Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 7 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee November 7, 2007 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None Dan McShane Also Present: Carl Weimer 1. STAFF UPDATE ON RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM RELATING TO PROPOSED UGA ZONING AND UGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE BELLINGHAM SUBAREA (AB2007 -318) Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, submitted information (on file) and described the handouts. The two councils will potentially meet on November 20. The City would like staff to narrow the gap, identify options, and come to an agreement. The County staff doesn't have authority to reach an agreement. The County staff's direction was to narrow the issues, identify options, and report back to the Council. They are not sure they can reach a joint agreement before the joint meeting. Staff is now reporting back to the Council about options and issues, and seeks further direction. She referenced item four of her topics outline handout (on file). Staff talked about the lack of height limits in the downtown area in the context of finding additional capacity. The need for additional industrial and commercial lands has come up several times. The City asked that the Stewart Smith property be brought in and rezoned industrial. It's parcelized, and probably not the best place for future industrial land, but the City feels the need for additional industrial land. They must consider the five -year review areas first. The City did that, but did not go beyond those areas. No other lands were identified that might be better - suited for future industrial lands. County staff looked at the City's request. The land supply analysis, which was the basis of the City's request, shows 374 available industrial acres. The City needs 180 industrial acres, according to the Eco Northwest study. Given the record the City provided supporting its request, the County doesn't recommend that additional industrial acres be brought in. Their record doesn't show a need for it. However, there is anecdotal evidence that there is a need for larger - parcel industrial land in or near Bellingham. That land hasn't been identified, which would require a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) and an agreement to go beyond the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to look at the five -year review areas first. Through the interlocal agreement, commit to a countywide industrial land supply analysis in the next three years. The City is doing an industrial land demand study in the next year. Waterfront master planning will be done in the next year. That will identify remaining industrial land in the waterfront area. Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 1 The new Old Town plan is also relevant. It is a significant new neighborhood plan. It calls for the addition of 400,000 square feet of new commercial space that is not accounted for in the City's request. Agree to an early re- opener for commercial and industrial land after some of these near -term uncertainties are resolved. They will have better information about the supply, demand, and the location of suitable land. Include language in the interlocal agreement to reopen that issue in 2010 or 2011. They would look at that issue before the next ten year review. This was the only way they could think of to deal with this issue within their timeframe. Acknowledge that the City feels very strongly that it needs additional commercial and industrial land. Fleetwood asked if this is a recommendation from County staff. Craven stated it is. Fleetwood asked if the City agrees with this recommendation. Craven stated it wants more industrial and commercial land. The five -year review areas don't provide what they need. The City asked for Steward Smith because it's the best they have. She doesn't think it's what the City really wants. They will have to go through a process of identifying better land. Caskey- Schreiber stated approve whatever this committee decides before the joint meeting on November 20. Give the City the option to discuss this committee's recommendation before the joint meeting. Craven stated the interlocal agreement is a separate process from the subarea plan. Fleetwood stated he agreed with providing the City enough information in advance. He asked if this list of ideas is comprehensive, or if they will bring forward more ideas. Craven stated the staffs agreed to each provide the other with a list of options they'd be willing to recommend to their respective councils. This list is the County staff's list. They haven't seen the City staff's list. There may be others options the County is willing to consider. To date, this list is comprehensive. She referenced item 4c of her topics outline handout. It relates to the last map in the handout, entitled Bellingham UGA- Reconciliation Discussion. The committee's July decision is on the map. Staff recommends adding a small 20 -acre piece west of Cordata that the City Parks Department recently acquired. It is for a Cordata area park. The staff also recommends including the northern 80 acres of the King Mountain - Others five -year review area. Horton Road is scheduled to have a traffic light on the Guide Meridian. Van Wyck Road is not. The City's plans for development include construction of a north -south connector from the eastern end of Horton Road to the south, towards Van Wyck Road. The goal of the 80 -acre parcel is to facilitate construction of that north -south connector that will take some of that traffic onto Horton Road, rather than running it all across Van Wyck Road. It is 80 -acres that is a little bit wetter than the part of the five -year review area south of Van Wyck Road. The Meridian School District does not object. It won't be as densely developed as the area south of Van Wyck Road, because it's wetter. Fleetwood asked if the area is substantially forested. Caskey- Schreiber stated it's pretty parcelized. Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 2 Fleetwood stated some people are interested in acquiring that property and the Meas- Lipscomb property to create a City /County regional park. Others are interested in that being one of the northern hard boundaries of the future city of Bellingham. He asked the implication of urbanizing that property. Caskey- Schreiber stated those are important points. Those two larger parcels may be ideal for open space protection. The properties to the west are parcelized. Weimer asked if the County can allow a road connector through an interlocal agreement without making the area an urban growth area (UGA) and encouraging development. John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it is difficult for the City to get right -of -way outside the city limits. The staff explored that idea in the staff meeting. Not having the area in the city limits wouldn't allow that. He doesn't know if having it in the UGA is any different from just being in the unincorporated area. The area would have to be annexed. It would be annexed with the rest of the Ralph Black properties. Fleetwood asked why they can't approve a sliver needed for the road corridor. He asked why the whole thing must be urbanized. Everett stated the north boundary is Horton Road. It would have to go to the north side to get that right -of -way and connect with Horton Road. The boundaries proposed were because it would encompass the proposed alignment of that road. Crawford stated the City follows good traffic planning standards. Therefore, it doesn't install stoplights too frequently. Currently, there is a stop light at Horton Road. The next light to the south is at Wal -Mart. Craven indicated on the map where the road would go. Fleetwood asked why the stub of Horton Road to the east got built if it's outside the UGA. Everett stated the Horton Road connector is in the County's Comprehensive Plan. There have been plans for road alignments for some time. Some types of grant funding require that it be in the UGA. This road will likely be built with grant funds. Fleetwood stated he would like to see some sort of agreement that allows that to happen according to the Growth Management Act, without all that development happening. Craven referenced item 4e of her topics outline handout. The Bear Creek area is a discussion item. She described the area. It's likely the County will have better control over the timing of construction of the Horton Road connector to Northwest if that Bear Creek area were to become a long -term planning area. Staff doesn't recommend that it be brought in to the UGA. Staff recommends talking about bringing it in as a long -term planning area, subject to conditions that would control and coordinate those two major transportation planning aspects. If they leave it out of the UGA, and if the adjacent property owners got involved, Horton Road on the south boundary could be improved and punched through to Northwest Road. That would substantially impact additional County roads to the north and west if Slater Road isn't brought on in coordination with that improvement. There has been substantial discussion among County staff about bringing that area in as a long -term planning area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, they Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 3 1 would have to show the need for additional land to become a short-term planning area. 2 They would have to meet County transportation conditions and policies. 3 4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against using the long -term planning area concept. 5 The institutional memories are short. People come and go. Agreements like that are 6 forgotten. People develop expectations with a label like that. That has happened in other 7 areas. Work with them on transportation. Don't take this leap. Infrastructure should not 8 drive policy discussions. 9 10 Craven continued to reference the end of her topics outline handout and page one of 11 the third handout. There is a need for 361 gross additional acres. The staff's recommended 12 additions would bring them up to that acreage. It would be slightly more than an even 13 accommodation of population. 14 15 Caskey- Schreiber asked if adding the staff recommended areas would bring them 16 into compliance with the gross acreage needed for growth. Craven indicated that's correct. 17 18 McShane stated that includes a ten percent safety factor. Craven stated that's 19 correct. 20 21 McShane stated they don't need to use a ten percent safety factor. 22 23 Fleetwood asked if the City's position on the Caitac Larrabee Springs property is the 24 same. Craven stated the City staff has not yet brought forward its list of options. She 25 doesn't know if their position is the same. The City Council has not changed its 26 recommendation on the record. 27 28 Fleetwood asked if the City Council talked about doing something like the County is 29 doing. Craven stated the City staff have discussed it. Their options are ready. County staff 30 has not received them yet. 31 32 Caskey- Schreiber stated five City council members were enthusiastic about meeting 33 on November 20 when she talked to them recently. They didn't seem to think that the 34 County and City are that far apart. She's optimistic that the County and City can get 35 together and work this out. They all seem to feel that it's up to the County to move this 36 forward. 