HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 8 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNC:LL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 August 8, 2006
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 Barbara Brenner None
11 Dan McShane
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Carl Weimer
16
17
18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
19
20 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BELLINGHAM URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN
21 (AB2006 -309)
22
23 Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a slide
24 presentation (on file). She indicated the locations of the rural analysis areas, urban growth
25 areas, and five -year review areas on a map. The rural analysis areas may be areas for
26 growth in the future.
27
28 McShane asked about the location on the map to the northeast of the city. Craver
29 stated it is an area of additional consideration for potential expansion of the urban growth
30 area.
31
32 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that is an area with
33 applicants who are willing to get into the process.
34
35 Craver read the presentation on the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea Plan and the
36 update process.
37
38 Hart stated the City and County staffs worked on each of the urban growth areas in
39 2003 and 2004. He showed photographs of that working process.
40
41 Craver continued to read the presentation on the update process. Growth is
42 occurring as forecasted. She read the presentation on the 14 goals of the Growth
43 Management Act (GMA). No one goal outweighs any of the others. They all must be
44 balanced. She read the presentation on alternatives to consider. Both planning staffs and
45 planning commissions have been using the methodology that is explained in the Council's
46 packet. The methodology includes several steps. She read the presentation on the
47 components of the plan. Land use policies talk about utilities, annexation,
48 intergovernmental coordination, and how the jurisdictions will work together to manage
49 growth properly. The interlocal agreement is where they will nail down the details of how
50 they are going to do this. There will be an addendum to the environmental impact
51 statement (EIS) based on the outcome of this.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 1
Hart stated the two jurisdictions are working together in the process of developing
the urban fringe plan, the City Comprehensive Plan chapter, and the interlocal agreement.
He explained the process the City and County are using to work together on these issues.
Craver continued to read the presentation on components of the plan. Policies will
be proposed for certain chapters of the plan. She read the presentation on what's been
done and next steps. The City has not yet reviewed the proposed land use policies. The
County has forwarded those to the City.
She read the presentation on the timeline and remaining tasks. They must still
review the remaining chapters. The City and County staffs will be working the last months
of 2006 to get recommendations from the City Council to the County Council. The City
Council made a recommendation on the sizing of the UGA and the land supply analysis. The
City Council must still look at the remaining chapters of the subarea plan.
Brenner asked why the land sizing issue would not go back if the city and county
planning commissions don't agree. Craver stated the City forwarded its land supply
analysis to the County. The Council will receive a second analysis from the County Planning
Commission. The other chapters of the plan still need to be finished. They are draft.
Brenner asked why they are treating the land supply analysis differently in process.
Hart stated they aren't. It is just the first one that is going through the process. He
explained the process by which the land supply analysis has gone through the process.
Craver read the presentation on the points of the plan to consider.
Caskey- Schreiber stated these are the infill capacity areas they are going to look at.
She asked if they can look at other areas. There are low- density areas in Fairhaven.
Craver stated the County staff isn't going to look at those specific areas, but they have been
talking about the City staff about their forecasts for those areas. The City of Bellingham
infill is important to the County.
Brenner referenced the City of Bellingham land supply methodology on Council
packet page 123. She asked if any property with 15, 20, or 25 percent coverage of
structures is considered to be fully developed land.
Crawford stated that refers to dollar value, not lot coverage.
Craver stated the methodology is proposed is from the State Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED). The City ran scenarios on the
different thresholds. The ten percent structural threshold was found to be accurate. When
they started increasing the percentage, it started putting houses and properties in the mix
that are practically not re- developable.
Brenner asked if the threshold is common. Hart stated it is.
Craver stated this threshold reflects a lot of what's going on in Bellingham.
Crawford stated this is the Assessor's dollar value of the structure, as a percentage
of the dollar value of the land. The percentage of the structure's value to the total land
value seems off. Hart stated it is within the CTED guidelines.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 2
Brenner referenced page 124. It talks about single family homes on large two- to
five -acre tracts of land. She asked why that land size was determined, and not a half -acre
lot, with a zoning of four units per acre. Craver stated City of Bellingham Planning
Department staff person Chris Behee is the expert on that issue.
McShane stated it is appropriate to ask these questions of the Bellingham staff. It's
their analysis. He also questions the methodology.
McShane asked about balancing the GMA planning goals, which sometimes conflict.
