Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 10 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee April 10, 2007 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 Dan McShane Also Present: Carl Weimer Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY OF EVERSON'S SOUTHEAST URBAN GROWTH AREA, FOR IMPROVED ACCESS TO THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH AREA (AS2007 -174) Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report. He submitted and read from a presentation (on file) describing the request and staff recommendation. Fleetwood stated much of the city doesn't have a buffer between urban areas and agriculture. Olason stated policies call for a buffer, whether or not one exists. The thought is that the road would create some sort of buffer. Fleetwood asked about the economics of the project. Olason stated the County agrees that they need access to develop that area. More area to the south can be developed. This would provide access. They are providing an opportunity for development. Converting agricultural land is a policy issue. Roland Harper, City of Everson Planner, stated the City would like to work with the County on this proposal. The proposal is not unreasonable. He disagrees with the staff's analysis. This proposal is about facilitating infill and correcting a prior error in the designation of the urban growth area (UGA) without adequate access. Greens Lane cannot support the infill that will be developed to the south. He submitted information (on file). The County River and Flood Division have said that the flood plain issue is a non - issue. He objects to County staff pointing to the flood plain as an issue. The land supply analysis reviewed the housing section, not the land supply section, which is wrong. Within three years, the City has had enough of an increase to justify the extra 1.75 acres. Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 1 He submitted a letter to the Planning Commission that was a fair analysis. Shifting land from an agricultural use is a valid issue. The City is willing to trade land to create other agricultural land. The City of Everson has a long history of living beside the farming community. Nothing in the record indicates any need for a buffer. This land is being sold by a farmer who will continue farming. He's not asking for a buffer for his farming activities. To make this project work, the City will agree to amend the interlocal agreement to prohibit the construction of residential lots on the west side of this new road, which will most likely be used for stormwater. The Mayor of Everson explained this request to the County Executive, which resulted in a possible transfer of development rights (TDR) program. They must first iron out the details. The City is willing to discuss it. He doesn't agree with some of the findings and conditions in the draft ordinance. It will have to be redone. Crawford asked why the City wants 154 -foot wide area. Harper stated that is what is necessary to get this solved. The economics of building a 1,300 -foot road typically requires that lots on both sides be developed. If they only get an area that is 70 -feet wide, the project is marginal. The cost of the road will be difficult to bear. With that additional 84 feet, they will shift the stormwater facilities to the west side of the road, and possibly have lots on frontage on the east side of the road. Some of the 84 feet will be used for stormwater. There would be 154 feet for road right -of -way and utilities, stormwater utilities, and possibly some residential lots. Crawford asked if the Council could approve the entire 154 -foot proposed area, with a limit on residential use. Harper stated they could limit residential on the west side of the road only. Fifty feet would be for a stormwater facility,.70 feet would be for a road, and the rest would be part of residential lots. The residential lots provide funds to do the rest of the road and stormwater project. McShane asked how denial would kill public safety. Harper stated denial would kill the deal, which would limit public safety. The City would halt annexation of anything south of Greens Lane. McShane stated it sounds like the City would be interested in a transfer of development rights (TDR) in the future. He asked if they won't be able to afford to build the road without a certain number of houses. It sounds like not enough units can go into this spot without the full 154 feet. Harper stated that's correct. McShane stated there is no information on the cost estimates. Harper stated the applicant can include cost estimates for the record. McShane asked if development rights would be removed from elsewhere in the City urban growth area (UGA). Harper stated someone would take development rights from elsewhere in the county and use them here. McShane asked why this is needed in the short-term. Harper stated the City doesn't have many areas in the UGA that actually have property owners who are willing to develop Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 2 I and annex into the city. This is the direction where infill is going. He indicated on a map 2 the UGA areas that have owners unwilling to develop. 3 4 John Matzinger, Consultant, stated adequate access to the property is one of the 5 most crucial issues. It needs to be salved before other planning is done. The current 6 access to UGA areas to the south is too narrow and sub - standard. They need to find an 7 alternate access. This is the most logical location. Utilities exist at the north end and can 8 be extended south. 9 10 He is suspicious of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. 11 FEMA did the mapping program that outlined flood hazard areas in a hurry. The formula it 12 applied did not work in this area of the country. Ongoing federal updates to the FEMA map 13 indicate that this area isn't in the flood plain. 14 15 An effective stormwater management retention area would have to be wide because 16 the water table is high. 17 18 He submitted information on cost estimates (on file). Putting houses on both sides 19 of the street increases the number of paying units. If there are no lots on the west side, the 20 burden on the remaining lots will significantly increase. 21 22 The backyards of the lots will be excellent buffers to abutting agriculture. There will 23 be a need for a fair amount of stormwater detention. 24 25 There was discussion about FEMA flood levels, zoning, and the amount of land 26 available for further build out and for stormwater. 27 28 Joy Monjure, citizen, stated there are few areas in Everson to develop because of the 29 river. The owner is well - qualified for developing. 30 31 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 32 33 Monjure continued to state she is in favor of the request. 