HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 1 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
June 1, 2004
Committee Member Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at
3:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Seth Fleetwood
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004-
121)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she submitted a memo
dated May 27, 2004. There are many proposed changes, mostly from comments
made during the last meeting. The most significant changes were to the land use
chapter regarding housing and statistics. The plan consultant had assumed 20
percent of all properties would be multi - family, developed at 16 units per acre, and
applied it across the map including rural lands and other areas that aren't zoned for
multi - family use. It really skewed the numbers. These changes correct the
numbers so they aren't wrong.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how different these numbers are from the
consultant's numbers. Goodwin stated they are similar. The concern is that it's
divided into short -term and long -term areas, and rural and urban areas. It would
be less complicated to divide it by the zoning. This makes it more accurate.
She updated the summary of the section on plan page 2 -14. The gross
development figure is 1.29 units per acre. That is an irrelevant number that
includes the urban growth area and all rural lands. The Growth Management Act
talk about the density they should retain in the urban growth areas. Don't include
a bunch of rural land as part of the calculations. It's meaningless. Delete that and
just go with the residential land within the urban growth area, which is 1.65 gross
units per acre.
Brenner asked if rural land is in the urban growth area (UGA). Goodwin
stated there is not. All the land zoned rural is in the study area, but not the urban
growth area.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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
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.
In chapter seven, most policies were added previously. She updated them
and put them in one document.
Brenner referenced plan page 7 -2, policy CA -1e(2) and stated they discussed
the function of a wetland being more important than the no net loss policy. Be
concerned about the function. They could have a low level wetland that is very big.
They could have a smaller, higher quality wetland that provides the same function.
Goodwin stated that's correct, but that's what the Planning Commission
recommended and the committee hasn't changed it. The Planning Commission
agreed to go with onsite mitigation as long as the area and function are preserved.
Roy asked if their science is good enough to say they can equate the area
and function. If someone fills in a full acre of wetland, she asked if they have the
science to say that a half an acre can do the same function. Goodwin stated
wetland consultants can determine the area and functions of different wetlands.
Sometimes they fail, but they do have the science that shows the ratios they would
need to replace one type of wetland with another type of wetland.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's comfortable listing the area along with the
function. The officials will determine how areas should be mitigated. Goodwin
stated they've discussed allowing offsite mitigation through a mitigation bank
process.
Goodwin stated changes on page 7 -2 reflects the new policy on the increased
setback for residential building setbacks. The Birch Bay Steering Committee had a
conversation about existing houses being 75 feet from the bluff, and then making a
new house be 150 feet back.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would limit the use of the property. Goodwin
stated that in many cases it would. In many places, the lot is only 200 feet deep.
Roy stated they should err on the side of caution. This will be reviewed
through the shoreline review process. They hear a lot about the sloughing of the
bluffs. Be conservative.
Goodwin referenced page 7 -19 and stated the change is regarding the same
issue, setback from bank erosion. All conditions would apply to the Birch Point area
if added to the urban growth area.
Chapter eight is land use. Many of the changes are to statistics resulting
from changing the table and recalculating the numbers of housing units and
correcting population projections. Throughout, any references to deleting the
concept of short- and long -term planning areas was taken out. She added
references to keeping the long -term planning areas long -term until the criteria are
met. The main policy language is on page 8 -16.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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.
Brenner asked why they changed the density from 16 to 10 units per acre.
Goodwin stated 16 units per acre is what the consultant recommended. There is no
zoning district that allows 16 units per acre. Ten units is the minimum, not the
maximum. The multi - family areas should be zoned URM -18 or the new URM -24.
Designate the multifamily area at Alderson URM -24, and allow density to go to 24
with the purchase of development rights.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced page 8 -21. If a planned unit development
(PUD) devotes a certain percentage of the land to open space, then they should get
a density bonus. She asked why 5.8 units per acre was used instead of six units
per acre. Goodwin stated the consultant used that figure, and it's not correct in her
opinion. If they change it, though, it changes all the tables in the plan. The
consultant says that, if they start with a ten -acre piece at four units per acre, they
will get 40 units. If they set aside 40 percent for open space, and put all the
development on the other 60 percent, that works out to 5.8 units per acre.
However, if they put in roads, it works out higher. She can change it to six units
per acre if they want.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would rather encourage preservation of open
space by clustering than discourage it. The current level is not that big of an
incentive. She would propose that they change it to eight housing units per acre if
the developer keeps 40 percent in open space. Goodwin stated that would change
all the statistics through the plan again. If they want to allow eight houses per
developable acre on 4,000 square foot lots, they will have low- income small cabins.