He has concerns regarding the flexibility the County will have in terms of zoning of urban
growth areas and water quality. Craver stated the critical areas ordinance (CAO) will work
with the subarea plan. The land must live by those standards during development. They
will not put in environmental regulations in the subarea plan. Instead, the plan will
reference the CAO.
Hart stated that Bellow Wood, on Northwest Drive, is about 7.4 acres. The City
allowed one unit for every 2,500 square feet of property. There were wetlands on the site.
rherefore, the development got a lot of density. The critical areas are the biggest limiting
factor in the urban growth area.
McShane stated he has concerns about the Lake Whatcom and Lake Padden
watersheds. He is not sure what flexibility the County will have to determine density in
those areas to reduce stormwater runoff from urbanization. They need more than just the
CAO. He will be interested in the appropriate zoning density within a lake setting, to protect
the lakes. Hart stated there are two critical policy decisions. One is how to get the City to
take in that urban growth area. The County staff will provide stormwater management in
an urban setting along Lake Whatcom. That is very expensive. Paying for that is another
critical policy decision. A third policy decision is how to control the density.
McShane stated it sounds like they can include a lot more things in the interlocal
agreement, and the issue can be addressed. Hart stated there are changes in State law to
make it easier for the City to do annexation.
Brenner asked how to balance extreme critical areas and valuable recreational areas.
Hart stated staff made recommendations to reduce part of the urban growth area. There is
a Lake Whatcom watershed management overlay.
Brenner stated there is a huge incentive for the City to work with the County
because the City is the purveyor. She asked if both the City and County have an incentive
to work together. Hart stated there is always work that can be done.
McShane stated it seems the approach on land supply has been to plan for 20 years,
with a safety factor. He asked if an alternative approach is to plan for a lesser time, with a
monitoring program, which allows greater flexibility to make adjustments. Hart stated that
approach would be the staff recommendation.
(Clerk's Note; End of tape one, side A.)
Hart continued to state that it depends on a number of items, including economics
and a 25 -year funding mechanism for the New Whatcom project. A lot of guesswork goes
into this. Staff proposes a methodology like the buildable lands methodology. It is a way
to reduce much of the uncertainty.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 3
1 McShane asked if a program like that would require additional staff. Hart stated it
2 could, depending on how existing staff are structured. It would require a full -time
3 geographic information system (GIS) effort. Include other cities and rural lands also. It
4 would be expensive. They would gain an overall improved process.
5
6 McShane asked if the County would do the buildable land supply for all cities. Hart
7 stated it could. Regional transportation is also an issue. Roads need to be connected. The
8 County must go back and evaluate previous commitments. Make sure funding is in place in
9 the right place and time as they open the door for growth, so the capital facilities support
10 their land use objectives. The City is concerned that the County is shifting transportation
11 funding away from Yew Street Road to handle problems elsewhere. There is always an
12 effort to create a balance.
13
14 McShane stated there will be debate about infill capacity of the downtown, Old Town,
15 and New Whatcom. There has been a lot of talk regarding infill and creating urban centers.
16 He will want to know whether this plan means they will not put much effort into doing infill
17 in existing areas. If that's what it means, they don't need to worry about future infill. The
18 City has a way to go with neighborhood planning. If the City is going to do that in the
19 future, find out whether those infill numbers are real, without existing zoning in place to
20 allow infill to occur. Hart stated that is a conundrum at the County. The County
21 contributed $50,000 in 2004 with the Whatcom Transportation Authority and City to look at
22 urban infilling. That resulted in many neighborhood meetings. The public reaction to infill
23 was the opposite of what they'd hoped. There is still a lot of infill to go. The City is trying
24 to do infill better. It will take years to address neighborhood infill the way the
25 neighborhoods want.
26
27 McShane stated that the City planners are trying to get the neighborhoods to think
28 about infill. Hart stated the City is focusing on four or five neighborhoods. They need to
29 take another look at the downtown area. Bakerview is another big corridor where they
30 have to watch the residential development. Significant density is being created in that area.
31
32 Crawford asked which area is called New Whatcom.
33
34 McShane stated it is the waterfront area around the old Georgia - Pacific site.
35
36 Brenner asked if the City of Bellingham has ordinances that allow detached
37 accessory residences on properties. Craver stated it doesn't.
38
39 Brenner stated they can make the infill positive and attractive, not negative. Make it
40 so the neighbors want the added infill, such as by allowing detached accessory residences.
