HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 27 20041
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
July 27, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 20) CHAPTER 20.10,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 20.71 WATER
RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.89
DENSITY TRANSFER PROCEDURE, AND CHAPTER 20.90
AMENDMENTS, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS (AB2004 -275)
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, submitted a summary (on file) and stated
there are three proposals as a result of three Planning Commission meetings.
The first amendment is to Whatcom County Code (WCC) section
20.71.302(9). It will allow transfers of development rights ( TDR's) of one
development right to be transferred within the watershed in exchange for an
additional 1,000 square feet of impervious surface. All critical areas ordinance CAO
and stormwater regulations will apply. This should increase the market for TDB's.
Brenner stated it's not clear how that scenario results in a decrease in overall
impervious surfaces in the watershed. Holbrook stated a development right is
allowed 2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces. If they extinguish one
development right, which allows 2,500 square feet, in exchange for only 1,000
square feet of additional impervious surfaces on another parcel, the net reduction is
1,500 square feet of impervious surfaces.
Holbrook stated this would be most used in the urban residential, three units
per acre (UR -3) zoning district.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 1
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked if there is a scenario where people with no inclination to
develop would sell their right and expand. Holbrook stated that could happen. The
tradeoff is there is no associated impacts in the watershed, such as transportation
and lawn care.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any further need to define or quantify
what a development right is. Holbrook stated that is another issue, separate from
this proposal. He initially did research on how this was originally written. It was
decided that the trade off would be worth it, even with lots that couldn't be
developed. The overall benefit would be there. It would also save staff time that
would otherwise be spent on a site review.
Caskey- Schreiber stated those lots that can't be developed may go up in
value. Holbrook stated they could not certify development rights on a lot that can't
be developed. That would be a change in the program. They haven't done that
historically. Also, a parcel that is significantly impacted by wetlands can cluster and
do multi - family housing that is condensed in one portion of the property.
Brenner asked the incentive for doing a cluster. Holbrook stated a developer
with a large parcel with significant wetlands can work in all the development rights
onto a small area.
Fleetwood asked why this would work mostly in UR -3. Holbrook stated the
reason is mostly for access and a larger footprint. The average lot size is .29 acre,
which limits the amount of impervious surfaces allowed. It's most likely that lots in
the UR -3 zone, which are platted lots, won't be certified as development rights.
McShane asked the rationale for giving 500 versus 1,000 square feet of
impervious surfaces. Holbrook stated Planning Commission originally went down to
500 square feet. However, it has to be at least 501 square feet because that's
where the stormwater regulations kick in. Also, 1,000 square feet would create
more of a market for TDR's. The proportion is to a little under half of what is
already allowed. There was no exact science for the decision. Most of that
impervious surface will be used for driveway access.
McShane asked if any thought was given to the impervious surface
limitation. Currently, the limit is 2,500 square feet for unconforming lots. It was
initially 2,000 square feet, then went up to 3,000 square feet. He asked if there
was any thought of changing that number. Holbrook stated it wasn't discussed.
They discussed what would create a market for TDR's without undue impact.
McShane stated the presumption is that, if in the UR -3 zone with 2,500
square feet, one could go up to 3,500 if he or she buys a TDR. Holbrook stated
yes.
Fleetwood asked whose idea that was. Holbrook stated it was staff's idea.
They looked at where the demand for housing is right now.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 2
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked about whether it will reduce impervious surfaces in the long
run, and the analysis given to that. They know not everything will build out.
Holbrook stated the program will not only reduce impervious surfaces, but will also
reduce associated impacts. Retiring of one development right will result in a net
decrease of 1,500 square feet of impervious surface in the watershed.
Fleetwood stated people who previously were not able to develop a lot can
now sell it and add impervious surface. Holbrook stated that as land value goes up,
it becomes more feasible to build on those °unbuildable" lots, depending on the
engineer.
McShane stated ultimately there may be more impervious surfaces if the
development right on the "unbuildable" lot is sold, but they're setting a ceiling
level. They can figure out what the total amount of impervious surfaces might be.
