Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 14 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee March 14, 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: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Carl Weimer COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA ZONING OVERLAY DESIGNATION IN THE FERNDALE UGA NORTH OF THORNTON ROAD (AB2006 -129) Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the subject proposal is to rezone property from a long -term planning area to a short-term planning area. This would allow the site to be annexed into the city, served by public water and sewer, and developed at urban densities. He indicated the location on a map. Surrounding the urban growth area (UGA) is rural lands and agricultural lands. There is a site - specific rezone directly to the south and another to the east. Rural land uses are to the north and west. The subject site abuts the city limits. A significant issue is the density of the proposed rezone. Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.90.051(4) says that it must be processed in accordance to the interlocal agreement with the City concerning annexation and urban growth. The interlocal agreement says the City agrees to adopt and maintain annex areas consistent with the State Growth Management Act (GMA), City Comprehensive Plan, and policies of the County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan goal 2P is to encourage Ferndale to establish new residential developments of densities averaging six to eight units per net residential acre. The Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend a condition to implement the density conditions. Countywide Planning Policy D3 says short- and long -term boundaries may be used to facilitate the provision of urban levels of service and to not preclude urban densities as defined by the County Comprehensive Plan. Implement the density goal of six dwellings per net acre to make it urban in character with appropriate density after annexation, to minimize the effect of the proposal on adjacent areas, to preserve rural and agricultural uses, to preserve rural communities, to uphold the integrity of the County Comprehensive Plan density goals, and to uphold the integrity of the interlocal agreement. He submitted a copy of the interlocal agreement (on file). Fleetwood asked how the application minimizes the effects and preserves rural character. Aamot stated that if there is low density development in the UGA, eventually Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 1 they will have to expand the UGA into the rural areas even more. Meet density goals so that doesn't happen as rapidly. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Comprehensive Plan prohibits using gross density, since it speaks about net density. Aamot stated there are two policies. One policy is about net density of six to eight dwelling units per acre. Another policy says density over three dwelling units per acre, but doesn't specify net or gross density. Staff interpreted it as gross density so that it will equal the first policy. Comprehensive Plan policies can be amended to consider gross density. The Hearings Board has talked about net density. The City of Ferndale finds net density harder to administer. Brenner stated net density is harder to administer. The County does reference both net and gross density. The County Planning Commission is talking about having less dense development along the outer edge of a city, so there is not such a shock between urban and rural areas. She's tired of using UGA's as dumping grounds for all the density. If the City objects, consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. People who live in and just outside of the Bellingham UGAs have been very upset. Provide flexibility. The people outside this UGA support a density lower than six to eight units per acre. The County should allow flexibility and try to work with the cities as much as it can. Tom Black, City of Ferndale Planning and Building Director, stated he supports the staff recommendation. It's appropriate. Staff and the City object to the imposed condition of higher density. The City thinks it's inappropriate for the County to dictate to the City what it's densities are within the city limits, as long as it is compliant with the Growth Management Act, which the City is. The Supreme Court determined that the Growth Management Hearings Board never had the right to establish the net density requirement. Deference should be given to the City, not the County, about how dense the city will be. The condition is based on the concept of long -term and short-term planning areas, which the Growth Management Act doesn't require. The County established them arbitrarily. Forty -seven percent of residential land in the short-term planning area is not developable. The County Comprehensive Plan says that 90 percent of the UGA should be in the short-term planning area. Ferndale has about 50 percent, not 90 percent, in the short- term planning area. The short-term and long -term planning area boundary is bogus. Any decision based on this concept can't be supported. The County shouldn't make a suggestion into a requirement. County policy 2P talks about encouraging development at that density. When this policy was developed, all the small cities would have gone to battle with the County if the word "require" instead of "encourage" were used. There was a specific intent to make it a suggestion, not a requirement. Don't turn around now and make it a requirement. The interlocal agreement and map don't reference long- and short -term planning areas. The requirement would be in violation of the interlocal agreement, since they are changing the rules established at the time this was signed. The property ought to be rezoned as requested. Brenner stated only one city said anything to the Council about the density levels. Black stated the density numbers were discussed by the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Their position at the time was that, since it was a suggestion, the exact number wasn't that important. Units per net acre translates to a different figure from gross Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 2 acres. The Ferndale Comprehensive Plan designates most of the UGA as low density urban residential, with three to six units per gross acre. It equals about four units per net acre. Within the city limits, 25 percent of the land is designated as critical areas. The same is true in the UGA. Overall, 75 percent of the land is