Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 9 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee May 9, 2006 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 2:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Also Present: Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey- Schreiber COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA ZONING OVERLAY DESIGNATION IN THE FERNDALE UGA SOUTH OF THORNTON ROAD (AB2006 -186A) (Clerk's Note: The audiotape recording of this meeting begins halfway through tape one, side A. Approximately the first half of tape one, side A is blank.) McShane stated he understands that this subdivision goes to the Hearing Examiner and includes the next item on the agenda. The other approval is going from a long -term to a short-term planning area. He asked why this was done this way. Troy Holbrook, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the long- and short-term designations are in many urban growth areas (UGA's). The County can't approve a plat until it is in a short-term planning area. McShane stated an application went in for the plat. There was a separate application for the change from long -term to short-term planning area. Approval is dependent upon the Hearing Examiner review and the Council change from long- to short-term planning area. Doug Robertson, applicant representative, stated this issue goes back a while. In 2003, the owners filed a seven -lot subdivision. The applicant wants to do more than seven lots. He explained the history of this project. It's in the Ferndale UGA. The project obtained approval for annexation, but the area cannot annex until it is in the short-term planning area. At this point, they developed the method and project that would meet the requirements of the County Comprehensive Plan, Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, and then the change in law from the Viking case that eliminated the bright line rule of four units per acre. The Hearing Examiner adopted the plat and recommends that the Council approve the PUD with conditions. The Council must approve the plat and decide on the site - specific rezone. If the project is approved, there is no longer a burden on County staff. The property is annexed and goes into the City. The project would make minor adjustments to accommodate the city's PUD ordinance. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 1 1 2 Fleetwood asked if the Council is approving both a long -plat and a planned unit 3 development (PUD). Robertson stated the short-plat is an old gift exemption short-plat. It 4 is vested. The developers don't want to exercise the vested short-plat. They hope the 5 recommendation from the Hearing Examiner on the long -plat and the PUD is adopted by the 6 Council, and the Council approves the recommendation to approve the site - specific rezone. 7 8 Fleetwood asked if the Council has to approve the rezone before it can approve the 9 plat and the PUD. Robertson stated the plat can be approved only with sewer and water. 10 The developer's agreement says the City of Ferndale will provide water and sewer if it is 11 annexed. The plat can be approved without the change from a long -term to a short-term 12 planning area. However, the condition of the plat can't be fulfilled until it's annexed. 13 14 Holbrook stated the County typically does the rezone first, then does the 15 development application. Whatcom County has odd regulation about site - specific rezone 16 that blurs the lines between rezones and, project approval. It is difficult to administer, and 17 causes some confusion. 18 19 McShane stated that if the plat is approved, the project can't go forward unless it is 20 rezoned. There isn't any water. 21 22 Tom Black, City of Ferndale Planning and Building Director, submitted written 23 testimony for this and the next item (on file). He read the letter. The City of Ferndale 24 approves of annexation of this property. A more direct approach would be for the County 25 Executive to rescind his letter dated April 21, 2006 to the Boundary Review Board, which 26 kept the property from being automatically annexed on April 24. If that were done, the 27 annexation would become final. This property should be in the short-term planning area, 28 especially considering that 47 percent of the area within the short-tern planning area is 29 classified as not buildable. Approve the re- designation from long -term to short-term 30 planning area. 31' 32 Brenner asked why the County Executive sent the letter to the Boundary Review 33 Board. Holbrook stated that when a city brings an application to the Boundary Review 34 Board for review, there is a 45 -day period to act. If the County doesn't raise any issues, 35 the Board automatically approves the annexation. The 45 -day period already elapsed 36 several weeks ago. This area has not yet been rezoned. According to the Comprehensive 37 Plan and zoning code, it can't be annexed. According to interlocal agreement and the 38 Comprehensive Plan, an interlocal agreement has to be signed before there is annexation. 39 Neither of those things happened. The Executive requested they stop the 45 -day period 40 until the interlocal agreement is worked out. 41 42 Brenner stated that the Council has had other project proposals where part of the 43 property is in the long -term planning area and part is in the short-term planning area. 44 Everything is ready for project approval in the short-term planning areas, including services. 45 This is right next to the city boundary. She asked if the County just wanted to go through 46 the exercise. Holbrook stated the staff is charged with implementing the Comprehensive 47 Plan. They are getting better at it each time property is annexed. They are following the 48 procedures in the Comprehensive Plan to make sure the goals and objectives are met and 49 the interlocal agreement is signed before the Board finalizes the annexation. 