This program will cause the total amount of impervious surfaces that can occur
under current zoning to be somewhat less. There will be other beneficial impacts
also, such as tree retention and not having to have more lawn.
Fleetwood stated he questions whether it will work out that way in reality.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there are 4,000 unbuildable lots in Sudden Valley.
If some neighbor is willing to sell off a development right on a property, it bodes
well for the occupancy of that lot in the future. It may not be something where
they see a benefit in immediately, but only in the long -term.
Holbrook stated the TDR program is still getting going. They will keep a
close tab on it. They will monitor and adapt it as conditions and building patterns
change.
Holbrook stated the next revision on the summary is to WCC 20.89. If TDR's
are used in a development, the developer can ask for a variance in development
standards, such as to street width, a sidewalk, lot sizes, and other development
standards. It will make the TDR program more attractive. When asking to increase
the density, the developer has more flexibility to fit that density into constrained
sites. The developer still has to go through the platting process, staff review, and
to the Hearing Examiner.
Brenner stated a concern about this is that what they might end up with is
not as attractive when it's made denser. It seems the developer can get away with
not meeting certain standards. Instead, have some kind of character or design
standard before they do this so they don't end up with ugly developments.
Holbrook stated the County doesn't have any design standards. The City of
Bellingham does have design standards for multi - family and commercial
development. The County can begin to develop design standards. The County has
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) development standards. The language here is
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
almost the same as that in the PUD chapter. If they don't like the project, they
don't have to approve it.
Brenner stated it would be arbitrary if the Council denies a project just
because it is ugly. Everyone has different ideas about what is tasteful. If they are
going to have density, then have minimum design standards. She asked for a copy
of the City's design standards. Holbrook stated a project can't have a density
above what it is zoned for. A PUD will likely happen in Birch Bay and the City of
Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), where city design standards apply.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the City doesn't have design standards to the scale
of what the councilmembers saw during its tour. The kind of low impact
development they like can't be built because of current design standards. If they're
willing to acquire TDR's, they should be allowed to increase the density somewhat.
The PUD's, especially in Birch Bay, should be allowed to go to a density of eight
units per acre instead of four, and keep the open space. Give the developer
flexibility to do low impact development.
Crawford stated this revision is a good idea. He suggested the committee
amend WCC 20.89.90(2)(a), "...privacy, structural separations and requirements to
meet fire codes, and adequate light and air; and..." It's important to make it clear
that a developer can't get around fire codes if they are going to get into the issue of
setbacks and spacing. Many of the setback requirements are there to meet the fire
codes. Therefore, don't say this usurps fire code requirements.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how to mitigate for the size of roads needed for
emergency vehicles. Holbrook stated the fire marshal reviews plats on several
different levels. Staff would not let it go to the Hearing Examiner if it didn't meet
fire codes and if the fire marshal doesn't approve. Also, building permits at the
structural stage are reviewed.
Crawford stated the point is not that this would change anything. The
reason for the change is that there will be a lot of interest in TDR's, and he doesn't
want anyone to think they can get past the fire codes. This motion would add
information only.
Fleetwood asked if there is any harm in adding that language. Holbrook
stated there is not.
Fleetwood moved to amend WCC 20.89.90(2)(a), "...privacy, structural
separations and requirements to meet fire codes, and adequate light and air; and..."
Caskey- Schreiber asked if "structural separations" means they can't have
town homes. Holbrook stated town homes are acceptable as long as they meet the
fire codes.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 4
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Holbrook stated the next revisions are to WCC 20.10 and WCC 20.90. These
revisions are to require a TDR for rezone requests and UGA expansions. A rezone
request would require TDR at a ration of one development right for every three
units of additional density. A UGA expansion request would require one TDR for
every five acres to be included in UGA expansion. All other rezone and expansion
requirements would still apply. This is an additional requirement. Exceptions
provide flexibility, and include exempting City and County amendments, correcting
mapping areas, and making nonconforming lots conforming. There would be a
reduction in the TDR requirement if a developer enters into a development
agreement.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if all UGA expansions are City- driven. Holbrook
stated they are not always. Some are from the private sector.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to require the City to require that of
their developers. Holbrook stated that if the government initiates a rezone, it is not
fair to burden the property owners if they didn't request the rezone. If they did a
UGA expansion, the Council could always approve a provisional rezone with the TDR
component. There is still flexibility to make that requirement.