They can't put a big house on 4,000 square feet.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they do that at Lake Whatcom. Goodwin stated
she's not sure they want Birch Bay to be all small lots.
Brenner stated they're just talking about an incentive.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed. They're should be diversity in housing. It's more
likely to be a recreational property than large homes.
Roy stated her concern is the stormwater issue. They're addressing some of
those issues in other areas of the plan. The impervious surfaces is an issue also.
That all ties in to increasing density.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is going to be a big enough bonus incentive
that the developer is more likely to participate, the County is more likely to get its
guarantee of 40 percent of undeveloped land. Goodwin stated the code already
allows no minimum lot size in a UR -4 zoning planned unit development. The
developers right now are going down to 4,000 square foot lots. Assuming a
developer will go to eight units per acre is just an assumption. It doesn't provide
any more actual incentive.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what Ms. Goodwin recommends. Goodwin stated
she would have recommended two years ago to get rid of PUD versus non -PUD.
They have no way of assuming whether someone is or isn't going to develop a PUD.
Just go with what the zoning allows. At this point, leave it the way it is because the
assumption is so ingrained in the entire chapter, they'll have to rewrite the chapter.
The market doesn't encourage eight houses per acre. One consultant showed they
can get 6.6 units per acre. Another consultant showed they can get eight units per
acre. There is no right answer.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a market demand for smaller homes, but
no one is willing to build them. If they have open space, it keeps the value. If
people have a central area to use, they're fine.
Brenner referenced action strategy two on page 8 -33. She asked why they
have to say anything about a maximum density. Goodwin stated on that item,
they're talking about multi - family zoning. The strategy would give staff guidance
on zoning. In this case, it is URM -24. They don't have a maximum, but there are
no zoning districts that don't have a maximum.
Brenner stated they need to think in new ways. Do a minimum density, but
not a maximum. Goodwin stated a more appropriate area to not have a maximum
density would be in Bellingham. A development with 24 units per acre will probably
not have low impact development or even conventional stormwater. It would have
structural parking and stormwater, which may not be consistent with the language
for low impact development. There are tradeoffs for everything.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would rather have low impact development.
Goodwin stated the reality is that the fee structure is a disincentive to do
PUD's. The development costs double. They need to fix that.
Brenner stated she heard the opposite. She heard that if they do a purchase
of development right (PDR), there's no incentive to do transfers of development
rights (TDR's). Goodwin stated they closed that bonus. She can bring that fee
change forward this year when they do the budget.
The committee concurred with Fleetwood absent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the committee would like to look at how to be more
persuasive in use of PUD's, create a number that is a true incentive, and
accomplish density goals. Goodwin stated she can look at that.
Roy stated be cautious with density until they see how it's related to
controlling stormwater and runoff. If they have policies in place for PUD's, open
space, and onsite storage and treatment, then that's okay. Density for density's
sake in a sensitive watershed must be balanced.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber stated PUD's have a better chance of coming up with a
good stormwater system.
Goodwin referenced policy LU -1h on page 8 -17. This moved forward with a
Planning Commission hearing on revisions to the TDR ordinance. That should come
forward to the Council about the time the Council is ready to adopt this plan. There
are no TDR sending or receiving areas in Birch Bay now, but staff is working on
amendments to do that.
Two polices on designating short -term and long -term planning areas are on
page 8 -17. On page 8 -19, she removed language about master planned resorts.
Under the Growth Management Act, a master planned resort is for an isolated area
like Kendall, not Birch Bay. On page 8 -24, they added language on industrial land
and mixed use land with modified wording. On page 8 -33, they added four action
strategies for the land use chapter.
In chapter ten, they added policies to goal SW 1 to create a stormwater
special district to develop low impact development standards. They added
reference to narrow streets, preservation of pervious surfaces, retention of trees
and natural vegetation, and stormwater infiltration.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they should add "onsite" stormwater infiltration.
Goodwin stated that's fine except in areas such as Birch Point.
Fleetwood asked if goal SW 1 is strong enough. He asked if there was any
consideration to not allow any increase in runoff at all or if there was any language
to define protection. Goodwin stated the development standards get into the
details, and those details would be in the low impact development ordinance rather
than in this goal.
Goodwin stated they haven't added an action strategy in chapter ten about a
stormwater utility. They had added it in the capital facilities chapter. If they are
going to protect water quality, an action item in chapter ten would reinforce that
dealing with stormwater is one way to protect water quality.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add action strategy three into the utilities
chapter. "The County and Birch Bay Water and Sewer District should develop
funding sources for stormwater management and shellfish protection."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin referenced the transportation chapter and changed the level of
service (LOS) from C to D. She took out all reference to the northern east -west
connector along Loomis Trail Road. The language on Lincoln Road is on page 11 -14
and addresses previous comments from Councilmember Fleetwood.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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.
