Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 25 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Z Planning and Development Committee 3 4 September 25, 2007 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 Dan McShane 12 13 Also Present: 14 Barbara Brenner 15 Carl Weimer 16 Sam Crawford 17 18 19 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 20 21 1. UPDATE FROM TOM BECKWITH, BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP, 22 REGARDING THE COUNTYWIDE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 23 TASKFORCE (CHAT) (AB2007-147A) 24 25 Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, handed out information (on fr /e). He 26 read through the handout on the timeline. They hope to have a draft document by 27 November. 28 29 In October, they are doing two key things. They are scheduling sessions with each 30 small city in the county for their comments and suggestions. Also, they are surveying 31 random voter households in October or November. 32 33 There are two alternatives, named alternative two and alternative three, for needs 34 assessment, shown on the affordable housing needs assessment page. The data is based 35 on the 2000 Census. They've indicated the gap financing requirement for the local share. 36 The alternative solutions assume stick -built solutions. There are other costs for using 37 modular solutions, the land trust, or other devices that might reduce actual delivery costs. 38 39 He continued to read the handout on cities data for alternative two housing costs. 40 Bellingham has one of the highest concentrations. One reason for that is that the numbers 41 include students, which are low income and have high housing costs. There is as big a 42 concentration of low income in the county as in the cities, as shown in the "other" column, 43 which represents unincorporated areas of the county, including Birch Bay, Kendall, Sudden 44 Valley, and unincorporated urban growth areas (UGA's). 45 46 Regarding the policies and tools pages, most are lead actions by public agencies. 47 Some cost benefits would be high and would reduce costs. 48 49 Regarding the policies and tools in place page, the jurisdictions in the county have 50 certain options they can do countywide. 51 52 Some projects are currently planned for. They can't afford to lose the existing stock, 53 which is most of the affordable housing stock. Make sure its preserved and viable. One of 54 the highest priorities is making sure the occupants can manage those costs. Over 10,000 55 units around the county were built before 1939. That is the bulk of the available stock. Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 1 There are over 9,500 mobile or modular homes in the county that are affordable stock. Although they are a good affordable housing product, they deteriorate faster and are more difficult to finance. They require replacement. One issue is how much of that stock they retain. They will look at how every jurisdiction does in retaining existing stock. Generally, Bellingham is the most advanced and has been the most progressive. Bellingham has probably renovated or assisted in the renovation of most of its existing stock. That is not true through the rest of the county. It's harder to reach those scattered areas in rural areas around the county. He read the last page on cities data for existing stock. Some of the policies that may apply to the county may be somewhat different from the cities. Brenner asked about the census counts on reservations. It seems that the census isn't picking up people on reservations with any accuracy. Beckwith stated the Census does the long -form sampling for everyone in all areas and all jurisdictions. After the census results come in, they do some sampling for accuracy. One issue is that the Census is not accurate for the homeless and on reservations. It's not that the Census doesn't do it. It's that it may not be accurate. Estimates of need is from a special Census report published in 1994 or 1995. It allows them to do cross - correlation between income housing and types. The listed needs are the baselines that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses when it looks at any housing action plans or projects from any jurisdiction. Those are the numbers they must deal with. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there will be a written report on financing. Beckwith stated there will be appendices to the document they write. The narrative chapters will be readable text. That will potentially come forward the beginning of November. Brenner asked about the special needs population categories on the second page. She asked the difference between the categories of mentally disabled, alcohol and /or drug addictions, and substance abuse and mental illness. Beckwith stated those were the categories used in the homeless count assessment. Mentally disabled may be those who are born without all intellectual faculties. Mental illness can include paranoia and schizophrenia. Brenner stated mentally disabled is not the same as developmentally disabled. Mentally disabled means the same as mental illness, except for the degree of the condition. Substance abuse is no different from alcohol and drug addiction. She asked why they are listed separately. Beckwith stated these are the categories they pulled from the counts. Brenner stated items one, two, and ten seem to be repetitive. Beckwith stated these categories conform with HUD. Supposedly, the condition and the housing solution must be somewhat correlated. He'll have to find out the definitions, which are in the Homeless Counts report. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM DUKE DEVELOPMENT/ LANCE ELLIS TO REZONE 19.5 ACRES ON CHURCH RD. IN THE FERNDALE UGA FROM LTPA TO STPA (AB2007 -360) Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 2 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, described the properties. The City of Ferndale requests inclusion of the five parcels to make the boundaries more regular. The criteria for rezoning from long -term to short-term planning area are found in the County Comprehensive Plan, policy 25 -1. One approval criterion is a demonstrated need for additional land in the local area. According to the Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, there will be a need for about 3,100 to 3,200 dwellings over the 20 -year planning period. The City Comprehensive Plan says it can fit 2,159 more dwellings in its city limits. The Ferndale Comprehensive Plan breaks it down to low -, medium -, and high - residential areas. The County geographic information system (GIS) analyst indicates that there could be about 972 dwelling units in the existing short -term planning area at a density of four units per net buildable acre or 1,458 dwelling units at a density of six units per acre. These areas are already zoned urban residential. Therefore, there are 3,100 to 3,600 units in the city limits and in the existing short- term planning area. Therefore, the Planning Commission found there is no demonstrated need for additional land and recommends denial. Fleetwood asked if there is anything in the Comprehensive Plan to define the trigger for demonstrated need. Aamot stated policy 25 -1 defines the criteria for rezone from long - to short-term area. Fleetwood asked the definition of a demonstrated need. Aamot stated there is no definition in the Comprehensive Plan. Brenner stated they start looking at increasing urban growth areas (UGA's) once the level falls under the amount shown to be the ability to meet that 20 -year forecast. Aamot stated this is a different requirement from the Growth Management Act. They must review the urban growth areas every ten years, to make sure they can accommodate the 20 -year population growth. This is a little bit different. They are talking about which part of the UGA is short-term planning area that can be annexed any time and which portion is long- term planning area. The 20 -year projection specifically relates to the entire urban growth area. There isn't a definition of demonstrated need for additional land. In this case, there is more than a 20 -year supply in the existing city limits and existing short-term planning area. Bill Cartwright, 6330 Church Road, stated his property is involved in this request. He's always lived in the county, and doesn't wish to be in the city or in the short -term planning area. He enjoys and prefers to stay in the rural character. The City of Ferndale has neglected to do anything about its streets and access to the freeway. Any growth will make it worse. McShane asked if Mr. Cartwright is located in or south of the area. Cartwright stated he has one of the one -acre lots in the area. McShane asked the route Mr. Cartwright takes to get to the freeway. Cartwright indicated the route he takes through Ferndale. Cheryl Cartwright, 6330 Church Road, stated that the original proposal was just for the Duke Development property. The City wanted to add other parcels to square off the boundary. The City included the other parcels without notifying those property owners. She does not want to be part of the request. Planning and Development Committee, 9/2512007, Page 3 1 Information in the packet talks about how services will be available within 300 to 600 2 feet, but there is a letter from the City of Ferndale Planning Department saying the area has 3 to be annexed before extending services. All the neighbors are against annexation. 4 5 When she bought her property, the Duke parcel was a non - developable tract. There 6 is a lot of wildlife that uses that undeveloped property. The City of Ferndale is proceeding 7 with a lot of development, but nothing is being set aside for parks and wildlife. 8 9 McShane asked about it being a reserved, un- developable tract. Cheryl Cartwright 10 stated she's not sure what has changed. 11 12 Bill Cartwright stated it is un- developable until there are public services. 13 14 Tina Mauller, 6338 Church Road, stated she agrees with the previous speakers. 15 When she bought her property, she also thought that area would not be developed. There 16 are access and service issues. The nearby Pacific Heights development is a major eyesore. 17 18 Amy Pederson, David Evans and Associates, stated the information she provided was 19 also provided to the Planning Commission. The original subject property owned by Duke 20 Development is part of a short-plat and has one development left on it. It is limited by 21 existing zoning and the lack of sewer and water. 22 23 The bulk of the development that has occurred in the city has been in the northwest 24 section of the city. More recent subdivisions and development have occurred along the 25 western and northern boundaries of the city. The City of Ferndale is concerned that it is not 26 able to annex areas readily, based on the County's short-term versus long -term planning 27 area designations. She submitted a map (on file) and described properties in and near the 28 subject parcels. There are numerous subdivisions within proximity of the subject property. 29 The Church Road area is in various stages of development currently. The school district 30 property is also developing. The City is seeing a development pressure in that particular 31 area of the city. There is a demonstrated need in that area of Ferndale. Include the subject 32 property, either with or without the additional properties, in the City of Ferndale short-term 33 planning area. 34 35 Fleetwood asked why the City wants to square up the boundary. Pederson stated 36 the City discusses it in its letter. It would facilitate greater flexibility and more efficiencies 37 for providing infrastructure improvements to that area. 38 39 Crawford stated the City of Ferndale talked to the County about a potential land 40 swap of urban growth area to the west of the City. He asked if this process has gone 41 through, and whether there was any discussion with the City about swapping out certain 42 areas of the UGA with this area. Aamot stated he hasn't been involved in any of those 43 discussions. It wasn't discussed at the Planning Commission that he recalls. 