37 38 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend to the full Council adoption of staff 39 recommendations 4(b) and 4(c) in Ms. Craven's handout. 40 41 McShane stated he's not convinced yet about the area from Van Wyck Road to 42 Horton Road, particularly since the existing UGA will be annexed. The City will do what it 43 wants there. If there is a need there for a road, developers can figure out how to pay for it 44 themselves. Don't dump more traffic on the Guide Meridian. He would rather see more 45 improvements in the James Street corridor. 46 47 Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Councilmember McShane. 48 49 Fleetwood asked what that does to the accommodation. Craven stated the 50 population accommodation is shown to be sufficient with the original committee 51 recommendation. It's a question of whether they look at acres or people. Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 4 Fleetwood stated he agrees with the motion. Caskey- Schreiber restated her motion and added that the committee's recommendation be forwarded to the full Council at the evening meeting. Craven stated that the full Council hasn't approved the committee's full recommendation on the UGA. Karen Frakes, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated it doesn't matter. Fleetwood stated they would introduce the subarea on November 20 and schedule a public hearing on December 4. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Fleetwood stated the committee and Council are giving the staff an indication of the direction in which staff can go during negotiations. Caskey- Schreiber stated she hopes that there will be an ordinance that comes out of the joint meeting for the Council to introduce at it's November 20 regular meeting. She asked if staff wants approval from the full Council. Craven stated that if the committee is comfortable with giving staff direction to take that recommendation back to City staff, that's enough for her. Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion. All the councilmembers present at this meeting seem willing to give that direction to the staff. The Committee concurred, McShane stated they need to start working on methodology that informed the County councilmembers. Start looking at facts in their analysis to reach the conclusion that the ten percent safety factor and the acreage their included are adequate. They should maybe nitpick that methodology, particularly when it comes to the parks land supply. They have an adequate record about the City's ability to provide adequate park acreage. There is no way the City can afford to meet an adequate supply. Because citizens have money riding on this decision, the Council should make sure it backs its own argument. He doesn't have a lot of faith that the City Planning Department will do that for the County Council. It will be on the shoulders of future County Councils. Their interest is preventing the expansion originally asked for. That needs to be done. There are flaws within that methodology. At the time, he felt he could argue one way or another. However, he sees weaknesses that are arguments in favor of expansion. If the Council doesn't get those findings of fact in, it will be a problem in a few months. This decision will be appealed because too much money is riding on this decision. Fleetwood stated he hopes legal counsel are prepared to start reviewing the record and doing a sufficiency analysis of the record to see how strong the Council's position is. McShane stated the Council must do that itself. Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 5 Fleetwood stated getting legal advice in anticipation of a prospective lawsuit, and preparing for them, will inform the Council about whether or not there are any final findings it should submit to the record. Caskey- Schreiber stated Councilmember McShane's point is important. Some City Council Members are very aware of serious flaws in their proposal. If they know it, they should correct it. She asked if it's the County's job to correct issues for the City. She asked which staff would fix this, if it's the County's job. She asked if the County must tell the City it's fixing the issues and why. Fleetwood stated it's not the County's responsibility. McShane stated it went through the City Council. The City Council did not make any changes. It just talked about it a little bit. He believes it is the County Council's responsibility if it is going to make the final decision. If they are interested in defending the final decision, the County Council must make sure it's defensible. Make sure to account for the flaws that influenced them. Their park acreage is flawed. Their public facilities assume the same number of acreage for population. The same ratio will be in place, no matter how large the city grows. Schools being built are taking up the same amount of acreage. That may be why schools are showing up in the UGA's now. Make sure that the County Council's decisions about zoning changes are irrelevant, given that the City will do what they want when an area is annexed. They have to have findings of fact to support their position. They talked about the methodology, and didn't have any specific disagreements with it. They all knew it would influence their level of need for safety factor. In his mind, a 25 percent safety