Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 20 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee June 20, 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: Sam Crawford Carl Weimer COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE FROM TROY HOLBROOK, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2006 -264) Troy Holbrook, Planning and Development Services, gave a presentation. Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there are three projects he'd like to speak about, the Birch Bay Stormwater Management Plan, the Birch Bay Shoreline Enhancement Project, and the Lummi Island Groundwater Study. The Birch Bay Stormwater Management Plan was identified as a top priority in the subarea plan. He discussed the history of the project. The task force is intrinsic in drafting the plan. He commended them for their work. The plan includes regulatory review. Even though Birch Bay is not a phase two community, it could be in the future. McShane stated he is on the Puget Sound Action Team. This issue came up recently. The head of the State Department of Ecology was looking for direction on stormwater issues regarding the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) phase two. The issue of the census boundary approach came up. Everyone is recognizing that the system is goofy. One idea is to think about it in terms of what Mr. Middleton is discussing. The Puget Sound Action Team has been involved in supporting some of the work at Birch Bay. It's being carefully looked at, and will play a significant role around the state, in terms of how non -phase two areas should be approached. This work is really important. Middleton stated there was a review of the regulatory environment early in the process. He asked the contractor to look at this as a phase two area. They will be very close to being in compliance with phase two. CH2M Hill made it easy to accomplish. He read a list of plan components. Funding alternatives are important. It has been taken very seriously. The citizens are talking about taxing themselves through one of several different alternatives, which they'll discuss at their next meeting. He hopes to have a presentation by staff and CH2M Hill and staff in July or August. Brenner asked if one of the alternatives was a stormwater local improvement district (LID). Middleton stated it was. Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 1 Fleetwood asked the anticipated completion date of the plan. Middleton stated they hope to bring forward a final draft by the end of July or August. The task force meetings are well attended. Another project he is working on is shoreline enhancement for Birch Bay. It is a high priority of the subarea plan. It was originally identified as the beachfront promenade. When looking at the objectives and goals, they determined that the focus of the project is storm surge protection of Birch Bay Drive, pedestrian access along Birch Bay Drive, and beach and habitat restoration. There is collaboration between the Planning Department, the Public Works Department, and a shoreline enhancement subcommittee. A request for proposals (RFP) for a feasibility study went out. A selection committee is reviewing the proposals. They will have interviews and hire a consulting firm. The study will outline how to accomplish the objectives and goals. They want to make sure they don't harm any species that use the beach. Similar projects have been done around the world, including two local projects at Marine Park and Crescent Beach. This project would be like Crescent Beach. Maintenance would be low and the project would look very natural. It would become a natural system in a short period of time. The Lummi Island groundwater study was discussed at a Committee of the Whole meeting recently. He submitted technical memorandum number three (on file). This memorandum describes the sample - taking done in April. Staff has received the draft methodology, which they are reviewing now. The methodology is what they would look at to change regulations on groundwater withdrawals. That is an integral part of this process, to hand off to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official and move on with the subarea plan for Lummi Island. The next samples will be taken in August. He hopes those will better define the methodology. Information about these and other projects can be found on the Planning Department website. He's involved with the Foothills subarea plan process. They want to ensure that the draft subarea plan clearly identifies and prioritizes projects. The subarea plan for Birch Bay was the first that included specific projects. When they began identifying projects, they had to identify the objectives and goals, which weren't thought of as part of the plan. For the Foothills subarea plan, the priority will already be included in the subarea process as they identify projects and the projects come before the Council. Crawford asked if the federal standard for arsenic is this same number shown in technical memorandum three. Middleton stated it is. Jeff Chalfant, Planning and Development Services, stated he would provide an update on Shoreline Master Plan. The project was initiated in 2004. Technical advisory committees worked diligently on the project. They've finished that phase of the project. They are developing a public review draft for late June of this year. Workshops will be held in mid -July. Following a 60 -day comment