50 51 Brenner asked if some red flags went up. Holbrook stated the red flags were that 52 there was no interlocal agreement and it is in the long -term planning area. 53 Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 2 Brenner asked if there is any way to streamline this kind of process. If there are no red flags and the issue is just about process, she would like to clean up the process. Holbrook stated they've had a haphazard process over the years. The last few months, they've started to refine that process to come up with procedures to follow. Robertson stated there is a question of density. He understands the City's position. However, the shortest distance to success is to have the County approve it now. They've got the proposal. Staff did the work. Look at it. This is similar to the Friberg Comprehensive Plan amendment. This area of Ferndale has a need for additional land. All the services are there. All the factors and policy 2S -1 have been met. The staff report from February identified an inaccurate density number that included government properties that shouldn't have been included. It also didn't take into account pending development applications. Theirs is a more expanded look. The density in the short-term planning area meets the Ferndale Comprehensive Plan. It may not meet the encouraged density standard of six to eight units per acre. The City Comprehensive Plan sets forth a specific goal of concentric circles of development, with higher density closer to the middle. That was adopted through the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan policy 2W -2, which identifies an average of three units per acre in Ferndale. The difficulty is with the section that says the County will encourage a density of six to eight units per acre. The Growth Management Hearings Board says the minimum urban density is four units per acre. Meeting that urban level will meet urban requirements, which is consistent with policy 2P -3. Policy 2P -3 is to encourage infill that is harmonious with current development. Placing a very dense development on the edge of Ferndale would violate that policy. Between that time and now, laws and policies changed. He asked that the Council enforce the agreements that all parties entered into. As long as they achieve a density of four dwelling units per acre, the County staff supports it. There are significant environmental constraints in a certain area of the property. The site has gone through years of planning. It's surrounded by an urban level of development now. The location is appropriate because of nearby schools and other services. The demand is there. In the development process, a standard of four units per acre was set and met. This is a finely crafted development that meets the requirements given to the applicant. Approve the site - specific rezone. Fleetwood asked the location of the property. Robertson indicated the location of the area on the map. Fleetwood asked if 32 acres is open space, most of which is wetlands. A little bit less than half is open space. Robertson indicated the open space areas on the map. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Fleetwood stated Mr. Robertson makes the case of demand in excess of supply, and references the fact that Pacific Highlands lots began being sold for $60,000 per acre and concluded by being sold for $110,000 acre. Mr. Robertson indicated that there are price increases only when there is demand in excess of supply. The Council has heard that it is not just about supply and demand. It is about in- migration and 70 percent of the newcomers coming in from other places. Some would say it's less about supply and demand and more about capacity to pay. Robertson stated all four phases of the Pacific Highland plat are complete. The last lots are going for over $130,000. They are selling as Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/,2006, Page 3 quickly as the developer wants them released. That demand has continued. In excess of 70 percent of the Pacific Highlands buyers were from Whatcom County, the majority from Ferndale. SAS Consulting looked at the address on the excise tax affidavits. There are a number of economic reasons why that is happening. The urban core of Bellingham is increasing in price even faster. People who might want to live here are being displaced to a more economically acceptable environment. Also, demand is not one of ethnocentricity. They can't say the demand will only be for Whatcom County people. They don't get to control where the buyers come from. These are single family residences with homeowners dues and in a neighborhood. These are the people who will live and work in Whatcom County. Fleetwood stated he was suggesting that it's because there are more people here with the ability to pay a higher price, rather than it being purely a supply and demand issue. Robertson stated the demand is shown. Price usually only increases when demand exceeds supply. Fleetwood asked the evidence that the County encouraged Ferndale to have higher densities. Holbrook stated there were a number of rezones before the Council that were around Ferndale. This is different. This project came in as a site - specific rezone, which has a project attached to it. The zoning now is urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3), which was not compliant with GMA according to the Hearings Board. This was a vested application. The County worked with the applicant to get density to over four units per acre. Density could have been three units per acre or less. The applicant was vested at the existing zoning at that time. Brenner stated this started before the County Council adopted those numbers. This project was caught in the process. McShane stated the Hearing Examiner discusses Goal 2P of the current Comprehensive Plan. He addressed this