Brenner stated this is an incentive to increase UGA's. That's a concern. She
doesn't know what to do about it. She's not comfortable with this. The Planning
Commission meetings never discussed how this could act as a catalyst for UGA
expansion. They will end up using the UGA's as a dumping ground. That's not
right. Holbrook stated if there is a rezone or UGA expansion, it still has to meet all
the other criteria, including changed conditions or a land use change that is the
reason for the expansion.
Brenner stated UGA criteria are very subjective. One can offer any reason to
push for a change. It doesn't mean the County should approve it. This is going to
be an incentive to the County and cities to do this.
Crawford stated this is an added cost to the developer, not an incentive. The
incentive Councilmember Brenner is talking about is an incentive to the County or a
city to approve a UGA expansion project they might not otherwise approve. He's
not overly concerned about whether the Council has an incentive. Its job is to
consider the community as a whole. It's not an incentive for the developer.
Brenner stated it is an incentive for the big developers. It's a cost of doing
business to them. They are willing to do that to increase a UGA because they know
they can make a profit.
Crawford stated the developers analyze the market. They don't know if they
will make a profit. There's a point where people won't buy the lots. Much of the
easily developed lots in the UGA's have already been developed. With the
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 5
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
remaining properties, there is a real feasibility question about developing them.
There is a level to burden this so it isn't feasible.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County doesn't expand a UGA without a city
being part of the request. There's always going to be a way out of the
requirement. The developer can ask a city to support it, then the developer doesn't
have to do the TDR. Holbrook stated that is possible. The city would have to
support the request in general. When expanding a UGA, the County also
establishes the zoning, which is another opportunity to establish the TDR
requirement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a certain portion of the Birch Bay UGA the
Council is expanding and zoning. She asked if that will be a TDR area. Holbrook
stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment will expand the UGA. The rezone is
separate, and they can attach the TDR component to the rezone.
McShane asked if the proposal is to do an upzone with a TDR requirement
when development occurs in a UGA. Holbrook stated it is. The Council may decide
it's better to do an upzone without a TDR component.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County will be the banker for banking
development rights. Holbrook stated the Planning Commission decided to vote in
favor of the TDR /UGA rezone link, with the caveat that the County establish a TDR
bank, or at least have a mechanism for in lieu payments. He's actively working on
that.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they already have purchased development rights in
the watershed, and continue to do so. This will allow them to be more aggressive.
Holbrook agreed.
Holbrook stated there is flexibility in the proposal. If a project proponent
requests a reduction in the TDR requirement, then the proponent would enter into a
development agreement with the County, which would address concerns about
having a hodgepodge development.
Crawford asked how many increased density rezone applications and UGA
expansions from private parties have been done.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Council didn't docket
many private ones last year. The Council turned down all the private requests,
other than the chicken coop lot line adjustment. The Council docketed two the year
before. Those were the only two.
Holbrook stated there was a UGA rezone initiated by a citizen petition.
Crawford stated it happens infrequently.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 6
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced packet page 150, WCC 20.71.302(9). It doesn't seem to
be much of an incentive. She asked why it's an incentive. Holbrook stated the
desire of increased impervious surfaces will be from the smaller lots with greater
limitations.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Councilmember Roy would like to add shoreline
areas in the Birch Bay watershed to the sending areas. Holbrook stated they can
establish receiving areas in the Birch Bay area. He would like to look at the
appropriate boundaries and ratios.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Holbrook continued to state that he can come back with those boundaries
soon.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that would be a great way to reduce the density in
the Birch Bay UGA.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 165, WCC 20.89.090(3). There's no
language that this has to be pleasant and compatible with the surroundings. Make
sure neighbors are protected from blight. Holbrook stated plat requirements exist.
This language was lifted out of the PUD section. They can add that language, but it
is already part of the review process.
