Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 25 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee April 25, 2006 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Also Present: Carl Weimer Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT [AND SITE SPECIFIC REZONE] FOR "BLOMQUIST HEIGHTS," FILED BY DONALD LEAVITT (AB2006 -186) Fleetwood stated this item was withdrawn from the agenda. It will be taken up on May 9, 2006. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR3) TO RURAL FIVE ACRE (115A) FOR APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES SOUTH OF FERNDALE, IN THE CHERRY POINT /FERNDALE SUBAREA (AB2006 -184) Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, stated this is a scrivener's error to a point. In the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, the area was designated as rural, but was left urban residential, three units per .acre (UR -3) on the zoning map. It is 44 acres, with six properties. About 19.5 acres are in open space /agriculture. All the properties are in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain. This is one reason why Ferndale does not wish to put it in any short-term planning area. To the west and south is the recreation open space Hovander Park. To the east is Tennant Lake. Two properties accessed from the east are along a narrow, long road that is frequently flooded. The area is only served by water from Ferndale. There is no sewer. The Comprehensive Plan designation of rural should be the rural, one unit per five acres (115A) zone on the zoning map. The land to the immediate north in Ferndale is commercial. It is where the Hempler's meat plant will go. Other than that, the area is extremely rural and should fit the 115A designation. Brenner stated no one from the City addressed this issue when it was before the Planning Commission. The area is very swampy, even in dry parts of the year. It's not in the long -term urban growth area for Ferndale. This change would make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 1 OTHER BUSINESS Olsen stated the consideration of Open Space /Open Space application filed by Lois Van Winkle (AB2006 -130A) is being looked at slightly differently. They hope to get a different monetary value. It is being tabled for now. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 2. RECEIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REZONE OF LONG TERM PLANNING AREA TO SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA IN THE FERNDALE URBAN GROWTH AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF VISTA DRIVE (AB2006 -185) Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the subject proposal is to change an area in the Ferndale urban growth area (UGA) from long -term to short -term planning area. The site could be annexed, served with urban sewer and water, and developed at urban densities. He indicated the location and surrounding areas on a map. The Planning Staff recommended approval, subject to a condition that the County would enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of Ferndale for annexation of the property and development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission recommended denial, as shown in findings 14 and 15. He read the findings. Policy 2P is not satisfied. Goal 2S of the Comprehensive Plan is to prevent sprawl. The Planning Commission felt that this leapfrogs over undeveloped land. Fleetwood asked if staff's recommendation has changed. Aamot stated it has not. McShane asked about the staff's recommended conditions in the staff report. Aamot stated the condition is the same condition as the one staff recommended for the Friberg site. Ferndale objects to the condition that the County will not approve or sign an amendment to the interlocal agreement between the City and County concerning annexation and development within the City of Ferndale UGA agreeing to annexation of the subject properties, unless the amendment says that the City must require development at a minimum of six units per net developable acre, and the average lot size shall not exceed 7,260 square feet. Fleetwood referenced Comprehensive Plan goal 2S. He asked if it was the Planning Commission's opinion that this area doesn't meet goal 2S, and it isn't adjacent to a developed area. Aamot stated it was. Fleetwood asked why staff didn't agree. Aamot stated it was a close call. There are reasons to believe those neighboring areas will develop. This is an opportunity to provide serviced land close to urban densities. The City of Ferndale concurred with the recommendation of approval, just not the density. Fleetwood asked if the owner is likely to develop at a density of at least six units per acre. John Harder, 6305 Vista Drive, stated he would like his property to be annexed. It was stated that not many houses are close by. However, there are houses nearby. More houses will be developed. They bought the property over 40 years ago. It's not farmland. Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 2 1 They held onto it for their retirement. The only way to retire is to sell the property to 2 someone who will build houses. If it's not annexed, it will sell in five acre pieces. Not being 3 annexed is more development trouble. 