because the County staff raised the need for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan before approval. He asked if the Hearing Examiner is reviewing this in light of what the Comprehensive would say at the time the application came forward. Holbrook stated the site - specific rezone is an unusual mechanism. Typically, they do the rezone before the application. These came in together, and seem to compete. The plat is vested under the older rules. The rezone is reviewed under the current policies. There is still the existing zoning of the UR -3. The County needs to go back to the Comprehensive Plan and do some work. McShane stated the property is vested at that zoning. The property must get annexed and put in the short-term planning area. The County has an interlocal agreement with Ferndale regarding that. He asked about Hearing Examiner's discussion of goal 2P. The Hearing Examiner says that lower density of this can be balanced by higher density in other areas of UGA. He continued to read from the Hearing Examiner that meeting the goals of the County Comprehensive Plan will require an average residential density for future annexations that are significantly higher than the density proposed here. There isn't a record that the City of Ferndale is doing that. The Ferndale Comprehensive Plan sounds like it is contrary to the County Comprehensive Plan. A second issue is about how property values are really getting high. There are many expensive lots. Demand is there. It sounds like they need more lots. He asked why they would create fewer large lots when there is an opportunity to create more lots of a smaller size. He asked the advantage of creating fewer lots. They may not sell for as much Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 4 because they are smaller, but the lots sizes proposed are big enough for even two houses. There are plenty of neighborhoods in urban cores that have much smaller lots. Fleetwood asked why the City opposes a density of six units per acre. Black stated goal 2P is not new language. When the County staff updated the Comprehensive Plan, all the planning directors from the cities spent a year working on the language. For this specific goal, the directors approved "encourage" and "net density." The small city directors went along with the language because the word "encourage" would be retained, and not change to "required." In terms of the density, all the cities agreed with the numbers because they translated in lower densities per gross acre, which conformed more to city zoning. The problem is how they look at net density, at the beginning or the end of the process. Zoning can yield four to five units per gross acre, which equals five to seven units per net acre. They were not thinking about establishing minimum densities within the cities. They were thinking about how zoning classifications matched with the designation of six to eight net units per acre. Since that came out, the City has adopted a PUD ordinance and revised it a couple of times. It is a vehicle for people to achieve higher densities. About 60 percent of the projects gone through the City have gone through the PUD ordinance. Most of the projects were approved at a much higher density. The City is concerned about achieving density. There needs to be flexibility in terms of where the density will be established. The City agrees with policy 2P. The City supports the property being annexed and the project going forward, by whatever vehicle they use to make it happen. Brenner stated Mr. Robertson talked about the fact that Ferndale's character plan shows the most density at the urban core. To some degree, the County must work with the cities on their character plans. She recalled that the six to eight density only applies to Ferndale. The other small cities have a density of four units per acre. Black stated there is a range of densities for the small cities. The City of Lynden asked for their density to be lowered, and it was. Brenner stated most of the small cities have a densities of four units per acre. The demand is for single family residents. It's a bigger demand than the condos. McShane stated the zoning would be 10,500 square feet. Black stated that is correct. It is 4.2 units per gross and six units per net acre. McShane asked the size of the lots. Black stated 4,000 square feet is the smallest size lot allowed by the PUD ordinance. If there isn't a PUD, the development is done as a straight plat, with a 10,500- square foot minimum lot size. The developer found there were more critical areas than they thought. Going with a PUD allowed them to achieve roughly the same number of units. McShane stated the PUD has to be reviewed by the County, but is under the City's jurisdiction as well, with some caveats. Ultimately, the City will be completely in charge of it. Black stated it probably needs to meet a couple of modifications to meet the City's requirements. (Clerk's Note: Changed tapes at 3:25 p.m., halfway through tape one, side B. The last half of tape two, side B is blank. Begin tape two, side A.) Weimer asked about gross versus net acreage. