HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 25 20081 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 November 25, 2008
5
6 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Bob Kelly
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
19
20 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
21 ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40 TO PROVIDE FOR THE
22 OPERATION OF WILDLIFE RESCUE REHABILITATION FACILITIES IN THE
23 AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT AS A CONDITIONAL USE, AND ALSO
24 AMENDING CHAPTER 20.97 - DEFINITIONS, TO INCLUDE - WILDLIFE
25 RESCUE REHABILITATION FACILITIES" (AB2008 -397)
26
27 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
28
29 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
30 ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
31 INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
32 STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
33 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
34 TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398)
35
36 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
37
38 3.- ORDINANCE AMENDING DOCKETING PROCEDURES IN WHATCOM COUNTY
39 CODE CHAPTERS 20.10 AND 20.90 (AB2008 -399)
40
41 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
42
43
44 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
45
46 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
47 AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
48 COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION
49 AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF FERNDALE UGA FOR
50 APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF SLATER ROAD (AB2008-
51 400)
52
53 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, gave a staff report.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
Caskey- Schreiber stated this will end up touching Bellingham's urban growth area
(UGA). She asked if that is a problem. Stalheim stated they already touch.
Gary Jensen, Ferndale Mayor, stated the Ferndale City Council unanimously
recommends this request. It's an important part of their retail future.
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
4. REVIEW OF DRAFT TECHNICAL WORK REGARDING LAND CAPACITY
METHODOLOGIES (AB2008 -389)
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, handed out a memo
(on file) from their consultants, and described the items in the table in the memo. They
propose using the cities' zoning for the UGA areas, because they anticipate those areas
being annexed at some point. They will use that zoning to determine if a lot is partially
used.
Caskey- Schreiber stated reduce the market factor to 5 or 10 percent for vacant land.
If there is more pressure to infill and if there are more policy incentives, things could
change drastically in the city of Bellingham, which has a low density overall. Reduce the
market factor for partially- and under -used land to 15 percent instead of 25 percent.
Stalheim stated this is the recommendation of the planning staffs. It's fairly defensible.
Other jurisdictions have done analyses and studies to support it. However, having a market
factor is optional, not mandated.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to reduce the market factor for vacant land to 5 percent.
Fleetwood asked if reducing the market factor would still make it defensible.
Stalheim stated that if they tie it to questions about their confidence in the growth forecasts
and other questions about land monitoring methodology, a reduction is potential. They
would have to put the entire package together and see how it all fits. This is one of the last
adjustments they can make. It's an easy adjustment to make toward the end of the
process. The cities and County staffs are working well together. This is their
recommendation, but it's a Council decision. A Growth Management Act requirement is that
cities can propose market factors for their areas. Market factor is something on which the
cities should weigh in.
Weimer stated they are cautious about 15 and 25 percent thresholds. However, he
has no reason to choose five percent over 15 percent, so he hesitates doing that. Leave the
percentage as it is, as long as the Council can revisit the question in the future, once they
hear from the cities and others.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion. She wants a guarantee that they can
revisit this issue. People should know that the Council will probably change it. Stalheim
stated they will have this conversation with the Coordinating Council at its next meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, 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
Fleetwood stated he will bring it up at the meeting. By some means, they will ask
the planning directors to reconsider the market factor, and get a clearer sense of their
reason for the higher number.
Craven stated that if they are considering it to be the equivalent of the land
availability factor, it's nearly right on to what the City of Bellingham used in its last land
supply analysis. The safety factor is what the County Council had grave concerns about,
and did change.
Stalheim stated all the jurisdictions are using this methodology, so they're all
following the same script, with no safety factor.
Brenner asked the market factor used last time on property. Craven stated that for
the city of Bellingham, it varied from zero to 25 percent, depending on certain factors of -the
lot. She doesn't remember the factor used for residential property.
Brenner stated she would like to see that information. Craven stated the City did the
analysis on a parcel -by- parcel basis. Some areas, such as Barkley or the Fairhaven
Highlands, didn't have a land availability factor or had a very low safety factor. It varied
depended on what the City expected to happen with a particular parcel. The range was zero
to 25 percent.
Brenner stated she likes that idea.