4 5 Fleetwood asked about the condition that the property be developed at six units per 6 acre. Harder. stated people can live wherever they want to live. There will also have to be 7 houses that people can afford. Look at what's fair. He's lived there a long time and is 8 ready to retire. 9 10 Roberta Robertson, 6369 Vista Drive, stated she agrees with the previous speaker. 11 This is the time to develop and be annexed into the city. If they don't, they will have to sell 12 five -acre tracts. That's not very good so close to the city limits. Water and sewer will be 13 available. This is the time for development and annexation. 14 15 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated this is a good example of how the things 16 should work theoretically, but not practically. The option of subdividing into five -acre tracts 17 is not a good option. It will make the area much harder to accomplish urban density. 18 Around Ferndale, people are of the age to sell property they've held for many years. 19 Leapfrogging may be an issue, but the problem is that these property owners are ready to 20 sell. The closer property owners may not be ready to sell. It's much better to have too 21 large an urban growth area. Ferndale won't have a buildable land supply that it needs. 22 There will be impediments to get that supply it needs. There is a shortage of lots. When a 23 lot developer can raise the lot price by $20,000 in a year, the City needs to make more land 24 available to develop. Have too much land available, not too little. 25 26 Brenner asked about the condition that the City require a density of six units per 27 acre instead of four units per acre. Wiesen stated the goal should be to try and get that 28 density, but don't hold these people hostage with the negotiation. 29 30 Brenner asked if the idea is that the Council should provide more and more land, but 31 shouldn't negotiate the density. Wiesen stated they should work with the City. However, 32 the people of the City don't want a bunch of lots. There are places where smaller lots are 33 appropriate. The City can find areas that have multiple units, so the average density overall 34 is six units per acre. No one is going to win, and the process will stop, by requiring the 35 density. 36 37 Tom Black, City of Ferndale Planning Director, stated the City commented on the 38 proposed rezones previously. Their position hasn't changed. The primary issue for the City 39 is self- determination, not the specific density. The community, not the County, should 40 decide density as long as the City meets the general parameters of the Growth Management 41 Act. 42 43 He provided a map of the area (on file). The minimum lot size is 8,500 square feet. 44 Some areas in the short-term planning area, which immediately abuts the subject property, 45 has a preliminary plat going before the Hearing Examiner soon. Another area has a 46 proposal for single family residences on 8,500 square -foot lots. It meets the City 47 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. That plan is appropriate, given the density that the 48 citizens want to see. The City has not addressed minimum densities or changed its zoning 49 to reflect those densities. They will go through that process in the next year or two. The 50 City should establish those densities. 51 52 The City has had no participation in the short-term planning area. The County 53 determined the area. There was no analysis to determine how much land was necessary. A Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 3 I lot of land is in the long -term planning area. Forty seven percent of land in the short-term 2 planning area is un- developable because of critical areas. Of the remaining acreage, a 3 capacity of 750 units is projected. That is about four or five years of growth. That's very 4 short-term. 5 6 A recent Hearing Examiner decision on Blomquist Heights supports the idea that the 7 City decides where growth will go, as long as the Growth Management Act was satisfied. 8 9 The issue for Ferndale is self- determination. Let the citizens make their own 10 decisions. Their zoning is based on units per gross acre, not net acre. Their current zoning 11 conforms to the Growth Management Act. Approve the rezone, but don't include the 12 condition of a minimum density of six units per acre. That is a decision the City should 13 make. 14 15 Darryl Dewell, Remax Realtor, stated consider the physical characteristics of the 16 property to determine lot size. There have been no new developments in Whatcom County 17 that leaves 10,000 square feet available on a lot. The densities that the County Council has 18 an obligation to decide on severely impacts the lots that are built. There is a minimum 19 amount of wetlands on both properties. There is a large unusable draw in the property. 