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 5 McShane stated it has to do with a lot of wetlands. They're not taking that out. Black stated the way the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations were written, which is the way most cities' were written, is to establish minimum lot size and maximum density. Robertson stated Councilmember McShane asked why they don't build more lots if the demand is there. They are constrained by the County and City comprehensive plans. He read County Comprehensive Plan goal 2W -2. One policy says the County will encourage a density of six to eight units. Policy 2W -2 specifies three units. The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan says they want this to be low density. The County Comprehensive Plan goal 2P -3 says development will be harmonious. The developer could sell a bunch of 5,000 square foot lots out there, but it wouldn't be harmonious with the surrounding area, It would be relatively inefficient. They want to reduce the number of trips at $3 per gallon of gas. There isn't much commercial development in this area. They would want high density in the core so people can walk to services. They don't want high density development on the urban fringe because it requires more services. That's why planning is historically done in concentric circles. To make it all fit together, it must conform with all the policies. The other thing is how the County is encouraging this. The County Planning staff has been encouraging it vigorously, started with Sylvia Goodwin, who said that the cities must meet this level of density, or it will never be adopted. County staff is encouraging this most vigorously. That's why they've reached the results here. Paul Leavitt, Leavitt Companies, stated he represents the developer. They have been working with the City and County for three years to meet everyone's' jurisdictional requirements. This plan has gone through many iterations. Everyone has been cooperative and supportive. Regarding density, the property is vested with a seven -lot short-plat, but he has no desire to develop it. That density doesn't meet anyone's Comprehensive Plan goals. It is right next to schools. He intends to build a nice neighborhood. Regarding the ability to create more lots, there are many constraints in the area in addition to the central wetland area. The bigger lots may not be able to divide into two smaller lots because of those constraints. They've used the property the best way they could find. He thanked the City and County staff for their help along the way. Approve the staff and Hearing Examiner's recommendations. Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Caskey- Schreiber stated this reminds her of the Birch Bay area conversion from long -term to short-term planning. She asked why development is leaking into long -term planning areas. She asked if the County is mandated to use the short-term areas before using the long -term areas. She asked why there is a differentiation between the short- and long -term planning areas. Holbrook stated the short- and long -term planning areas resulted because the Hearings Board determined that the UGA's were too large. As a compromise, instead of shrinking the UGA's, the County came up with the short- and long- term planning areas. There are several policies in the Comprehensive Plan that describe the policies for converting from a long -term to a short-term planning area. To convert, there must be demand and available urban services. Ninety percent of a UGA must be in the short-term planning area, but they aren't. In 2007, the County must look at all its urban growth areas. The staff has already started that work. The County is working with the cities as well. The policies will be fine - tuned and more consistent, through that process. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 6 Caskey- Schreiber stated they are constantly dealing with the loss of farmland. Some programs are in place to address the loss. When the County converts from long -term to short-term planning areas, it is not allowed to have any mitigation measures in place. Holbrook stated staff is working on that question. A major issue is the conversion of UGA's and how to mitigate for loss of resource lands. The Council and Planning Commission will discuss those issues in the next few weeks. Brenner stated this development is divided between the long- and short-term planning areas. It is right on the city limits. Services are available. In the past, the Council approved conversions to even up the lines on the map, which divided properties. Since then, two new schools have been built in that area. Situations have changed. McShane stated the comments today were helpful. He appreciates Mr. Black's continued civility on this issue. Unfortunately, the only way to encourage the density is to continue to be a pain in the neck to Ferndale. It's tempting to want to continue that. However, given the circumstances of this particular project, he will vote for approval. However, he still feels strongly about it. He disagrees with the idea of having more dense urban cores and less density farther from the core. In all the communities he's seen around the country, that is the approach that has been taken, and that is what causes sprawl. Snohomish County is having to knock down houses built in 1985 to redevelop the sprawl. At the time, the developments fit the community, but they didn't provide enough housing for those communities. The lot prices are very high because the lots were big in the 1980's. Now, the homes are put in much more tightly. Now, affordable neighborhoods are being built in Bothell and Mill Creek. They are not large, single- family lots. He hopes that the County planners will carry that forward. He appreciates the effort they put into it. He hopes the small cities consider this carefully. Ferndale is not the only city with which the County had this issue. The City of Sumas is exceeding its density requirements. It can be done. The City of Everson is putting effort into smaller lots and greater density. They are going to run out of affordable single - family housing if all they develop is large lots, particularly if the lots are constrained by wetlands. Those planned unit developments should be given every break to create as many buildable lots as possible, or else the lands shouldn't be urban growth areas. Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane. Motion carried unanimously. 1A. 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) McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note. The Committee took a five - minute break.) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 7 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING DRAFT PROPOSAL: WHENEVER A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (MINIMUM 75% OF AVAILABLE RIGHTS) ARE REMOVED FROM WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED, AND A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE SERVICED BY PUBLIC SEWER, WATER, AND STORMWATER, AND A DEVELOPER ENTERS INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH WHATCOM COUNTY, THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION MORATORIUMS (AB2006 -172A) Fleetwood stated this is in response to re- approval of another six -month moratorium on subdivisions in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Caskey- Schreiber stated they can't continue the subdivision moratorium forever. There must be some kind of plan of action. Figure out what they are trying to accomplish, and get it done. She's learned that urbanization of a watershed is not a good thing. She would like to build an incentive to remove some of the development rights in the watershed and if there is a way to allow development to occur in the least invasive way possible. She doesn't know if the 75 percent transfer out is the right thing to do. They must figure out the threshold of what the watershed can bear to allow a subdivision to occur. If they don't want subdivisions, they must make changes to the zoning. They can't keep waiting for the Department of Ecology to finish the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study. Brenner asked if they could amend the language, "Be It Further Ordained that whenever some development rights Efflinimung 75% ef available rights) are removed or transferred from within the watershed, and the proposed...." What they are saying is that the proposals would have public water, sewer, and stormwater. Also, have a development agreement with the County. She can't imagine the County is going to buy all the properties in the watershed. McShane stated the subdivision moratorium wouldn't apply to forest areas, unless the development were to cluster. The County isn't required to move forward because of the moratorium. However, it's worth talking about a way to deal with the rural, one unit per five acre (115A) zone separately, although the moratorium would interfere if they are doing a smaller lot creation in the 115A zone. Spend some time dealing with the R5A zone and see if there is a way to develop cluster standards and agreements that would improve upon the risks caused by a full build -out of the R5A zone. Caskey- Schreiber stated there are 124 R5A parcels in the watershed that can be developed. The fundamental question is whether it's better to facilitate sewer, stormwater, clustering, and an agreement on conservation land or to just allow them to build out. She doesn't know the answer. The biggest threat to that lake now is phosphorus. Clearing and road building can be just as damaging as a cluster development with sewer and water. She asked if they want to take action on one to eliminate the problem from the other, or if they think it's okay to have 124 individual RSA lots built out. Brenner stated she's interested in addressing all the areas in the watershed, not just areas zoned 115A. If they go through a developer agreement, the County could have more open areas of forestry. That could be very beneficial. Deal with all the zones in the watershed. McShane stated a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal was for cluster division rules for forestry land, from John Belisle. They have docketed that process already. If the Council approves something for the rural forestry lands, cluster development would be Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 8 encouraged and allowed in the rural forestry land, even with the moratorium. Holbrook stated the developer agreement would come in handy. They can come up with the land to tailor a development. Crawford stated they need to make some decisions regarding Lake Whatcom. There are very good things about Iverson's proposal, but a lot of other people are waiting. The Council should provide predictability. He is concerned about adapting the moratorium, which is supposed to be temporary, as time goes on. Provide people with predictability. If this Council wants to do rezones based on environmental considerations for Lake Whatcom, then discuss it. There are not a lot of other kinds of zones besides RSA and rural forestry left in the watershed. From a zoning perspective, there aren't other things to do. It sounds like this developer has a reasonable proposal that the County should work with. The extension of water and sewer, to keep that stuff out of Lake Whatcom, is a smart thing to do. The developer may not be able to give up 75 percent of his density, but he is willing to forego some of his density, and the County should work with him. Overall, he is concerned about continuing the moratorium. Amending moratoria gets into the realm of zoning. Instead, just talk about zoning. Caskey- Schreiber stated she started working on this in response to the proposal from Mr. Sygitowicz and Mr. Iverson. However, it became a concept to her. Whatever they do should apply to the entire watershed. That's why she's trying to figure out if they should begin to encourage clustering or figure out correct zoning. She doesn't think the density can go lower than R5A and rural forestry without dealing with a takings issue. That's not where this Council want to go. Address the development of all these remaining parcels in a way that they will enhance the watershed. Brenner stated that when they first did the moratorium, the Council talked about whittling their way down to the biggest problems. The Council is working on it. The more they can reduce what they're dealing with, the clearer they will know what needs to be done in the end. In the