Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 20 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee November 20, 2007 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None Dan McShane Also Present: Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE ON RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE ;CITY OF BELLINGHAM RELATING TO PROPOSED UGA ZONING AND UGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE BELLINGHAM SUBAREA (AB2007 -315) Fleetwood stated the City Council decided to not join the County Council this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. Today, the committee will discuss the findings in the proposed ordinance. McShane asked how the City decided not to attend the afternoon joint meeting. Fleetwood stated the City Council had a meeting yesterday. Crawford stated the outcome of the City Council meeting wasn't surprising. The City Council may have misinterpreted the County Council's intent. The County wants this process to be transparent, so staff should be careful with the perception of behind- closed- doors meetings, and both councils should be involved in making actual decisions. That was interpreted by the City Council as a sign of disrespect of the two staffs. That seemed to derail much of the City's discussion. The County Council doesn't wish to show disrespect. Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the City Council directed City staff to work with County Council staff on the City staff's options, with a couple of additions. She described the results of the City Council meeting last night. Mr. Stewart will be here today to carry out the City Council's direction to its staff. City council members may be in the audience, but they don't intend to participate in a joint meeting with the County Council. McShane asked about the requirement for the joint meeting. Craven stated there is a provision in the interlocal agreement to have a joint meeting if there are differences. there is a provision in the Growth Management Act (GMA) that says the parties should attempt to resolve differences if there is a disagreement. McShane asked if the City is choosing to not follow the interlocal agreement. Planning and Development Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 1 1 Fleetwood stated City council members were concerned about the lack of work that 2 got done at a joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee meeting. He heard the City 3 Council also was concerned because the County hadn't done enough background work, in 4 their view, in advance of this meeting. They wanted to come together when the staff have 5 crafted some kind of agreement. The County Council view was that they would come 6 together and work out some kind of agreement jointly. 7 8 Craven stated the proposed ordinance follows the outline discussed last week. It's 9 divided into sections relating to public participation, the urban growth area (UGA) zoning 10 recommendations for the area to be included in the UGA and the existing UGA, the land 11 supply analysis, and proposed additions to the Bellingham UGA. 12 13 The Whereas statements indicate that time is of the essence to resolve the UGA 14 boundary and zoning recommendations. The portions of the subarea plan yet to come have 15 a great affect on the transition zoning in the UGA as parcels go out of UGA status and are 16 annexed into the city. The existing interlocal provides that those areas will be annexed at 17 comparable zoning. However, they need to do a lot of work to refine their comparable 18 zoning and establish the mechanism for them to preserve those transfer of development 19 rights (TDR) receiving areas as they are annexed into the city. 20 21 The public participation section runs through the list of activities the County 22 undertook. There were additional public participation processes with the City. The City's 23 processes are not included in the ordinance. 24 25 The zoning recommendations and UGA additions reflect the committee's July 10, 26 2007 recommendation. The maps attached reflect those zones. Exhibit B is the 27 recommended boundaries with Queen Mountain, the two areas of King Mountain, and the 28 new park area. Exhibit C shows those areas being added and their zone. 29 30 Weimer stated the City staff are concerned that the County hasn't set the densities 31 high enough in certain areas. The County adopted the City recommendations on UGA areas 32 one through seven and nine through 14. The City didn't ask for higher densities. The 33 County Council took what the City provided. Craven stated that's correct at the time of 34 their request. The recent proposed option from City staff proposed increasing the minimum 35 density from six to eight. The upper end of the range didn't go up. The City's land supply 36 analysis assumed that the UGA would be built out at the minimum required density. By 37 increasing the minimum density in the zoning, the land supply analysis would show those 38 people accommodated, as would actual build -out at a density within the County's existing 39 proposed zone. 40 41 Weimer stated they want to increase the minimum level because they develop at the 42 lowest rate. His concern about expanding the UGA's was that the City used the minimum 43 density all along. Craven stated the underlying zoning in those areas remains rural, one 44 unit per five acres (R5A) until urban utilities are available. The City won't make those 45 utilities available until annexation. When annexed, the City brings the area in with 46 comparable zoning, which may not be exactly the same. That's why they need to tighten 47 down the comparable zoning questions in each of the UGA areas. 48 49 Weimer stated it sounds like changing the minimum density from six to eight units 50 per acre doesn't make a difference. It won't change until the City annexes the property, 51 and the City has the ability to do that anyway. It's just a numbers game to make the 52 numbers on the spreadsheet come out different. 53 Planning and Development Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 2 1 McShane stated include a statement that the Council is considering creating a new 2 zone in the Lake Whatcom area, specifically the Hillsdale and Geneva areas. The County 3 has a strong interest in a new zoning designation in that area of the Lake Whatcom 4 watershed. Craven stated the committee discussed taking out pieces of Hillsdale or 5 changing the zoning. However, the ultimate decision was to leave them in at the proposed 6 zoning and undertake an urban Lake Whatcom zone as a separate decision process. 7 8 McShane stated articulate that in this ordinance, so the issue will be on the table for 9 a future interlocal agreement or zoning agreement in those areas, between the City and 10 County. Craven stated it can be included in the Whereas statements. She also didn't 11 include in the ordinance the discussion of the industrial and commercial land supply, and 12 potential reopening of the UGA discussion for those lands after certain master planning 13 processes are done. She didn't include the reference because it's not a part of the decision 14 reflected in this document. It's a subject for future negotiation in the interlocal agreement 15 discussions. However, she can include it. 16 17 McShane stated it's okay to leave that issue out of the ordinance. The issue is very 18 wide open. It will be up to the City to figure out. He suggested adding a Whereas 19 statement regarding the Hillsdale and Geneva areas, so it's articulated that the County is 20 strongly interested in a new zoning designation in that area, in light of what the committee 21 talked about this morning and the scope of work for the Lake Whatcom watershed. 22 23 Fleetwood asked if Karen Frakes reviewed the ordinance. 24 25 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated it is a very comprehensive ordinance. She 26 was very impressed with it. Nothing is missing. 27 28 Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Ms. Frakes. The ordinance captures every 29 item they went through during this lengthy process. She thanked Rebecca Craven and 30 Cathy Craver for capturing all the discussion, processes, and decisions. 31 32 Weimer asked if not having a meeting with the City puts the County in any hot water 33 with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Frakes stated it doesn't because the County 34 gave the City the opportunity. The City is choosing to not participate. The County's process 35 is okay. It would be nice if the City supported the County's decision, but legally it doesn't 36 make a difference. 37' 38 Craven stated that if there were a change in the City administration or City Council, 39 they can issue something that reflects a new concurrency with the County's decision. 40 41 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend that the Council introduce the proposed 42 ordinance tonight. 43 44 Motion carried unanimously. 45 46 Craven stated she will correct the scriveners errors in Exhibits B and C and work with 47 Ms. Craver and Councilmember McShane on suggested changes. 48 49 50 OTHER BUSINESS 51 52 None 53 Planning and Development Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. r -� Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST' `, "111111"11111.* D&a &o r 01C, picil (Serk /// •••• •• WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON s eth Fleetw d, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 4