41 If the ordinance is right, the accessory dwelling units don't have to be a problem. Hart
42 stated the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) lands can have a secondary unit. The City
43 must be able to do at least what can be done in the County.
44
45 Crawford stated the will of the City in the 1990's was to not allow such development.
46 A set of rules were crafted that prevents most of that from happening in the city. The
47 County requires a minimum of five acres before allowing a detached accessory dwelling.
48 Hart stated Planning Commissioner John Lesow recently brought forward information about
49 a new community just north of the border. Recently, they built a new subdivision where
50 each house included a second carriage house built over the garages. It was very well done.
51 They got a lot of density.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 4
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated there are City neighborhoods that have been opposed to
2 that concept. The County is not allowed to tell the City it must adopt that concept. Hart
3 stated the Council may want to allow it in the urban growth areas.
4
5 Caskey- Schreiber stated that would create a ring of high- density housing around a
6 low density city center. It's contrary to GMA. Hart stated he is one to use incentives any
7 way he can. Make more incentives in the process and tie it to housing opportunities.
8
9 Caskey- Schreiber stated create a disincentive for the City to stop expanding their
10 UGAs until they get higher densities in the urban areas. Citizens are very opposed to
11 change. Until they figure out how to change the mindset of the residents, it's backwards
12 from GMA.
13
14 Crawford stated non - expansion of the UGA for the purpose of forcing the City to do
15 something is not a solution to infill or sprawl. It is a threat.
16
17 Weimer asked how reviewing Bellingham's buildable lands every few years relates to
18 the rest of the county. It seems that if the County and City does it, they have to look at
19 other UGA's in the county throughout time. Hart stated 51 percent of the growth is
20 supposed to go to the City of Bellingham. The small cities don't have the capacity to do this
21 analysis. If there were some sort of monitoring, let the City of Bellingham and Whatcom
22 County lead that effort.
23
24 Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, stated they are at the start of a
25 process. Do the best they can to realize there are facts to pay attention to. Be careful of
26 imagining things from one viewpoint, and applying it to the whole world. For instance,
27 detached accessory dwelling units may not be the solution. Read the GMA. It's clear that
28 cities and the County have to have a 20 -year supply when they adopt regulations. Look at
29 the process holistically. The County is getting far more permits than projected, and the City
30 is getting far fewer permits. Look at what is causing that, and make adjustments.
31
32 Brenner stated detached accessory dwelling units are a piece of the solution, not the
33 whole solution.
34
35 Ted Mischaikov, 909 Harris Avenue, stated work jointly with the City when analyzing
36 land supply. Support the focused task force that will look at the 100 -year horizon for
37 planning for Bellingham and the county. When analyzing infill capacity of Bellingham, have
38 a forum of builders and developers to answer questions about what it would realistically
39 take to achieve infill. There is a different type of construction, cost structure, market, and
40 permitting than what they typically association with growth in the urban fringe, which is
41 single family detached residences. Have people who understand the different components
42 of constructability, economics, and the marketplace. When deciding what is viable for
43 neighborhood infill, talk about those things. He hopes Bellingham adopts the use of
44 accessory dwellings. It's socially and economically correct. Create a matrix of urban village
45 components and prioritize what belongs in an urban village and where can they put it first
46 to make it work. Keep the 100 -year task force concept alive. Push creative ideas.
47 Consider bringing in the industry for a discussion on feasibility.
48
49 McShane asked for suggestions on who in the industry to bring in. Mischaikov stated
50 there are well -known single - family residence builders that are well known, including Ralph
51 and Mike Black, Edelstein, and Homestead in Lynden. The single - family residence builders
52 are easy to pick from. There isn't a lot of infill in the form of mid- and high -rise units yet.
53 Rick Westraub has done more than anyone in Bellingham, by far. He can provide good
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 5
1 information. Bob Hall has redeveloped existing buildings and understands how difficult it is
2 to get the codes to reconcile with the facts that certain buildings don't work that way.
3 Ebenal has done a lot of low rise buildings in town. Talk to someone who has actually had
4 to do built parking for urban infill. That is one of the greatest hurdles and opportunities.
5
6 McShane stated most of the Council's work on land planning has generally been on
7 rural lands. Those are issues they don't normally think about. He'd like to know whether or
8 not the Council should pursue those ideas and whether the County is capable of managing
9 urban areas. It is an interesting idea.
