methodology. The City
29 of Ferndale however, doesn't want to go on record for support yet.
30
31 Caskey- Schreiber stated the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update was very thorough.
32 She is comfortable with leaving the UGA's as they are. She is not as concerned about the
33 Blaine issue. She is concerned about the Foothills area plan update. She's relieved about
34 the update from CTED and that the County can tweak the boundaries through the subarea
35 plan update. They've talked about altering the UGA and swapping areas. Stalheim stated
36 they would not have to wait until 2011, because it is a subarea plan, which is exempt from
37 the one -year review process. The staff is preparing a draft environmental impact statement
38 on the Foothills plan, and will evaluate alternatives that include the UGA designation
39 boundaries. Once that process concludes, the subarea plan will go to the Planning
40 Commission. They can entertain those proposals at that time. In this step, they are only
41 documenting the County's work of the required ten -year review, and whether the UGA's are
42 adequate. In the case of Blaine, the UGA is too adequate.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber stated CTED concurs with the staff approach. She read the CTED
45 recommendation. After reading CTED's feedback, she approves of the approach. This is a
46 good effort. Stalheim stated the timelines will be close in 2017 and 2018.
47
48 Weimer moved to amend resolved statement eight "...Foothills Subarea Plan
49 update, nor will these findings be used to approve or deny that plan or propose
50 developments within the Columbia Valley UGA." The Planning Commission discussed the
51 concern of the possibility that someone could assert that the County already blessed the
52 subarea plan or developments through this resolution.
53
54 Crawford stated think about how these findings drive the process. This process is
55 not a process of approving or denying development. That's a separate issue when someone
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 5
applies for a development. It might be wise to leave the development part out of it.
Everyone knows that one large development is proposed. Because the Council has
unapproved work in the Columbia Valley, the Council doesn't want anything here to be
construed as driving that development one way or another. He asked if this is the right tool
to directly address development, as opposed to keeping it an urban growth area document.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that the motion take out the reference to proposing
developments.
Crawford stated that at some point, their urban growth area plan will be done and
approved. At that time, things will flow out of that, which may or may not enable certain
types of development. He wonders about the permanence of the statement.
Fleetwood asked the intent of the motion.
Weimer stated there has been concern about proposals to change the size and shape
of the UGA, and there are proposals for big developments. They are saying that will fit in
the UGA. The Planning Commission doesn't want the Council to say that the resolution will
be used to drive those developments or future processes.
Crawford stated he doesn't have strong feelings one way or another about the
motion.
Fleetwood stated it's benign.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's fine. It's highly unusual for the Council to approve this
while that development is hanging out there.
Crawford stated the staff is punting until they get to the next 2011 deadline. There
are shortcomings in certain UGA's that the Council could address. They have more area
than necessary for the projected population. The City of Ferndale would also like a review
of its UGA, which may radically alter their UGA. He asked if it's okay to let these issues
simmer while going forward with this analysis. Stalheim stated that is correct. When the
GMA was passed, there was only one provision in the Act to do a ten -year review of the
UGA. When setting aside resource lands and protecting critical areas, they will have to
either expand the UGA's or increase density within the UGA's to accommodate growth and
development. That's the reason for the ten -year review. It is a simple question of
adequacy, and whether the UGA's are adequate. Now they know the answer. Now they will
go through the process of a Comprehensive Plan update to address the issues brought out
in this analysis.
Crawford stated the public feedback included in this packet was mostly about what it
means to do this analysis. Most of it was critical about lack of notice and not being in -depth
enough. He asked if they are complying with the Act.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford continued to ask if this is to say they can accommodate the population
growth, but it's not necessary by the GMA to go into it on a UGA -by -UGA basis at this point.
Stalheim stated that's correct. The analysis was exhaustive. Much of the analysis was
against short -term planning areas, not short- and long -term planning areas. When added
together, the County has a surplus of land available for the 20 -year supply.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Birch Bay has a huge long -term planning area supply, even
though it looks like it has a shortfall.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 6
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
Fleetwood asked if CTED has a checklist our guideline for staff to follow in these
reviews. Davis stated it does not for the UGA review. It has a checklist for land supply
methodology, which he uses to compare all the cities.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked the reason why legal counsel has not signed off on the agenda bill
sheet. He asked if legal counsel reviewed this resolution and is satisfied that the staff have
met the requirements of the GMA. There is lots of correspondence from the public saying
that the County is doing this wrong. Davis stated legal counsel attended Planning
Commission meetings and they discussed that point. Legal counsel agreed that the purpose
of this review is to prove adequacy. Any changes must be made as a Comprehensive Plan
change, which is addressed separately in the GMA.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a memo from CTED that sanctions what they've
done, but they should pursue discussions by 2011.
Fleetwood asked if the CTED letter expressly refers to this resolution. Davis stated it
does not. It reviewed the staff report.
Crawford stated the Council is not planning to have a hearing because it is approving
the Planning Commission recommendation. He asked if the Planning Commission changed
anything from the staff report. Davis stated the Planning Commission added findings and
conclusions seven and eight.
Weimer moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Jill Nix`%11iHint#4V Transcription
GO(/
6T C 4*i••� <'�'��,
J Sv
•k
O:O •
�y �Q�vtsrCgg?hcil Clerk
4111111114% tt
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
th Fleetwo , Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 7