end, the Council may decide there are more critical areas in the watershed that are the most problematic. If they can identify those most problematic areas, the County may decide to buy those development rights instead of trying to deal with the problem. That's why she likes the idea of whittling down the problem. They are supposed to be working their way toward a resolution. They're getting there. It won't be much longer. She likes this concept. If they specify 75 percent, few people will take advantage of it. However, the concept is good. Don't specify an amount of development rights. Fleetwood stated they are trying to get the most protection they can for the remaining developable acres in the watershed. This moratorium was in place until the Council could take final steps that would justify lifting it. It would be good if the Council re- clarified the process by which the moratorium would be lifted. The Council needs to decide what expertise it needs to make these decisions on how to encourage environmentally - friendly development. McShane stated the issue with the moratorium is that there is at least one group that is thinking of doing something different on an area zoned in a way that doesn't preclude the group from subdividing. There are two maps showing the Council two approaches. The moratorium would allow the group to subdivide and create the lots. The moratorium isn't stopping them from subdividing and creating lots. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 9 He talked to people about the watershed some time ago when he proposed a significant zoning change. A majority of the Council ultimately agreed to the change. He was asked why the Council doesn't just make it rural or commercial forestry, and have a complete downzone. He is uncomfortable with that. It starts to push the envelope of fairness and what's right. He's not comfortable going with density less than R5A, or in this case 20 -acre zoning. The idea of clustering in forestland is advantageous to development. It's a lot less expensive. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) McShane continued to state that Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's concept points out that there may be another way to build out or divide these areas that could be more environmentally sound for watershed protection. He is very receptive to this idea. The R5A or rural forestry zoning, and their associated roads, could be very detrimental to the watershed. Roads are more detrimental than the houses. This is an opportunity to provide greater protection to the lake. Under the current rules, it couldn't go forward. There would have to be agreements for sewer and water. Caskey - Schreiber stated public sewer, public water, stormwater, and developer agreement all work to protect the watershed. They work better than roads blanketing a property zoned R5A. It's difficult to determine and justify a number of development rights to be transferred. She would be comfortable if a proportion of the development rights were removed and there if there were a developer's agreement. It may be better to have the remaining developable lands serviced by public sewer and water. It will have less impact overall if the County can motivate people. To get public sewer and water, developers will have to be aggressive about getting development rights. It won't be worth it for just four or five units in a cluster. Property owners and developers will have to partner to put something large enough together. That's what Mr. Sygitowicz has done. They are willing to work together to make something happen. Water District 10 is committed to not offering water unless developers agree to hook up to sewer. She is willing to drop out the quantitative number of development rights, as long as there is incentive for a proportion of the development rights to be transferred out of the watershed or conserved. Fleetwood stated everyone is saying there is a better scheme by which the County can encourage development that is better for the lake. He asked what the Council needs to take a formal step and approve something. He asked if they want to bring people forward and put some expertise on the record. Joan Beardsley, Bellingham City Council, asked if its possible to have a joint discussion with the Lake Whatcom Management Committee. No one on the City Council is tuned in to what the County Council is talking about. Their transfer of development rights (TDR) program isn't working. They've just finished rezoning the urban growth area (UGA). That rezone is their first and best opportunity to get TDR's working again. There is opportunity for developers to upzone if they buy TDR's. They just floated a bond for $4 million for an unincorporated property in the watershed. Have a joint discussion with the City Council. Caskey- Schreiber stated she has approached City Council Member Ryan. At the next Joint Lake Management Committee meeting, there will be a stormwater expert to speak. That will add to the discussion. The County Council has long been concerned about the City's area of Lake Whatcom being in the urban growth area. The County waited patiently for action on that, but it hasn't happened. Beardsley stated it may be time for the City and Planning and Development Committee, 5 /9/2006, Page 10 1 County councils to talk more directly instead of getting messages from others. This is such 2 an important issue, they should talk about their plans so they coincide. 3 4 Brenner stated she agrees. This proposal is a plus for everyone. There isn't a 5 problem doing this as an interim. The Council needs to make progress on the moratorium. 6 This proposal looks very good. 7 8 Caskey- Schreiber stated that whatever they do, it will apply to everyone in the 9 watershed, not just one property owner. It would hopefully motivate others to think about 10 joining other property owners to do this kind of thing. She wants this to be done on all the 11 remaining 124 five -acre parcels and 28 rural forestry parcels. 