10
11 Mischaikov stated talk to an Urban Land Institute person to talk about hard facts. A
12 conference in Denver in October will highlight two developments. Councilmembers and staff
13 should attend. It's a way to broaden horizons and look at what people have done.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber stated she likes the idea of consulting with experts in the industry
16 to find out whether the infill expectations are realistic. That doesn't mean they will be able
17 to mandate it. She is disappointed the City hasn't looked more at infilling certain areas.
18 She questions whether the City considered all housing available on the market and the
19 opportunities for infill.
20
21 Dominique Service, 709 DuPont, stated the GMA requires consideration of what
22 regulation and zoning is in place at the time when considering land build - ability. The
23 waterfront is a good example. It will take a long term to do cleanup. Development of the
24 area will be very controversial and will take time. The GMA recognizes that these processes
25 take a long time, and results will be unknown. Therefore, the GMA requires that they look
26 at what's in place at the time of adoption.
27
28 Brenner stated they are supposed to look out 20 or more years. There will probably
29 be some mixed uses, including housing on the waterfront. Service stated start with the
30 basic tools.
31
32 Brenner stated they should be able to forecast possibilities, as well as probabilities.
33
34 Crawford asked whether the methodology and numbers are speculative. Service
35 stated they are speculative. There are hopes and dreams for the level of infill for downtown
36 and the waterfront, but they haven't been put in place. Many things, such as a jobs base, is
37 not in place. The needs for those communities have not been addressed. This is in addition
38 to the infill numbers being based on things that are not in effect. The services that these
39 infill numbers will require are also not in place. What they've come up with is very
40 restrictive.
41
42 Crawford asked if Ms. Services believes they need to be cautious about
43 underestimating the amount of urban growth area expansion around Bellingham. Service
44 stated it is a serious concern. There is a need for single family housing. Too great of a
45 restriction will cause a continuation of the un- accommodated population ending up in the
46 county, and creating more sprawl.
47
48 Hart stated Gardner Wharf in Everett is a great new waterfront development. Ports
49 around Puget Sound are focusing on their waterfronts. It's very expensive. There is some
50 guessing to it. The timelines are long.
51
52 McShane asked about development occurring in the County. They are seeing high
53 permit numbers. He asked if there is information on the numbers of permits that are in
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 6
1 either suburban enclaves or existing urban growth areas. Hart stated they do now. He will
2 distribute that information.
3
4 McShane stated there are people who aren't in the county, hear those permit
5 numbers, and feel there is much more development going on in the county than in the city.
6 There is a lot of development going on in the Birch Bay urban growth area. Hart stated the
7 majority of the county's growth is going to urban growth areas. That's key. However,
8 there is a lot of overall growth in the county. They are also seeing increases in those rural
9 areas.
10
11 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the County is not doing the proper planning
12 and is getting negative results. The people in the city want to determine what their
13 neighborhoods are like. The County can't tell the City neighborhoods what to do. The
14 County can encourage more density.
15
16 David Hunter, Bellingham, stated that having a hearing at this time, without
17 advertising it, is not a good idea. The committee shouldn't invite people to speak at a
18 meeting that isn't a public hearing. Otherwise, they will hear only one side. People will
19 speak again at another public hearing and will have multiple opportunities to speak when
20 others have had no opportunity to speak. Do not do this in the future.
21
22 The committee has heard from two people with interests in expanding into the urban
23 growth areas and how the failure to expand creates a risk to the County. The County
24 Council is responsible for allowing development in the county. It is the Council's job to stop
25 development in the county. It is not appropriate to hear the special interests say that they
26 will continue to develop into the county if the Council doesn't expand the UGA's. Take
27 action now to prevent a suburban rural county. It is happening now. Concurrency may
28 begin to address it in a year or two, but it's not happening now. The special interests are
29 not protecting the rural areas.
30
31 Caskey- Schreiber stated it is also happening because the land is zoned that way.
32
33 Hunter stated it is, and also because the County allows an unlimited amount of
34 building in that area, up to the zoning.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
37
38 Hunter continued to state that the likelihood of them doing that is as great as the
39 likelihood of allowing the Planning Commission to consider what he proposed doing before.
40 Take some action to protect the rural areas. The Council isn't doing that.
41
42 Fleetwood stated he and Councilmember McShane attempted to protect rural areas
43 by filing applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change zoning designations.