review for the public, the Planning Commission will begin hearings. The update should be to the Council by the end of this year. The update is based on sound technical information. It is linked closely to salmon recovery and water resource inventory area (WRIA) plans. The shoreline master program serves as a comprehensive plan as well as a development standards plan. The founding legislation requires a different product than they normally see. The foundation of this is the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, not the Growth Management Act. The program will be Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 2 integrated with the critical areas ordinance. They will see a more streamlined permit process that integrates the two ordinances. Folks will have more consistent determinations from staff and a better experience with the permitting process. They are developing a restoration plan for the entire county as part of this plan. It will reflect the WRIA and salmon recovery plan processes. McShane asked if they are considering any designation changes. Chalfant stated there will be a few minor tweaks, but nothing major. There was a good shoreline master program to begin with. Fleetwood asked about the restoration plan. Chalfant stated it is part of the shoreline master program. Fleetwood asked if there is any overlap with the Marine Resources Committee, Puget Sound Action Team, or others. Chalfant stated there is. They've worked with the Marine Resources Committee on the marine portion of it. The Technical Advisory Committees included those agencies. Holbrook stated staff is working on the Foothills subarea plan also. To date, an advisory committee has met several times. They provided a public outreach strategy, estimate of existing and future populations, received presentations from Whatcom Transit Authority (WTA), the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and others. They recommend amending the subarea boundary to include Deming. A consultant facilitated meetings in the area to talk about vision. The committee really wants public input and a good public process. Many people are enthusiastic and involved. A questionnaire will be circulated this summer to get more public input. There was a small town commercial design workshop in Kendall in September. A policy workshop will be in October also. The plan will be a patterned from the existing Comprehensive Plan and include a vision statement; sections on land use, transportation, and economic policies; government services, and; hazardous areas. It will focus on the urban growth area of Kendall and Columbia Valley. They expect the work to be finished by March 2007. They will have a draft in April 2007, then it will go to the Planning Commission and then Council in the fall of 2007. He hopes it will be adopted with the rest of Comprehensive Plan amendments in 2007. Birch Bay is an active area. Staff goes to many meetings out there. Concurrency is a big issue for Birch Bay. They put out a request for proposals (RFP) for an incorporation study. Brenner stated they did an incorporation study for Birch Bay years ago. Holbrook stated they did, but it wasn't a full study with a fiscal analysis. Incorporation went to a vote at one time, but the citizens turned it down. Brenner stated it was an extensive study. She hopes the consultant will start from that point. Holbrook stated they also went to the Boundary Review Board in Spokane and used other examples from King county where cities have recently incorporated. The situation has changed quite a bit since the last Birch Bay study. Crawford stated the Council was approached by people in Birch Bay who asked for $100,000 for a study. Holbrook stated that is part of the RFP. Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 3 1 Crawford asked how they can put out an RFP for something the Council hasn't 2 agreed to. Holbrook stated it is more of a scoping study. The goal is to fine -tune the real 3 cost. 4 5 Brenner stated the County Executive made a statement to the community that the 6 money would be budgeted. Holbrook stated he doesn't believe the funding decisions was 7 before the Council. 8 9 They received a design guidelines grant for $35,000, and put out an RFP for the 10 work. They've only received one proposal response so far, and may go out for it again. 11 They are preparing an RFP for concurrency. The transportation planner is on board. They 12 are circulating the concurrency RFP for comments from staff to fine tune it. The RFP should 13 go out this week. 14 15 Fleetwood asked the scope of work for the concurrency issue. Holbrook read the 16 draft scope from the draft RFP. Another subset in the scope is to set up the regulatory 17 framework so other special districts can participate if they choose to. 18 19 Brenner asked if they have heard from any fire or school districts about whether 20 they're interested. Holbrook stated they have. Fire District 13 had commented. 21 22 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the Mt. Baker School 23 District has expressed an interest in this for many years. The east county subarea plan is 24 the way to tie the school district to future growth opportunities. As they expand the 25 program, they will hear from more districts. 26 27 He met with City of Blaine yesterday. They had comments on this also. They are 28 sharing growth areas. They are interested in corridor development and transportation 29 concurrency. 