12 13 Brenner stated she doesn't want to force everyone to do this. It will set up different 14 classes of people. Incentives are great. 15 16 Caskey - Schreiber stated this is an incentive. 17 18 McShane stated he would like input on other ideas besides this. 19 20 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs Director, 21 stated get legal involved as soon as possible. They are talking about an interim 22 moratorium, which is supposed to be a time -out that is supposed to apply to everyone. 23 Make sure they do it procedurally correct. 24 25 Council Member Beardsley is correct that the TDR program is not working. Have the 26 Joint Management Committee create a task force to work on it. 27 28 Crawford stated they've taken extreme measures to force the TDR program to work. 29 They haven't seen the outcome of those measures yet. To subdivide in the Bellingham 30 urban growth area, developers must subdivide to the maximum density that the acquisition 31 of TDR's will allow. His clients cannot get water unless they develop with the maximum 32 number of development rights, through TDR's. 33 34 Holbrook stated that is the City's adopted policy. The developer has to develop to 35 the maximum reasonable for the property. 36 37 Crawford stated the City has taken draconian measures to force TDR's. 38 39 Dickinson stated don't set a number of development rights without getting legal 40 counsel involved. If it gets to be too high, there could be legal action. 41 42 McShane stated the moratorium does not apply specifically to the R5A and twenty - 43 acre zones. 44 45 Brenner asked if the County is a party to the City's policy. Holbrook stated it is not. 46 The County determines the density through the zoning code and development regulations. 47 The City extends sewer and water only if built to the maximum density possible. 48 49 Brenner asked if the County is working with the City on the TDR's. Holbrook stated 50 the utility extension policy was adopted almost two years ago. It's only a policy, and is not 51 codified. The City will revise the policy once the Bellingham subarea plan is adopted. They 52 can address TDR's and development transfers through the subarea plan process and 53 interlocal agreement. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 11 Crawford stated the water portion of the City's policy was adopted in March. He would like to know if there are exceptions for site constraints. McShane stated it seems there is interest in docketing an item that deals with clustering in the rural forestry zone. They've already begun that process. They may want it to apply anyone in the rural forestry zone. He asked if the Council would have to change the zoning rules if they change the clustering provisions and talk about reducing density as part of the clustering, with water and sewer agreements. Holbrook stated they would make sure Title 20, zoning, and Title 21, subdivisions, are consistent. During the docket process, staff can do the associated zoning text amendment. McShane stated anyone interested in clustering, which would be to their advantage, will have challenges in getting water, and it may be expensive to build the roads. They don't need to be in a big rush to get anything done quickly. A developer can still subdivide right now. He would encourage them to look at alternative approaches that are a win for watershed protection. They wouldn't be in any hurry. The developer wouldn't be able to do this anyway, even under current rules, because of the water and sewer extension. Caskey - Schreiber stated the water and sewer are from Water District 10. The district is applying for an expansion to serve this proposed development. McShane stated the County Council ultimately approves that extension. It will take some time to get it right. Brenner stated the Council shouldn't work on this to the point where people develop the way it is. With the slightest tweak to the cluster development ordinance, there could be a win for everyone in the near future. The one major problem with clustering is the one big housing lot that is allowed in the middle of the remainder parcel. Crawford stated this is going to be complex. Continue on working with the zoning and get rid of the moratorium. This particular developer could work on that complex process with staff to formulate a step -by -step plan of action. Continue to work on this. Don't change the moratorium, even though he is not in favor of it. Use this proposal as an example of what can be done in the watershed. This Council is willing to work with the developer. It sees the potential for watershed protection. Caskey- Schreiber stated the entire goal today is to figure out the long -term goals for the moratorium. The moratorium is the County's hammer for participation in transferring development rights out of the watershed. She is in favor of putting this amendment through during the moratorium to see how much voluntary participation they get. Take the time they need to figure out the language to amend this. Fleetwood stated there were a number of legal, process, and other questions raised that the committee needs answers to. At the next committee meeting or the one after, unveil the process and get to work. Brenner stated the best thing to do may be to vote to send the concept forward to the Planning Department, so they can propose a process and timeframe. The Council's legal counsel needs to be consulted. Holbrook stated this is related to the Council's discussion on resource lands at its special meeting next Tuesday. Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m. 1 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ...111111+11►.. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Planning and Development Committee, 5/9/2006, Page 13