44
45 Hart stated incentives is an important policy to consider. The Council was recently
46 asked by the City to participate in funding for the waterfront. That is an example. Many
47 times the County is asked to participate. There are ways to provide incentives. They have
48 not been able to transfer transfers of development rights (TDR's) into downtown. Start
49 doing that. Overcome hurdles to that. Connect urban growth expansion to contribution to
50 purchases of development rights (PDR's). Other ideas include a joint wetland mitigation
51 bank with the City. There are many things the City and County can do together to create a
52 better growth pattern. Start tying goals and objectives to immediate needs.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 7
Caskey- Schreiber stated she encourages using higher density in the New Whatcom
project for a TDR /PDR purpose. Make it voluntary. Developers can contribute to a
mitigation bank. Acquire the development rights from areas where they don't want
development. Consider bringing in a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) specialist to explain it more. Many people just don't understand what that is. King
County has a bank. Whatcom County could establish something like a flat impact fee. Hart
stated the economic development incentive funds could be given to projects in city centers,
as an example.
Weimer stated there are many concerns about the City's methodology for coming up
with their numbers. Now, the Growth Management Hearings Board has a challenge of one
aspect of the methodology. He asked how that challenge will impact the Council's
deliberations. Hart stated he pays strict attention to those, but they also keep their
deadline, which is 2007. If other appeals come up, staff will come back to the Council and
see what happens.
Brenner stated she agreed with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. However, she
has a problem comprehending how it's an incentive for developers to purchase development
rights. Most of the builders she talks to want to go with a certain size. It's the most
popular size that sells better. It seems that purchasing development rights would get them
a density higher than the optimum density for sale. It's a better idea to decide how many
development rights should come out of the watershed. Give those development rights to
the City of Bellingham and require Bellingham to determine where they will go.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's highly likely that the developer of New Whatcom will
develop high -rise condominiums. The developer will need as many condo units as possible
to pay for the steel frame construction. That would be an incentive to work with a program
like this.
Brenner stated that if an area should have that higher density, don't prohibit
someone from having that higher density in the first place.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they will just build an incentive -based program.
Brenner stated some will not want to use the program, so they won't get the full
density they hoped for.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they won't ever totally maximize the density in any area.
The City of Bellingham will control that zoning.
Brenner stated don't hold back density that would be profitable and work and look
good. Also, don't sit on development rights because nothing is happening. She isn't
convinced yet.
Crawford stated it's important to be market - driven, not supply- driven. Legislative
bodies should not try to control everything from the supply side. The State legislature
should induce some market - driven aspects to growth management.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that may be an area where the market demand will allow
for density bonuses. An unobstructed view of the water is an incentive for adding more
units.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 8
1 Crawford stated there is a successful voluntary program in San Diego that also
2 creates affordable units on the low end. It allows the market to drive what the County is
3 trying to achieve through profit incentives for the developer.
4
5 Weimer stated the agenda should reflect that there could be a public comment
6 period, so people know there is a possible opportunity to speak.
7
8 Craver summarized the tasks given to the department by the committee, between
9 now and April:
10 • Gather more information about a field trip, mentioned by John Lesow,
11 • Gather information about having a question and answer discussion with folks
12 from the industry,
13 • Create a matrix of the urban village potentials,
14 • The October 18 presentation
15 • Update the presentation to include more information
16 • Update the totals for single family residences (SFR) in the county and
17 different cities,
18 • An improved timeline of meeting dates
19 • Do another presentation of "Honey, I Shrunk the Lots"
20
21 Brenner asked that staff get a copy of information regarding the Portland metro
22 accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Also, find out how much it's been used and why it is or
23 isn't being used.
24
25 Fleetwood asked when the committee will begin working on this. Craver stated the
26 committee will start working on it in late September or early October.
27
28
29 OTHER BUSINESS
30
31 There was no other business.
32
33
34 ADJOURN
35
36 The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.
37
38
39 V
40 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
41
42 ,``����NU��ni�h���i
i
43 ATTRL'I Q�/' ���i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
44 ���° �',•�t1AT(,+ •.yam' %� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
45
46 -► _ `�
47 _
48
49 Dina - Davis�dEpunciClerk S� Fleetw d, Committee Chair
50 ••yING
Planning and Development Committee, 8/8/2006, Page 9