34 35 Bob Skillman, Applicant, stated Greens Lane can't be widened. The biggest issue is 36 stormwater. They will need a large area for stormwater. Therefore, he needs the 154 -foot 37 strip to make the project viable. In addition to using the street as a buffer, there will need 38 to be trees and the retention area. 39 40 McShane asked if the City can increase the density or allow other planning measures, 41 to make this project work out. Harper stated there isn't a way to increase density greatly, 42 just remove inefficiencies. The City has been discussing the option of increasing its use of 43 clustering. The City Council may be open to it. 44 45 McShane moved to recommend to the full Council to go forward with the public 46 hearing and approve the County staff recommendation. in the future, he may be interested 47 in conditioning this strip of land as a potential TDR receiving study area. The owner may 48 have other options to make this work. He may be interested in the extra area as a TDR 49 area in the future, but that is not part of his motion. 50 51 Fleetwood moved to amend the motion to add the total applicant request for a 52 width of 154 feet. The City is willing to compensate for the lost agricultural land, which is 53 his primary concern. Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 3 Harper stated the City has dozens of acres in its UGA that are targeted to be annexed into the city. The City is willing to amend the interlocal agreement to give back an equal amount of that land when the UGA is considered in a comprehensive way. There was discussion about swapping urban growth area lands. Fleetwood amended his motion to create a condition that the land swap be of lands with comparable soils. Olason stated one option is to approve as a provisional UGA with standards the developers would have to meet, and give them a timeline. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he recommends that the road and stormwater facility portion of the property should not be provisional. They are trying to figure out a circular route. Any additional land approved would be based upon work with the TDR or other program within the next two years. Motion failed 1 -2 with Fleetwood in favor. There was discussion about what a provisional UGA would look like. There should be a conceptual drawing of the developer's plan with the provisional ordinance, so they all know what they're agreeing to. There should be a rudimentary stormwater plan to show the functional retention. Caskey - Schreiber moved to hold in committee and ask staff if they would meet with the City to develop details of a provisional UGA. There was discussion about the City's and owner's intent for developing the property and whether the Council should consider a provisional UGA for this area. Motion to hold in committee carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING BELLINGHAM'S URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN (AB2006 -309) Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted the land use policies (on file). They will discuss sections A through H, and touch on the main points that the County Planning Commission made for each section. The Planning Commission recommends removing the term "five -year review areas" from the subarea plan, because they would like to look at all rural lands around the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA). The Planning Commission recommends a zero percent safety factor, which is no expansion of the urban growth area. The Planning Commission recommends Willing in the City first, then the UGA, and then look elsewhere last. The Planning Commission recommends a logical transition from rural to urban services, requiring annexation before or at the same time as the extension of services, preventing leapfrog development, the land supply monitoring component, and policies for a TDR component and working with the City of Bellingham. This document relies heavily on the interlocal agreement. A Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 4 1 recommendation is for a timeline of annexation of the urban growth areas that already have 2 services, but are not in the city limits. 3 4 Fleetwood asked how much of this document would have to be changed if the 5 Council changes the safety factor. Craver stated it wouldn't be a major overhaul, but would 6 require some tweaking. 7 8 Crawford asked if this is an update of a previous plan. Craver stated it is a new 9 document. She discussed the history of the urban fringe subarea plan. 10 11 Section A explains the Council's growth options. Section B includes goals for 12 intergovernmental coordination. 13 14 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 15 16 Crawford asked if the City has seen this document. Craver stated the City has a 17 copy of these policies. The City will make a statement of their opinion to the County Council 18 at the Council's public hearing. 19 20 Crawford stated he's not sure that these policies and goals can dictate to the City by 21 using terms like "the City shall...." He suggests that the document be amended so it doesn't 22 tell the City that it must do something that the City has not agreed to and which the County 23 has no authority to force. Hart stated the City officials will have to work out the details. 24 Carefully pick their issues. 25 26 Caskey - Schreiber asked about Lake Whatcom watershed build out. They need to 27 figure that out. Hart stated he would have staff answer that question. 28 29 There was discussion about being able to work out issues with the City. Hart stated 30 this document is recommended by the Planning Commission and based on a zero percent 31 safety factor, with which the City does not agree. That is the significant issue. 32 33 Craver stated policy IG -5 specifies issues that will be addressed in the interlocal 34 agreement. 35 36 Brenner stated there should be an exception in bullet two about allowing extension 37 of services for health and safety reasons. 38 39 There was discussion about the reasons for allowing utility extension during or after 40 annexation and the purpose of urban growth areas. 41 42 Craver continued to provide an overview of section B. 43 44 Brenner referenced the second bullet in item 4 in section B. She thought the County 45 can't allow development in the City UGA's that violates City standards. Craver stated she 46 would review the code and interlocal agreement to find an answer. 47 48 McShane stated the committee would finish this review at its special meeting next 49 week. 50 51 OTHER BUSINESS 52 53 There was no other business. Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 5 1 2 3 AD3OURN 4 5 The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. b 7 8 9 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 10 11 ``,,�tttttttltllll���i 12 A `l�A% 13 15 ` ;►'�: 15 17 Ilk z 18 $ana •r'ff -� r ��•ou `tiI Clerk 19 •., �IIN WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON S(Wh Fleeylod, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 4/10/2007, Page 6