44 45 Caskey- Schreiber moved to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation 46 for denial. There isn't a demonstrated need for this acreage. There is no proof that 47 conditions have changed. Upzones on properties don't warrant upzones elsewhere. 48 49 Fleetwood stated he agrees with the motion. 50 51 Crawford asked if the City of Ferndale has a policy to not extend utilities until there is 52 annexation. Aamot stated it does. 53 54 Crawford stated the change to short-term planning area has no effect to what 55 happens on the ground unless the property owners want it. Aamot stated it makes the Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 4 1 property eligible for annexation or development if the City changes its policy on water and 2 sewer services. 3 4 Crawford asked if this change will have any visible development effect on -the- 5 ground. Aamot stated the only two conditions under which development can occur is if it is 6 annexed or if the City changes its policy on extension of water and sewer. Otherwise, it 7 would not. 8 9 Brenner stated property can't be annexed unless it's in the short -term planning area. 10 There may not be an on- the - ground change, but there is a change. 11 12 Aamot stated annexation requires approximately 60 percent approval of the 13 assessed value and approval of the City Council, 14 15 Crawford asked if the Duke property has any development. Aamot stated it has no 16 development. He doesn't know how much development it can have. 17 18 Crawford stated the Duke property won't generate 60 percent of the residents 19 needed for annexation. 20 21 Motion carried unanimously. 22 23 24 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 25 26 1. UPDATE ON RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE CITY OF 27 BELLINGHAM RELATING TO LAND SUPPLY ANALYSIS, PROPOSED UGA 28 ZONING, AND UGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE BELLINGHAM SUBAREA 29 (AB2007 -318) 30 31 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 32 33 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the City Council briefing did not occur 34 yesterday as expected. Therefore, the City Council has chosen to respond to the letter this 35 way and proposes that the City staff and County staff begin to meet, and the Councils will 36 become involved at a later time. She talked with County administration. They are in the 37 process of gathering a group of staff to meet with the City staff to begin the process. The 38 letter from the Mayor suggests that the staff may find a mutually agreeable compromise, 39 which will be brought to the Councils. 40 41 Brenner asked if anyone can attend those staff meetings. Craven stated she hasn't 42 talked with the City's lead staff person, Mr. Alcott about how those staff meetings would be 43 structured. 44 45 Brenner stated the meetings should be open. 46 47 Fleetwood stated the County Council made it clear that those meetings would be 48 public. 49 50 McShane stated the Council resolution was that the Planning and Development 51 Committee would meet with the City so the meetings would be open. The question is how 52 to incorporate that part of the resolution. The City government seems to want the work to 53 be done primarily by staff. A question is at what point they feel the meetings should be 54 open to the public, and whether the staffs can work out details before that happens. Also, 55 gauge the City's comfort level with having an open meeting of their staff. Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 5 1 2 Fleetwood stated he doesn't care about the particulars. The object is to get City and 3 County people together to have an open discussion of where they're at. He thought the 4 County Planning Committee members would attend as a contingency. The interlocal 5 agreement requires that the City Council and County Council meet together at least once. 6 The idea is to refine the issues before that meeting required by the interlocal agreement. 7 He agrees with putting together a group to talk with the City, no matter how and where it's 8 done. He asked if the City is concerned about the meetings being open. Craven stated she 9 doesn't think the City is concerned about that. 10 11 McShane stated questions are whether the County Council Planning Committee 12 wants to sit on these meetings, how these meetings would proceed, and what role the 13 Planning Committee would play. 14 15 Fleetwood stated there are enough personalities who want to be present and will 16 object if they aren't. Therefore, plan to have meetings in a room big enough for all who 17 want to attend. He hopes the County Planning Committee establishes some of its own 18 parameters of what they want to do. Initially, have broad parameters and schedule a 19 meeting with the City. If the Planning Committee is present, there will have to be a public 20 announcement. That's okay. 21 22 McShane stated the Council resolution specified the Planning and Development 23 Committee, so it must set its own parameters for involvement. He doesn't know if the 24 committee should just sit and listen or be actively engaged. It may be best to initially sit 25 and listen. The committee can have separate meetings to discuss the committee's 26 recommendations based on the conversations. However, they should be willing to back off 27 and let staff work this out if the City isn't comfortable with that arrangement. 28 29 Fleetwood stated he would like to direct Ms. Craven to talk to the City to see how the 30 City wants to proceed, and bring that information back to the Council, 31 32 Brenner stated she wants to attend the meetings, which should be totally open, but 33 don't allow the committee to say anything until the issues come to the committee. 34 35 Crawford stated there is a cultural difference in how land use issues are handled 36 between the City and County. The City does not invite the public to certain meetings. On 37 the other hand, the County invites the public to the same types of meetings. The City 38 values the staff's ability to discuss things in an unrecorded, non- public setting. Neither way 39 is right or wrong. He doesn't mind limiting the discussions to staff to begin with. However, 40 it's necessary for the public to listen to the discussions, but not necessarily participate. At 41 the end of each meeting, allow folks in attendance to make comments. 