developable. Basing actual proposals on net acreage is a nightmare to administer. Someone has to do an immense amount of work, which may include wetland delineations and project designs, up front just to determine their net acreage. Development review shouldn't be done that way. Require the least amount of money up front so people know if they can go forward. Establish minimum densities using gross acres. Ferndale has not established minimum densities yet. It is something the City needs to establish, not the County. McShane asked when the short-term and long -term planning area lines were drawn. Aamot stated they were drawn in 1997. McShane stated they were in place when the interlocal agreement was signed in 1999. Black stated the previous planning director knew nothing about the short- and long- term planning areas. McShane asked if some of the land in the short-term planning areas is not developable because of environmental constraints. Black stated that when the County squared off the boundary, the land in the short-term planning area in the area to the south included an area that is almost completely wetlands. In the short-term planning area, about 357 acres out of 600 acres total are deemed to be un- developable due to critical areas. Brenner asked if properties were bisected by the short- and long -term boundary. Black stated that is the case with this property. Doug Robertson, applicant representative, submitted a letter from the Ferndale School District on the issue (on file). This is not an agricultural area. The Friberg family wants to develop this very similar to the Pacific Highland development, in excess of six units per acre. They don't want to get involved in the density issue. However, they did say it does support the rezone. The staff report identifies certain factors that should be considered for adoption. Policy 2S -1 is the list of factors that have to be fulfilled to change from long -term planning areas to short-term planning areas. All the factors have been met. Potential development in this area takes into account environmental constraints, property that has already been developed, and property that is subject to development. Almost all the property in this area is subject to environmental constraints or development. There are two factors that make this rezone different from any other. First, when the long- and short-term planning areas were set up, it divided the Friberg property. It has made it impossible for the Friberg family to develop the property. He read policy 2A -11 in the Comprehensive Plan. Another difference is that this entire property is subject to a utility local improvement district (ULID). The principal amount of the ULID is over $150,000. The ULID has obligated the Friberg property to pay for it. However, according to the policy, the Friberg property can't use that water because water can't be extended into the long -term planning area. They can't use the water, but they have to pay for it. The Friberg family Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 3 has entered a settlement agreement and developer's agreement with the City. Unless they have it rezoned, they'll be paying all the ULID and interest on 50 acres they can't develop. For those two reasons, the property should be added to the short-term planning area. Once added, they will ask to be annexed into the City of Ferndale. Fleetwood asked if the applicant is interested in a density close to what is conditioned. Robertson stated the applicant doesn't want to get into the density argument, but plans to develop at that density. They are not objecting to any density requirement of six units per acre. Jerry Landcastle, Ferndale Mayor, stated he supports the two previous speakers. The long- term /short-term issues have been inherited by the current City Council. Little or no discussion on the long -term and short-term planning areas was held with the cities. When that information came to the forefront, the City was surprised to look at how the map was created. The City is constrained by a great deal of wetland area and other unbuildable areas, which are in the short-term planning area. Fleetwood asked if the County Planning Commission and staff did not offer reasons for the distinction between the short- and long -term planning areas countywide, or just for Ferndale. Landcastle stated he is unaware that it was done countywide. It did not come to the Planning Commission when he was on the Planning Commission. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the City is committed to annexing the area if it is developed. Landcastle stated they are. They do developer agreements for annexations. Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council that the area be added to the short-term planning area. Caskey- Schreiber stated she appreciates Mr. Black's comments, but the County does have the right to determine or negotiate UGA densities. The County is within its jurisdiction. Royce Buckingham, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that is correct. The question brought up is what "encourage" means. This is one of the things the County is doing to encourage an average density of six to eight units per acre across the UGA. Brenner stated she asked at the time if a density of six to eight units per acre is okay with the City of Ferndale. That's why she agreed to it. She asked what the City's interactions were when the County came up with those numbers. Aamot stated the six to eight units per acre was created in 1997. He will have someone research that question. Brenner stated the comment was made that no one from the City was present, so it was assumed to be okay. McShane stated the Council increased the densities about a year ago for the City of Bellingham, and left the small cities alone. Holbrook stated that is correct. Some of the smaller cities testified at the Planning Commission. McShane stated the densities in the UGA varies from city to city, with Bellingham taking more density since it is the biggest city. The interlocal agreement talks about minimum urban densities. The City of Ferndale agreed to the policies of the County Comprehensive Plan. One could argue that the density requirement isn't enough. If the Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 4 average density is six to eight units per acre, and the short-term planning areas that exist now won't accommodate that level of density, then the required density isn't enough. It's a minimal recommendation from staff. He moved to amend the motion to add the six to eight density condition as in Exhibit B. Aamot stated this condition says how Whatcom County will act if the City does not agree to the density of six to eight dwellings per acre. This condition says that the annexation would go through. If the City doesn't agree, the County would not sign the interlocal agreement and it would presumably invoke the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. The County would argue the case before the Board. Technically, this doesn't impose anything on Ferndale. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Aamot stated the County can't dictate annexation to Ferndale. However, Exhibit B provides the County a forum before the Boundary Review Board, which may or may not rule in favor of the County. McShane stated the UGA's are where they are supposed to provide housing. The policy shows up in many areas of the Comprehensive Plan. His motion doesn't lock in the density. It may not even be an issue, since the applicant plans to develop at that density anyway. If cities grow out with really low densities, it undermines other County policies. Whether the County has that future decision to allow the expansion of UGA's has become an issue. It's important to have this in there. Staff came up with a good approach to doing this. Brenner stated she agrees with the logic, but it's not a big deal. It's dictatorial. Don't dump all the density in the UGA. This doesn't matter, but it sets a precedent, especially since the City has come to ask the County not to do this. The County has given lower densities to other small cities. The County should acknowledge the City's wishes. McShane stated the City agreed with the minimum urban densities and the policies of the County Comprehensive Plan policies. Fleetwood stated he respects the City's opinion, but the wishes of that one jurisdiction isn't the only consideration. The County wants to respect their wishes, but there is an effect from their policies that has a direct bearing on County policy. He asked where the City's right to insist on certain densities ends and the County's right to maintain a rural character begins. It's not clear. Certain densities increase the likelihood of suburban sprawl in farmlands. That's what they're grappling with. The GMA and Hearings Board identified minimal requirements, but nothing prohibits the County from imposing additional requirements. He will support the motion to include Exhibit B. Brenner stated she hasn't seen evidence that complying with the City's wish will negatively effect the rural areas. Motion to amend to include exhibit B carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed, Motion to recommend adoption as presented carried unanimously, (Clerk's Note: The committee took a break from 3 :57 p.m. to 4 :02 p.m.) Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 5 2. RESOLUTION FOR REVIEW OF THE RURAL ZONES, AGRICULTURAL ZONES, APO AREAS, AND RURAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2006 -133) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, handed out information (on file) and stated he would review the docketed items and other items on the work plan related to agriculture. He would also talk about the resolution. Strategize about how to proceed. He read the list of five docketed items and their purposes. He also created a list of items that are related to agriculture on page two of his handout. He read and explained the list of items. Many of these changes will change the way the County does business. Some of the items are before the Planning Commission right now. When they consider the resolution, consider how to move all the items on both lists together. These items are actions and measures to get at objectives. His handout includes a proposed outline for a process. Council needs to clarify the general purpose and the objectives. He presented an example general purpose in the handout. It's pretty broad. The objectives are more precise and measurable than the general purpose. Try to be clear about what they expect. To do that, clarify the general purpose and objectives up front. He presented example objectives in the handout. Brenner asked the number of acres in the agricultural zone. Olason stated there are 88,000 acres, but that number doesn't include areas that are roads and rivers. The real number is a lot less than 88,000 acres. That amount still falls short of the goal to protect 100,000 acres. Brenner asked how much open space resource land can be achieved through clustering. Olason stated one proposal is that the cluster include the footprint and roads. They don't always protect 75 percent. The land protection may not be agricultural land. It could be a wood lot. Think about whether there are other objectives. McShane stated the agriculture protection overlay (APO) is a tool for saving farmland, but it's not working that well. Maintaining rural character is also not working well. Olason stated consider whether the APO could be applied to any non -urban development. Every land use has value that is more manageable if in larger blocks. Brenner asked if they've defined rural character. Olason stated defining it may be difficult. They talked about it in the context of larger lots, larger areas, open space, connectivity, and variety of use. As a lot size is reduced, character changes. Her vision of rural character may not be the same as the vision of other people. She fears they will end up legislating their own aesthetic instead of protecting the resource lands. She doesn't have a clear picture of what rural is. Olason stated that is true. It's partly about the land base. As the parcel size gets smaller, certain uses are less likely. Brenner stated rural character can contain clusters of houses in rural communities. Fleetwood stated they don't have a definition. Olason stated it could be a part of the scope. McShane stated add an objective to protect rural character, including the level of service. There is a vast area with a tremendous amount of potential for build -out. Costs are associated with that. For some people, living in the rural area means being Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 6 independent. They may not be keen on the amount of road improvements necessary for that build -out. The amount of traffic on those roads can be more than rural. Brenner stated she's not comfortable with that objective without a definition of "rural character." Olason stated they could break down that objective to specific characteristics, such as a variety of acreage and uses. Too many one -acre lots looks like a subdivision. Brenner stated