Stalheim continued to read the handout, beginning with item 18 regarding data
generation.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Stalheim continued to read the handout.
Crawford asked if this analysis will be done by a contractor or in house. Stalheim
stated each jurisdiction is doing their own analysis. They are looking at their permit data
and plat data.
Crawford asked if the jurisdictions will look at density in terms of the entire urban
growth area and how much of it has developed, which won't be very useful. He asked if the
jurisdictions would instead look at the individual properties that have been developed and
see what the uses of those properties actually are. Stalheim stated the jurisdictions would
use the latter method.
Weimer asked if the data from all the jurisdictions will be reviewed by one group for
consistency in gathering that data. Stalheim stated the methodology is detailed enough to
make the data collection consistent. They are not doing an audit.
Weimer asked if the data will be available to the public. Stalheim stated it will.
Caskey- Schreiber asked at what point the Council gets involved in the process.
Craven stated the market factor is easy to change. It's just a change in the math.
Fleetwood asked when the Council will make that final decision. Stalheim stated
they will start discussing policy after the end of this year.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 3
1 Kelly asked how they will know whether the methodology was followed adequately
2 and they have the correct data. Stalheim stated the achieved densities are not part of the
3 land capacity analysis. It just helps inform other decisions such as market factor.
4
5 Kelly asked if there is a policy decision to be made about the midpoint density
6 between the maximum allowed under zoning and the minimum density allowed. Stalheim
7 stated there is.
8
9 Kelly stated he would be worried if the methodology isn't followed, and the range is
10 wrong.
11
12 Brenner stated it seems like the members are being fed information without being
13 given the time to talk about it. She is uncomfortable with that process. She would rather
14 the process take longer to allow people time to understand. If necessary, let the Hearings
15 Board know that it will take them longer than the deadline to get this done, for the sake of
16 not being rushed.
17
18 Crawford stated the analysis of achieved densities will be very enlightening. It will
19 reflect a lot of current regulations. The sites analyzed were a product of recent, within the
20 last decade, decisions on where urban growth areas should be. The question is whether
21 they will continue to assign higher density to low -yield lands with lots of topography issues,
22 wetlands, and critical areas, such as King Mountain. Instead, analyze the areas that make
23 more sense for development and higher yields.
24
25 Stalheim finished reading the handout beginning with item 21, assumed densities.
26
27 Fleetwood referenced the Council Questions on Council packet page 265. He asked if
28 those answers will inform modification of some aspects of the methodology. Stalheim
29 stated they have already answered some of the questions, such as number three. They
30 talked about using planned densities, not achieved densities.
31
32 The Committee concurred.
33
34 Fleetwood referenced question one. Stalheim stated that from what he's heard, this
35 committee wants to go forward for now, but have the ability to revisit the market factor
36 issue when more information is available.
37
38 Brenner stated she doesn't understand this. The Council should have a hearing. She
39 would like time to talk to people about it. She doesn't like getting information at the last
40 minute being asked to make a decision on that information.
41
42 Caskey - Schreiber asked if this committee can put it forward without any
43 recommendation, and discuss it again after the Growth Management Coordinating Council
44 (GMCC) has had its discussion and the County Council receives more information. Stalheim
45 stated that's how the process is set up. The GMCC has two representatives from this
46 Council. Those representatives need to have a discussion with all councilmembers, and take
47 those perspectives to the GMCC table. He's not asking this committee to make a decision
48 right now. He is asking to have the discussion, and take the results of that discussion to the
49 cities so the issues can be worked through. They can formalize the methodology with a
50 public hearing if the Council desires on December 9.
51
52 Fleetwood stated the councilmembers seem to want a public hearing on December 9.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 4
1 Craven stated that regarding the occupancy rate, it makes sense to account for
2 second home ownership. Those homes are essentially not available for someone else to live
3 in. She doesn't know how the census information distinguishes between that situation and
4 the situation of a vacant house available on the market. That's something staff will need to
5 identify.
6
7 Fleetwood stated it should be made clear in the public hearing announcement that
8 they are having a public hearing only to gather feedback on the quality of the methodology
9 and to gather any improvements for making it better, not on population projections, for
10 example.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands the rationale for using the census data, but
13 it's almost ten years old. Therefore, figure out how to reflect that fact. Incorporate more
14 useful, accurate, up -to -date information if they have it.