42 43 Fleetwood stated this is the City and County acting on an interlocal agreement 44 requirement. There is no precedent for this process. They are inventing the process as 45 they go along in the best way they can. Before they approve any of this, there will be a full 46 public process. They will meet all the requirements of the law. 47 48 Caskey- Schreiber stated the best way to expedite this process is to have staff meet 49 to figure out where the different jurisdictions stand. Then, each staff can update their 50 council. That will allow them to use their time efficiently when they know what the issues 51 are. She doesn't know what those issues are right now. She needs an idea of those issues 52 before they meet. The appropriate time and place for the public to be involved is when the 53 County Council has its public hearings. Otherwise, the process will get hijacked. They are 54 already under a mandated timeline, and are behind. 55 Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 6 Brenner stated don't wait until the public hearing to allow public comment. They let people speak even in committee meetings. Allow staff to fine -tune the issues, then bring those issue forward to committee. The committee can then deal with the issues as it usually does. She won't agree to let staff develop a final product that goes straight to hearing. Caskey- Schreiber stated she only meant that the staff should meet to determine the issues and bring those issues to the committee. The committee can find common ground and work with staff to reach consensus. Fleetwood moved to recommend that the Council direct a delegation of County staff to have a discussion with City staff and then report back to the Planning Committee. Wait to hear from the City about whether or not the staff meeting will be open to the public. Crawford stated staff recommendations carry a lot of weight. If the staffs come to an agreement and then make a recommendation, that will carry a lot of weight with the Councils. People must be able to observe and understand how the staffs arrive at their recommendations. Allow a public comment period at the end of each staff meeting, at the very least. He would like to hear what goes on during the staff meeting. Staff meetings should be open for the public to listen to. Fleetwood stated the recommendations from the City and County came after enormous public input. They are not even close to violating public process. They are simply talking about efficiently finding a way for the Councils to resolve their differences. The City, in its letter, proposes a meeting between the staffs. Crawford stated the County has had a lot of turnover. As a result, there may not be long -term working institutional memory or relationships right now. Staff meetings should be open for people to listen to.' Caskey - Schreiber stated she's not asking County staff to make an agreement with the City staff, just to find out the City's issues. They have to respect the City if it isn't comfortable with holding a public staff meeting. McShane stated find out at the next Planning Committee what process has been set up, per the letter. There may be reasons that the meeting shouldn't be open. Plenty of attorneys will pay attention to this. McShane stated they must have a careful process. He agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. Find out what process will be set up to work with the staffs. The public won't be cut out of the process. He disagrees that the public should be allowed to comment after each staff meeting. The Planning Committee has a good record from the Planning Commission and worked through many issues. It didn't want to get bogged down by having the same thing repeated over and over. Once the Planning Committee was done, the Council held a public hearing. The Council wasn't required to have a public hearing, but thought it was appropriate. The Council received input. They've done that. There will be another public hearing. Brenner stated it's fine for the staffs to define the issues, but not make recommendations. Fleetwood restated the motion to recommend that the Council direct Rebecca Craven and request County staff to talk to City staff and report to the Planning and Development Committee. Listen to the City, hear what it says, and report back. Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2007, 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Craven asked if the County staff is to talk about process issues or UGA issues. Fleetwood stated the County staff can listen to the City about both, hearing what they say, and report back. The committee concurred. McShane asked the timeframe and deadline. Craven stated all the UGA reviews need to be done in February 2008. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the parties attempt to reach reconciliation before final adoption. They may do this again with the other cities. McShane stated talk about a schedule at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting. At some point, they may need to move on without reaching reconciliation. He doesn't want the County blamed for failing to meet a deadline when much of this has been beyond the County's control. Make sure a decision is made by the deadline. It took a long time to get the proposal from the City in the first place. Brenner stated make the City aware of the deadline. Craven stated the interlocal agreement will expire in November. One possibility is to extend the agreement with no amendments. If this process succeeds, they reach agreements, and amendments are required, they would amend the final agreement in the course of finalizing the subarea plan. That may require that an extension come before the Council soon. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. C-4 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON z� /,0 3e,4/j 6�11 Fleetwoo , Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 9/2512007, Page 8