it wouldn't look rural if a bunch of trees were planted to hide the cluster. Fleetwood asked if they are really asking to review level of service for unincorporated Whatcom County. Olason stated they could look at scoping and background studies. Fleetwood asked if the example objective "a" means reducing subdivisions and density potential. Olason stated his concept was that subdivisions try not to break up large blocks. Reducing density could further that objective. Size is a part of rural character and also the usability of the remainder parcel. Fleetwood stated that if the Council agrees with the docket items, the items could be objectives. Olason stated a more generalized program would have objectives that are directives for the types of techniques they want to employ. Fleetwood asked if the staff would present a work plan that gets the blessing of the Executive, and then the Council would formally approve it. Olason stated that is one scenario. He hopes that the staff can work with the Council to help the Council articulate clearly what it wants. The resolution has a general tone. One idea was a focused effort wit' the community. Fleetwood asked if the Executive approves of this effort. Olason stated they talked with the Executive about it this morning, but he has not seen the work plan, which was done this afternoon. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Olason stated that when they talk about process, it's about how they are going to do this and what sort of methods there are to get through the process. It might be valuable to bring in a small group of people who represent the players to scope out exactly what they want addressed. That's why it's important to get the general purpose objective clear. 41 He wants to know the range of options. Look at the methods they have if they want to 42 reduce density. Several proposals look at that. 43 44 Brenner stated this will be as far - reaching as any water issues the Council has dealt 45 with. She is not interested in setting up another independent committee that may or may 46 not be appointed. The County Council should be the scoping committee, collecting input 47 from everyone. The Council knows these people. Olason stated that is an option. Some 48 group has to be convened to work out the issues. 49 50 The bulleted items are subjects he thought they may want to look out. He read the 51 items. They can add other items to the list. Data collection is an area where staff needs 52 time, money, and expertise to make sure there are clear findings that the County can 53 support. His proposal suggests a scheme to involve the public and get the Council's Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 7 purpose out to the public. Whatever comes forward shouldn't be a surprise to the public. He continued to read through the proposed process. Involve the decision - makers regularly. Administration is a big issue. This is a big project with a lot of implications. It needs to be done right. He worked out an idea that includes dedicated, upper -level staff with assistants. In addition, work out budgets and other details of a complete project. Getting this done in 12 months will be short. The more public process that is done before the decision should result in less process required after the decision. If all goes well, it will take 18 to 24 months, if there is funding already. The proposed budget is loose. He read through potential budget items. Meeting facilitation and data collection is important. They may have to go through the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process, which could be expensive. Staff will be important in this process. This process would be similar to the critical area or shoreline update processes. It could be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, depending on the detail. This is the first estimate. Fleetwood stated this is a great start. He asked what staff would do if the committee approves this today. Olason stated staff will talk with the administration about this. They have a generic sense of where to go. The question he has is how much more detail needs to be done before establishing a working process, including authorized staff and a budget. Brenner stated she is not ready to approve this today. She would like to go over it. Olason stated he anticipated that his proposal would give the councilmembers something to work with. They can change the details. They can set the general parameters of what they want to look at and why they want to look at it. That information is important to take to the administration. Brenner stated she would like to take two weeks to set those general parameters. McShane stated this came through with a resolution. He hasn't received any comments on the resolution. It needs some help. Fold the general purpose statement into the resolution. The actions lined out in the resolution equal six. They don't deviate from anything the committee has talked about. They deal with the process issues. Add a "Now, therefore, be it resolved" statement to approve this general scope of work. Olason stated the resolution appears to put a lot of this on the Agricultural Advisory Committee. This is a broader subject. Staff would work with a broader group that would report to the public and elected officials. People representing uses other than agriculture would be included, such as forestry. Much of the acreage isn't agriculture. McShane stated they would have to define what the resource is in the different areas. Olason stated that the forestland is zoned rural. There are tons of that kind of acreage, even more than agriculture. Fleetwood stated this work plan is an excellent start. He would like to see the outline and resolution from the Council work together so the resolution comports to the work plan. They are not ready to approve a work plan yet. Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 8 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 McShane stated he agrees that the work plan and resolution should be consistent and give guidance. Think about it for a couple of weeks. He doesn't object to holding it for two weeks. Go ahead with docketing tonight. Fleetwood stated this will be back in the Planning Committee in two weeks. He moved to hold this in committee for two weeks. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transc iption Da \011IIIIIIrr /r,,�' p.� . rk -+7117'17' 4r: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON r /; � t lee ood, Comm ttee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 3/14/2006, Page 9