30 31 Holbrook stated other issues include the 2006/2007 zoning docket. 32 33 Brenner stated she received a letter from City of Blaine. Holbrook stated that was 34 regarding a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. The deadline for that is December 31, 35 unless it is an emergency. 36 37 Brenner stated the City agreed to have it as an emergency. Hart stated the Council 38 should really work with legal counsel on defining an emergency for putting something on 39 the docket. 40 41 McShane asked if the administration is bringing forward zoning proposals. Holbrook 42 stated it is not, that he is aware of, but he hasn't seen anything come in yet. 43 44 Holbrook stated they must look at the urban growth areas in 2007. They will mostly 45 look at Blaine and Ferndale. The staff will go through the same exercise they are now with 46 the City of Bellingham. Both Ferndale and Blaine are working on their comprehensive plans. 47 The timing will work out well. 48 49 Regarding Growth Management Act compliance, the staff developed Comprehensive 50 Plan amendments as a result of the Futurewise lawsuit. They didn't think about pursuing 51 them as a part of the Comprehensive Plan docket. They are working on the Foothills 52 subarea, the Bellingham subarea, and will possibly work on the docketed Comprehensive 53 Plan items. They may continue some of those compliance issues under these other efforts. Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 4 1 2 McShane stated an issue of limited areas of more intense rural development 3 (LAMIRD's) was already docketed. It is not complete. It was carried over. That's still 4 before them. Holbrook stated that is correct. It's part of the Bellingham subarea plan. 5 6 Crawford asked if they don't have to worry about LAMIRD's. 7 8 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the Growth Management Hearing Board's 9 decision on the Futurewise case was overturned. The judge reversed the order of the Board 10 that required the County to reassess the LAMIRD's and the criteria in the Comprehensive 11 Plan. That does not prevent the County from doing that on its own, but the County is not 12 under order to change the rural densities in excess of five acre zoning. The rural density is 13 okay. 14 15 Holbook stated he would update the Council on the work related to the Bellingham 16 Subarea Plan. He gave a Power Point presentation (on file). Staffing has been tight, but 17 the effort will continue to go forward. The City of Bellingham has made recommendations 18 to the County Council. It is not a joint recommendation from the City and County at this 19 point. The County Planning Commission hasn't made a recommendation yet. He read the 20 presentation on the current status. There is a challenge that the County is non - compliant 21 on this plan. The administration is working on the paperwork for that now. 22 23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 24 25 Brenner stated they all know the County isn't compliant. She asked what happens. 26 Holbrook stated there will be a statement that the County must continue its work. Now that 27 the City has made its recommendations, it is back in compliance. He read the presentation 28 on the current status and the components of the plan. 29 30 McShane stated they can adopt an urban growth area (UGA) boundary, but without 31 the land use policies, which can be figured out later. Holbrook stated that is correct. They 32 can also adopt the UGA boundaries with the land use policies, then come back and do the 33 rest of the work. 34 35 McShane asked the pitfalls of approving a UGA boundary without agreeing on other 36 things. Holbrook stated the best way to do it is to have a full package in front of the 37 Council, so it can make a better - informed decision. To be timely and get in compliance, do 38 the UGA and the land use policies. Through the Boundary Review Board is how the County 39 can work with the City to implement the policies. 40 41 Holbrook continued to read the presentation on policy implications. 42 43 Brenner asked how they can discontinue development in the UGA. Holbrook stated 44 it's about urban levels of development. They can only have that if there are urban utilities 45 available. Not allowing extension of utilities without annexation will save the County a lot of 46 work. Cities, not counties, are to provide urban services. 47 48 Brenner asked if the cities and County have to agree on that policy. Holbrook stated 49 most cities in the state have adopted those policies. Bellingham is one of the few cities in 50 the state where this happens. Draft policies to address that issue will come forward. 51 52 Crawford asked why Bellingham doesn't just go ahead and annex all its existing 53 UGA's. Holbrook stated that is something they will need to work on. They just adopted Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 5 I their new Comprehensive Plan, which has policies to support that. That may be the City's 2 goal. The City is working now on four or five annexation requests. There may be some new 3 State legislation that encourages cities to annex by forfeiting some State sales tax to the 4 city to offset those costs. Now, it is costly to a city to annex. 5 6 Brenner stated that might encourage the cities. She asked what the cities will do to 7 encourage the people who already have the services and don't want to be in the city. 8 Holbrook stated most areas in the UGA have utility extension contracts, and residents have 9 signed no- contest agreements to annexation. 