15
16 Crawford stated they don't have time to analyze the trends over the last eight years.
17
18 Caskey- Schreiber stated local realtors may have that information.
19
20 Brenner referenced Council Question four on Council packet page 265. She asked
21 what kind of planned densities they have in UGAs. She thought they were mostly held.
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated that has to do with the discrepancy between the County's
24 preferred zoning and the City's preferred zoning.
25
26 Stalheim stated the recommendation is to use the City's plan when there is a
27 difference. It's their urban growth area.
28
29 Brenner referenced the section of UGA Adoption regarding transfers of development
30 right (TDR) on Council packet page 265. She asked if that's what they want to do.
31 Stalheim stated they are not doing that.
32
33 Fleetwood stated they want to do it, but they haven't decided exactly how to do it.
34 Tying a program to UGA expansion is one means of achieving a TDR program.
35
36 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there would be an interlocal agreement with a city about
37 the density average. Stalheim stated the countywide planning policies are the framework
38 for the adoption of all the plans. If everyone agrees on the policies, those policies would be
39 incorporated into their comprehensive plans.
40
41 Brenner stated don't have long -term urban growth areas. Only have short -term
42 urban growth areas.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees.
45
46 Brenner asked about the section on urban services on Council packet page 266.
47 Craven stated the Growth Management Act requires some level of County assurance that
48 the UGAs will be serviced with urban services within the course of the next 20 years. There
49 are areas in some of the UGAs where it's not clear whether the city will provide urban
50 services, for a variety of reasons. The question for the County becomes whether those
51 areas should be designated as a UGA. At some point, the County and the cities next to
52 those UGA areas need have a conversation about that service to those areas. Plans need to
53 be made. Financing needs to be in order.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 5
1
2 Fleetwood asked the point in the process when the city planning directors give their
3 opinions on this question. Stalheim stated they haven't yet gotten to those detailed
4 questions. He anticipates they will begin those policy discussions in January or February.
5 The Council should be prepared for those discussions.
6
7 Craven stated a call has gone out for all of the capital facilities plans, so those
8 reviews can begin happening.
9
10 Brenner referenced the section about annexation and extension of services on
11 Council packet page 266. The answer to that question is yes, if the developer pays for it
12 and charges a latecomer fee, as long as it's in the UGA. Stalheim stated a city will probably
13 not agree to this without items four and five on that page. The cities need assurance that
14 their development standards will be met if the area isn't annexed.
15
16 Brenner stated their standards would be met by the development itself. If it's not in
17 their city, they're not providing services so they don't need the sales tax. The Cities would
18 already get paid for the only service they provide.
19
20 The City shouldn't be the lead on planning and development within the urban growth
21 areas. The City has no incentive to deal with them fairly, because they're not City
22 constituents.
23
24 She doesn't agree with the section on that page regarding revenue sharing. She's
25 not sure what it means.
26
27 Fleetwood stated it means the Cities are being asked to provide a higher level of
28 service without compensation.
29
30 Brenner stated the only service they would provide is water and sewer, not roads or
31 anything else. Stalheim stated the Cities have a policy that they don't have to extend water
32 and sewer into unincorporated areas without annexation. The reason for that policy is that
33 there is a revenue issue. In Wenatchee, the City agreed to extend the service. In return,
34 the City got its share of the revenue back in the amount of the increasing base of the
35 property tax. The property values and sales tax were increasing, so the City captured a
36 portion of the County's windfall. From a City's perspective, there's no mandate to extend
37 the service. The County would not see those increased revenues without water and sewer.
38 The County would not receive increased property taxes or sales taxes without the City
39 agreeing to extend the service.
40
41 Brenner stated the City gets its revenue from the water and sewer fees. It's like the
42 County is paying the City, but the County has to do all the work.
43
44 Fleetwood stated they would continue these conversations in January.
45
46 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
47
48
49 OTHER BUSINESS
50
51 There was no other business.
52
53
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 6
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST`\�����i►s►►► ► ►'���
H,4 T' • �'
' •
N
9ana Br n- vii Cow cillerk
or
TgTE
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning and Development Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 7