Fleetwood asked if design review ordinances are completely separate and
distinct from development standards. Holbrook stated they generally are.
Fleetwood asked if Councilmember Brenner wants to include design review in
the development standards.
Brenner stated she wants to include language that says the development will
be compatible with the neighborhood. Holbrook stated it would have to be
compatible with the required setbacks, also.
McShane stated he's not comfortable with the change. The concern is
covered by the review process. That change takes away the motivation. It is an
issue that should be taken up with design standards, which they haven't done yet.
Don't cloud this issue with design standards.
Brenner stated they should have them both adopted at the same time.
They're not supposed to deny something because of aesthetics.
Fleetwood stated he agrees with the concern, but it's a separate issue. Get
on with the process of design standards.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 7
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated if they do this first, some developers will come along and not
be required to meet design standards before they're developed. Adopt both at the
same time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she likes the idea, but it's a separate chapter.
Don't bog down the TDR program. Anyone doing a PUD has to adhere to the PUD
standards. Have a chapter dedicated to that. Staff is working on it.
Holbrook referenced packet page 164, WCC20.89.090(2)(a), which implies a
need to be compatible with the neighborhood. Add language to that section,
"...welfare and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, including but not
necessarily limited to..."
Brenner moved to amend page 164, WCC20.89.090(2)(a), to add
language, "...welfare and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, including
but not necessarily limited to..."
McShane stated one can look at more specific language later on. It will be
considered. Defining compatibility is subjective. There's a wide range of dealing
with it. The City had a tax break incentive in the downtown core area. Some
developers went along with it, and was subject to the City's whims, but that was
okay because they got the tax break.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
McShane stated this is well done. He is concerned about the area within the
watershed. If most TDR is within the watershed, it won't take them as far as they
want to go. He asked if they have kicked around the idea of the minimum amount
if impervious surfaces allowed. Now, the limit is 2,500 square feet. The limit used
to be 2,000 square feet. They have a goal of 10 percent of impervious surface in
the entire watershed. For a 15,000 square feet lot, that's 1,500 square feet of
impervious surfaces.
One scenario is to allow 2,000 square feet, or 3,000 square feet with one
TDR. Another scenario is to leave it at 10 percent only, and allow two TDR, up to a
total amount of 3,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Now they've created the
TDR option, be more aggressive in the amount of total impervious surfaces allowed.
An allowed amount of impervious surfaces of 1,500 square feet is very small, and
provides incentive for a developer to do a TDR. Of the three options, he prefers to
leave the allowable amount at 10 percent and allow two TDR, if less than 2,000
square feet using that formula.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what happens with someone who has a 7,000
square foot lot, and if that person is only allowed 700 square feet of impervious
surfaces.
McShane stated they would have to go find TDR's.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, 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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that'll upset a lot of people.
Brenner stated that seems to be a benefit for people when it really isn't. She
doesn't like the suggestion.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about getting 1,000 extra square feet with two
TD R's .
Fleetwood stated leave it as it is in deference to staff and the Planning
Commission, under the theory this is adaptive and they can change it later.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a concern is that people will complain about seeing
someone build a larger house than what they were allowed to build. They will think
something is going on.
McShane stated he's talking about a range of options. His ten percent option
is aggressive. Another option is to go back to the original 2,000 square feet of
impervious surfaces allowed. The limit went to 2,500 square feet as a compromise,
recognizing that 2,000 square feet is small.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked that idea. The real goal is to push this
TDR program and allow people to build in the watershed. The number one cause of
degradation to the lake is residential development. It would serve the community
well by removing a development right if they can. A limit of 2,000 square feet of
impervious surface would be enough to build a house, but would provide more
incentive than the limit of 2,500 square feet.
Brenner stated the square footage allowed is cause for conflict. If they take
it up again, the community will think the Council hasn't acted in good faith. They
could take out the option of transferring within the watershed. If they feel strongly
they don't want something above a certain square footage, than leave the limit as it
is. She would rather not allow a transfer within the watershed than to reduce the
base amount of impervious surfaces.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it will cause a controversy no matter what.
However, evidence shows that the County has to get aggressive about stopping
building. They need to get TDR's off the ground aggressively if it will succeed.