20 Vista Drive doesn't have sewer. The entire hill will require a gravity feed. Avoid pump 21 stations that overflow when there is a power outage. They can get gravity to flow from the 22 top of the hill down. It is natural, prime real estate to be developed into city lots, with 23 gravity flow and a City sewer system. Think closely about the size of the lots that should be 24 developed. It's a choice. They need infill densities to lower cost, but they must also 25 consider the human element. 26 27 McShane asked if this area would remain in the fringe of the city for 50 years. 28 Dewell stated it would not. That is right on the edge of development. Everything south is 29 already fully developed. 30 31 McShane asked if the city would continue to develop to the north. Dewell stated it 32 would. 33 34 Aamot stated there is a clustering provision in the long -term planning area. There 35 must be an 80 percent reserve tract. That would be better than five -acre tracts. 36 37 McShane moved to recommend to the full Council to schedule a public hearing to 38 grant the rezone with the condition that density be six to eight per net acre, as 39 recommended by County staff. The leapfrogging is a close call. Nearby property is planned 40 for development. 41 42 Brenner stated she supports the motion. Work with the people involved and the 43 City to come to a compromise, such as gross instead of net. This is an ideal place for the 44 development to go. Schools are in the area. All the jurisdictions should have the same 45 density imposed upon them. She moved to amend the motion to have a public hearing on 46 approval, with the condition that a density of six units per gross acre be applied. Black 47 stated the concern of the small cities was that the density be encouraged, not required. 48 The cities were also concerned about using net, not gross, density. The small cities don't 49 object to the density units used. Units per gross acre is more dense than units per net acre. 50 51 Brenner stated she doesn't understand why they require net acres in some places 52 and gross acres in other places. Take into account the natural impediment to the lands. 53 She asked if the City and County could work something out if that density works for the Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 4 owners and developers. She is uncomfortable with the County dictating City zoning. Black stated the question is what is required. That density could be achieved if the developer comes up with a plan. The City doesn't have a problem with that. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Black continued to state that the City is not prepared to establish a minimum density. McShane stated it is the County's jurisdiction right now. This is a power issue. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. It has everything to do with one entity feeling out of control. The County has to plan for the entire county. He's sorry the City might resent that. The fact is that the County has no promise from Ferndale or other cities to meet the density goals. There is no insurance from the cities, so this is the County's only option. Without that option, the Hearing Examiner will agree with the City's position, because that's what the zoning would require. This is the County's only opportunity to have assurance. If the City wants to come up with some other mechanism to meet the County's standards that would provide the County some assurance, the County and City can work a lot better together. Without that assurance, there will be low density development. The market forces will cause that to happen. Black stated he agreed it is an issue of self determination with the City. In establishing those numbers, be realistic about what the community desires. If the people don't want smaller lots, they won't buy them and live there. That changes the entire community. The policy is to encourage these densities. Ferndale has been encouraging those densities. The City is talking about changing policies to allow high density mixed uses downtown. The City is taking steps to densify the community. The City does object to the County when it assigns an arbitrary number and says it will encourage those densities, and then turns around and requires those densities. There is a difference between encouraging someone and requiring someone to do something. McShane stated that if the County has assurance that the City will meet those overall density requirements, it is willing to work with the City. Black stated the community is a long way from reaching consensus on what the density should be. The Growth Management Act says the city must develop to an urban density. At some point, the Hearings Board determined that urban density is four units per net acre, but that has been thrown out. They don't know what that density is. All they have is a County policy that encourages a density of six to eight units per acre. Nothing tells them what the City must do. The City would like to work with the County on an agreement that will have to be in general, not project -by- project. It will be a balancing act. They can't do an analysis of a short-term planning area, and say that the adjacent area isn't dense enough when it's the result of 30 years of development at a lower density. Those areas aren't going to redevelop to smaller lots. McShane stated he disagrees. His experience is otherwise. Black stated they don't want to encourage sprawl in the urban growth area, but within the city limits and short- term planning area, allowing a parcel to remain undeveloped could be considered as promoting sprawl. Someone on the fringe can hold the rest of the area hostage if they don't allow properties to develop around it. That doesn't make a lot of sense, when the property is in the middle of the city. Sometimes, the pressure of other people nearby developing encourages other parcels closer in to develop. Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 5 Brenner amended her motion and moved to amend that the density be encouraged, not required. Fleetwood asked why staff wrote the requirement. Aamot stated there is an interlocal agreement between the City and County. One section in the agreement is about minimum urban densities being consistent with the State and County policies. The ordinance refers to a section of the interlocal agreement about annexation planning. Annexations are to be adopted and consistent with County policies. One finding is to ensure densities. Another finding is to ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms to encourage densities at desired levels. The actual condition indicates how the County will handle the interlocal agreement. The County would not sign the interlocal agreement unless this provision is included, which implements the 1999 interlocal agreement. If the County doesn't sign it, the Boundary Review Board will mediate the issue. The condition acknowledges the forum to deal with the issue. The County is not trying to dictate anything. It is trying to implement an agreement. The density is not arbitrary. It's based on County policy. Growth Management doesn't say the cities will decide their densities. It is supposed to be a joint process, which the County thought it had with the interlocal agreement. The County has a clear and compelling interest in what happens in the urban growth area. That's why the staff recommends this condition. McShane stated the County doesn't have that assurance that the City has internal mechanisms to accomplish that density. He asked if staff would still recommend a specific zoning density if there was that mechanism in place. Aamot stated the City is going through its Comprehensive Plan process now. Soon, it will go through a subarea planning process for the urban growth area. It could result in pre- zoning, where the County and City could agree on some type of zoning. That would make the process a lot easier. McShane stated that until then, they are struggling with density. Brenner stated the Council recently had a project come forward that a City wasn't even going to annex. It sailed through. Until the City's regulations are fine - tuned, the County needs to work with it. The County is behind in its Growth Management Act requirements, too. If it looks like the City begins to sprawl, the County can change its decisions at that time. Try to work with Ferndale. Brenner withdrew her amendment. She moved to eliminate the requirement of six to eight units per net acre. McShane stated that isn't necessary. Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor. Motion to recommend a public hearing on the staff recommendation carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE REGARDING THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING SUBAREA BOUNDARY ISSUES (AB2006 -199) Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 6 1 2 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated there is an advisory committee appointed by the 3 County Executive. They have had three meetings. The County hired a consultant to assist 4 with the plan. A public process is being developed. He indicated the location on a map. 5 When the Council established the advisory committee, it included a member from Deming, 6 which brought up the discussion of the subarea boundary. The committee recommends an 7 area around Deming be included in this subarea. The committee is asking if that raises any 8 red flags with the councilmembers. 9 10 Brenner asked the current subarea in which 11 Deming is currently in the Lynden Nooksack subarea. 12 the crest of Sumas Mountain. 13 14 Fleetwood stated he doesn't see any red flags. 15 16 The committee concurred. 17 Deming was placed. Aamot stated The old boundary was generally on 18 Aamot stated the advisory committee recommends elongating the process. It 19 recommends that they bring the plan to the Council as a part of the 2007 docket. 20 21 Brenner stated that sounds good. 22 23 Fleetwood asked if staff concurs, 24 recommendation. 25 26 27 OTHER BUSINESS 28 29 There was no other business. 30 31 32 ADJOURN 33 34 The meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m. 35 36 l 38 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 39 J%%%011111111 41 ATTEST: Q� N C 14 42 �.•�G61M •'•• 43 A.. P 44 45 = • 4 Alt 6 • 47 Dana ifeti Davis o4 .PCietf 48 '% t� ••• W10 •. Aamot stated Mr. Hart is reviewing the WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON th Flee ood, Committee Chair '7 Planning and Development Committee, 4/25/2006, Page 7