10 11 Crawford asked why citizens don't want to annex. 12 13 Brenner stated she heard that the taxes are lower in the county. 14 15 Crawford stated that's not true, for the City of Bellingham. 16 17 Holbrook stated the taxes in the City of Bellingham are slightly lower than in the 18 County. The County has more special districts. That's partially why the taxes are slightly 19 lower in the City. Utilities in the City cost 50 percent more. Those areas would have better 20 access to services if annexed. 21 22 He read the presentation on land use policies. They are very important. They will 23 help promote planned and managed growth, minimize impacts, and make effective use of 24 resources and infrastructure. That's the entire goal. Everyone wants managed growth. 25 The issue is how they get there. 26 27 The land use policies are going to the Planning Commission. They are divided into 28 several sections. One section is urban form. He continued to read the presentation on 29 urban form, annexation, and urban growth area. They need to update the interlocal 30 agreement with the City of Bellingham, which will implement the land use policies. The 31 different UGA tiers would have different criteria that would promote infill. 32 33 McShane stated they could address issues such as standards for neighborhood plans 34 in Bellingham before reaching the next tier. The City would have to agree to that. Holbrook 35 stated that's correct. 36 37 Brenner asked about the ten -acre default. Holbrook stated there is default zoning 38 now. Up that default to ten- or twenty -acre zoning. It will preserve the ability to create 39 future development in the urban growth area. 40 41 McShane asked if preserving land outside the UGA is in the context of the UGA 42 agreement. There isn't anything in the UGA packet about that. Holbrook stated part of that 43 concept was to require the use of transfers of development rights (TDR's) for UGA 44 expansion. Staff would like to combine the purchase of development rights (PDR) program 45 and TDR program to preserve the rural lands outside the UGA's. That has to be worked on. 46 Get that concept out there. That is in terms of subarea impacts. 47 48 Brenner stated she thought they wanted to try and have PDR's and TDR's inside the 49 city, not in the UGA. Holbrook stated have TDR receiving areas to increase density in the 50 UGA and in the city limits. 51 Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 6 Brenner stated it's in the UGA now, but not in the city. Refocus on getting it in the city. Holbrook stated they can implement that through the policies and interlocal agreement. The City and County have worked on infill capacity for the City of Bellingham for over a year. They have gone through the existing UGA to make recommendations for appropriate zoning and densities. The City has been working on infill methodology. There have been many revisions. The County staff supports the methodology the City is using right now. Crawford asked how they are to determine the numbers. Holbrook stated he suggests that they have a work session to work through it. Crawford stated it is very hard to subdivide in the city of Bellingham. There are many restrictions on land in the city of Bellingham that have been layered over time, which ends up making subdivisions very difficult. It is very hard for the average person who has an extra lot to develop that extra lot. It takes a couple of years to go through the process to just get the density that zoning allows, let alone to get an upzone. He asked how they sort through all that. Holbrook stated he understands those difficulties. The City is actively updating its plans to promote infill. It takes time to update the plans. There is a lot of resistance to infill. Everyone has an idea of how things should look. The methodology that will be presented is based on reality. It can be refined, but they don't have the luxury to do that because they are out of compliance and need to get this done. They have to base it on existing regulations. Other counties are doing a buildable land .supply inventory that Whatcom County may need to do. They have different methodologies. However, the County doesn't have the capacity to do a land supply inventory right now. Doing such an inventory is a policy recommendation. Through the interlocal agreement, look at the buildable lands program, and adopt it with the County and City. They should be doing it countywide. Now, they are capable of doing more constant monitoring of the land supply. Therefore, they can update the size of the UGA. If they have the methodology in place that answers questions to everyone's comfort level, they may be able to achieve that. McShane stated this will be a difficult issue for the Council. They have the proposal from the City that includes the land supply analysis. The City planners did take a lot of what they said into account. There are flaws in the neighborhood plans. For example, the zoning in his neighborhood is multi - family. However, there were constraints put in place to make multi - family development difficult, and it would have been better to just change the zoning. Having a buildable land supply analysis would help the City move toward resolving some of those issue and rewriting zoning and regulations so infill could incur. His problem is the presumption that the City won't go into