factor is completely not needed because so much is already embedded within the methodology. If that's adequate, then fine. However, those are his thoughts. He doesn't know what other councilmembers thought. The councilmembers need to come up with an agreement about the facts upon which they are all deciding. They may have disagreements within a range, but the final decision needs to be based on some sort of an agreement on findings of fact. Fleetwood stated they can amend and clarify findings when they come forward. McShane stated they have to have findings of fact before they vote. They must work on it sooner rather than later. Work on it at the next committee meeting. Fleetwood stated there are different opinions on the parks land analysis. A question is how to express that as a fact when it's subject to interpretation. McShane stated the councilmembers must meet, talk about them, and come to an agreement on what the councilmembers will accept as findings of fact. The committee must work on it. Fleetwood stated those opinions are on the record already. Craven stated the City's Parks and Open Space Plan is being reviewed in 2008. The process has begun to review their inventory. This committee could estimate the result of that plan review might be, in terms of changes in level of service. Another option to look at that is to develop reasons why the safety factor can reasonably be reduced below what the City requested. Rather than try to speculate what that new number may be, rely on the Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 6 knowledge that the number will be lowered for many reasons, to justify their decision to reduce the safety factor from the original request. Weimer stated justify the safety factor by having ongoing monitoring. The City has never discussed this since the committee approved it three months ago. McShane stated the City discussed it in executive session, which implies they are having legal discussions about what's going to happen to the Council. Weimer stated the County Council doesn't know the City's opinion at all. The City wants the staffs to negotiate an agreement so the councils don't have to try and deal with any of these hard issues together. That is opposite from the County Council's desire to make these decisions in a public forum. Caskey- Schreiber stated that is why it's important to just move forward. The City is approaching this in a different process from the County. She was shocked to find out last week that the City Council doesn't have a clue about what the County Council proposal entails. She had to explain the differences to each of the City Council Members. She's not comfortable with creating a backdoor agreement through staff and then having a perfunctory meeting where the decisions are already made. Weimer stated the City Council may not attend the November 20 meeting, according to the letter the County Council received. Caskey- Schreiber stated that if that's the case, the County Council has no choice but to move ahead, because it will never get that. The County Council doesn't operate that way. They will not adhere to that kind of deal. Weimer stated that if they never have discussions with the City Council about monitoring, parks, or other things, the County Council must have a good record about its decisions on those issues. Craven stated record review is ongoing. They're not done with it yet. Caskey- Schreiber stated the councilmembers have talked a lot about those things in the past six months. She's stated her reasons for the ten percent safety factor publicly several times. She asked what legal counsel needs to make this a stronger case. Frakes stated incorporate into the County record anything from the City's record that lends credence to the County Council's conclusions. Incorporate discussions that took place on the record into the County Council's record. include the Old Town plan and anything else that supports their reduction of the safety factor. McShane stated the County Council sent this recommendation to the City in July. The County Council has a deadline in February. They have this issue where they're supposed to meet jointly if there's disagreement. They've had a disagreement to a degree since July. It's now November. The councils haven't met. The County Council has received virtually no communication from the City Council. It puts the County Council in a dilemma, because the February deadline is looming. Send an invitation to the City Council to meet jointly. The City Council has had plenty of time to look at this. That would be the joint meeting. They would have satisfied the need to meet. However that meeting turns out is not important. What's important is that the County Council receives some information from Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 7 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 that meeting. If the County Council gets nothing, there will at least be time to build a record that the Council supports and final UGA approval. The County will have satisfied all its requirements. Satisfy those requirements soon. Have a joint meeting on November 20 to attempt to reconcile. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like staff to start building the record so the County Council can fill any gaps. Fleetwood stated this committee may schedule a special meeting next week. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTESTN +"�`'� *4 c 0 '''�4, 'J ?' HA _.. O . O• I• . •r= Dana Brp - _ Acil derk •'• SHING' . WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Planning and Development Committee, 11/7/2007, Page 8