Reducing the threshold will kick it into gear.
Fleetwood asked if they considered that option. Holbrook stated they did not
look at the baseline amount of imperious surfaces allowed.
McShane stated the allowed amount of impervious surfaces was 2,000
square feet when he was first elected to the Council. The increase to 2,500 was
because there was no other option for increasing impervious surfaces. Now there is
another option.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 9
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey - Schreiber moved to amend WCC 20.71.302(3) to change all
references to 2,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet of allowed impervious surface.
She thinks of Sudden Valley. She will do anything to reduce the 4,000
undeveloped lots in Sudden Valley. It will be expensive to service in the long run.
They haven't made any progress in becoming an independent city. That's where
the homes are being built. Decrease the density in Sudden Valley.
Brenner stated she doesn't support the motion. She would support a change
to Sudden Valley only, but not watershed -wide.
Fleetwood stated he is inclined to agree with Councilmember Brenner.
They've spent so much time on this.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that when they came up with those original limits, it
was before their presentation from State Department of Ecology (DOE) and Dr.
Matthews. Next year, the DOE will come out with pollutant loads. The County will
have to address it. The message from those two presentations is loud and clear.
They have to reduce pollution levels. Dr. Matthews was clear that development is
the top reason for pollution. This is not a taking. It's not something people can't
live with. An 1,800 square feet home is significant. It's a small price to pay to
allow people to develop in the watershed.
Brenner stated there are a lot of houses in the watershed that have been
there a long time. They have to retrofit the older homes. They're punishing the
people who haven't built yet. Newer homes don't add as much pollution as the
older homes.
Fleetwood stated he agreed that DOE's and Dr. Matthew's presentations
were tantamount to marching orders. His problem is one of process. They're
trying to add fixes to the TDR process, and now they make one big, whopping
change. If they decide to reduce density above and beyond what they have, then
have that discussion, but not while tweaking the TDR program. He's not opposed
to coming up with additional ways to reduce impervious surfaces and density in the
watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the allowed amount of impervious surfaces is
directly related to a TDR program. There has to be incentive for the TDR program.
People don't participate voluntarily, but because they need another option. If there
isn't incentive to participate, the program won't work.
Fleetwood stated this is a significant change to the ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested holding this in committee and advertising for
more input.
McShane suggested having both options available for a public hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 10
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey - Schreiber moved to recommend both options to Council, for a
public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bob Tull, attorney, stated the committee's discussion and action today has
touched on his concerns. Keep in mind what they are ultimately trying to do. At
the last Planning Commission meeting on this issue, he and Roger Ellingson agreed,
and that is rare. They agreed that this is a balancing act. There will be times
where they want to award TDR's and times when they want to require TDR's. The
TDR bank has got to get going. Give staff support for that. The County may have
to seed the bank from time to time. It was unfortunate in the fall when the City
Council recoiled from the idea of a bank. The County will have to overcome that to
deal inter- and intra-jurisdictionally. The Hearings Board said the UGA's are a
County exercise. If land supply doesn't support a UGA expansion, there shouldn't
be one, no matter what. A major amendment by the Planning Commission was to
make it clear that the Council will look at UGA expansions and, if necessary, fine -
tune them. The bank will make sure the market doesn't thwart what the Council is
trying to do for UGA's.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with Mr. Tull. She has advocated that
the County buy the foreclosed Sudden Valley lots to keep in its bank. The County
needs to, whenever possible, work something out.
Tull stated they've already adopted guidelines on how the bank should be
developed. It's a matter of having enough staff time to do it. The County might be
able to get the City to participate in certain aspects of it. The City needs to better
synchronize efforts with the County to do retrofits and other things.
OTHER BUSINESS
Brenner stated they got a letter from Northwest Ecosystem Alliance about
development standards. They want the County to make standards the same as the
City, so they both have high standards they want to recommend.
Goodwin stated she's compared County standards with City standards.
Brenner asked Ms. Goodwin to look over the letter from the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance, and see what she thinks. Goodwin stated she would.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/27/2004, Page 12