those neighborhoods and see if they can increase density in the future. He asked how they would predict the outcomes of those processes, even if it's in the land supply plan. They City must get over its fear of dealing with the neighborhoods. Brenner stated the City isn't using detached accessory dwellings. They should use it. There can be a small cottage on a property. The City Council Members she talked to didn't even want to talk about it. There are concerns about noise, but noise can be regulated. Those are fixable issues. In the future, people will want to be able to have something like that. However, she doesn't have a right to dictate to the City what they do or don't do. Her obligation is outside the city. The County still must do what's best for its jurisdiction. Fleetwood asked for a brief overview of things the Council can anticipate coming forward. Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 7 Crawford asked if the recommendation from Mr. Holbrook is to look at Bellingham's numbers seriously, and take all the other numbers with a grain of salt. Holbrook stated the County staff looked at the numbers from the City Council, and support those numbers. Staff gets the same comments that the Council gets. Staff screens those comments. Third party review should come from a party who doesn't live here and who has the qualifications. Staff has worked hard. He's pointed out the fallacy of some of those numbers. He's confident of the numbers he recommends. The numbers must be based on existing regulations. The City doesn't yet have regulations for accessory dwelling units, minimum densities, or urban villages, although it's working on them. There are now policies in place to support them. However, the system must be based on existing regulations. A third party review would determine that the numbers are too low and the urban growth area must be expanded. That's why he wanted to start today's discussion with policies. They can see how these policies will be important, no matter the size of the UGA. The policies will shape how growth occurs in the future. Fleetwood asked what the Council will receive, when the Planning Commission is done and the Council takes on this issue. Holbrook stated the Council will receive all the background information, public process information, land use policies, infill methodology and final numbers, City Planning Commission recommendation, County Planning Commission recommendation, and recommendations on the UGA boundary. Crawford asked if the Council can put a timeframe on the Planning Commission. He's concerned that this will take all summer and go into fall at the Planning Commission. Fleetwood stated one idea is for the Council to draft a letter to the Planning Commission asking the Commission to get this to the Council as soon as possible, and no later than July 13. He's prepared to begin work sessions. The Planning Commission will meet on this subject in two days. This Planning Committee could begin its work at the next meeting. Crawford stated he's concerned that this process not get stalled. Fleetwood stated the Council will respectfully request the Planning Commission present recommendations as soon as they reasonably can. Holbrook stated the City Council forwarded its recommendations to the County Council last month. Both the City and County planning commissions have been dealing with this issue concurrently. There have been joint meetings and separate meetings. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) McShane asked if they are going to take this up Thursday, and if that would require a public hearing. Holbrook stated they've already had public hearings on several sections, but they haven't had public comment on land use policies and urban growth area boundaries. They could have a public hearing on July 13. McShane stated one idea, if appropriate, is to make a recommendation this Thursday if they are ready and immediately schedule a County Council public hearing. The Council did that with Lummi Island and Birch Bay. Those plans are so big. More and more people will become engaged. It will give the councilmembers a chance to get their minds around all this. There are advantages to the County Council having a public hearing before it even begins to work on it. It will give people a chance to articulate their positions to the Council Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 8 1 directly. Holbrook stated he would find out if the Council can do that. He will develop 2 options for public hearing and work sessions. 3 4 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs Director, stated 5 any discussion of Futurewise in executive session must be limited to legal issues and cannot 6 include legislative strategy and policy, which would be a violation of the Open Public 7 Meetings Act. She is raising this objection for the record. 8 9 Fleetwood stated Ms. Dickinson's objection is noted. He understands that the only 10 thing being talked about during executive session later is the status of the litigation. 11 12 13 OTHER BUSINESS 14 15 There was no other business. 16 17 18 ADJOURN 19 20 The 21 22 23 24 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 25 ��ttttttiit�liiir 26 X 27 AT,''. 28 : •• �HATG • 30 31 • 32 • 33 C*na 9%) un Clerk 34 meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 01 1 ( '' WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON F vmvi Planning and Development Committee, 6/20/2006, Page 9