Fleetwood asked why it is defined as all season buffer instead of vegetative
buffer. Goodwin stated her language includes vegetative buffers that exist all
seasons. She can amend the language in the Lincoln Road section of plan page 11-
14 to, "...A 25 foot vegetated buffer with suitable plant materials to provide an all
season vegetative barrier between...."
The committee concurred.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber stated widening Birch Point Road was mentioned. If they
want to institute low impact development standards, treating stormwater onsite
might not be best for this area. She doesn't know if widening the roads is good for
the area. She asked the potential build out there. Goodwin stated it's about 991
homes, depending on the density someone uses. They could have up to 3,000
homes out there.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can implement design standards to minimize
impacts to the sensitive area. Goodwin stated they could add a sentence on low
impact development techniques.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's concerned about high erosion soils, wetland
area, and the heronry, and asked if low impact development standards would
minimize runoff. Goodwin stated it might. This is fairly general. In that area,
don't have low impact development and onsite infiltration of stormwater, which will
destabilize the bluff. Get the water off the point. Right now, it goes towards Birch
Bay Village, which causes a problem there that they need to deal with. Be careful
of adding much language about onsite stormwater infiltration at Birch Point.
Roy stated the language on page 11 -15 sounds like the connector road. It
says to widen Birch Point Road. Goodwin stated they're talking about Birch Point
Road.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the road goes right into the wetlands. Goodwin
stated it is Birch Point Road north of Birch Bay Village. There is already a road
there. This one is okay. It's along the existing road. It's a congested area with
the Birch Bay Village traffic.
Roy stated she didn't realize widening Birch Point Road was part of getting
this connector in. Goodwin stated that if South Semiahmoo builds out, and if Birch
Bay Village builds out, there will be a significant increase in traffic. The roads have
no shoulders now. This section is worded okay. They can add an action item about
developing narrower road standards.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's concerned about the volume of traffic they're
creating out there, and where the road pollutants will drain to. Goodwin referred to
the action strategies beginning on page 11 -17. She could add an action item to
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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
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.
deal with developing low impact road standards that would have narrow pavement
and roadside bioswales.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a risk is developing ice on the road in the winter.
However, they've learned that even brake dust copper that leaches into the sound
can kill salmon's ability to migrate upstream. Any pollution control on the roads
would be to the advantage of the habitat. Goodwin stated she would write a policy
for the next meeting. She'll discuss the language with the Engineering Division.
The next section is public health and safety. She included language
suggested by Dan McShane about a future precinct headquarters. Sheriff Elfo
wasn't excited about that idea, but the language is general enough. Sheriff Elfo
said they wouldn't do a future precinct headquarters.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this item has to do with future incorporation or
annexation. The residents of the area need to think beyond County services.
Throughout the plan there is a lack of capital facilities needed for an independent
municipality.
Brenner stated they should call it a future substation instead of a future
precinct headquarters. They don't even call it that within the cities.
Roy stated a substation implies a substation of the County Sheriff, which
they don't want.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend action item seven for public health and
safety, "...police station ."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin referenced the governance chapter. The Council discussed limiting
this topic to two options, annexation or incorporation, and downplay the
advantages of leaving it as an unincorporated area. The Birch Bay Steering
Committee stated it recognizes that incorporation is likely in the future, and they
should continue to study all three options proposed in the plan. There was
considerable discussion that they're not ready to incorporate and to not polarize the
community. This language she proposes includes two future governance options.
She added a section from the Growth Management Act about urban levels of
service being provided by cities, and urban cities should not be provided in rural
areas. The language said it's desirable for the Birch Bay Community to become a
city or annexed to a city as soon as it is economically feasible. She modified
language that says some interim government services will be achieved through
other methods.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she really liked the language. It sends a clear
message to the community that it needs to be successful on it's own. They should
maybe put in language about how the County government is not designed to
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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.
provide an urban level of services. Also, add language to create an incentive to go
to incorporation. Clarify that the County will start to put aside money for
incorporation if the area residents takes certain steps. She has not talked about
this to the administration. The only way she will vote for this plan is if there is
clear language and a well- thought out plan about the transfer of governance.
Goodwin stated the administration probably wouldn't be excited about setting aside
County revenue for the future incorporation of Birch Bay. The County needs all the
revenues it can collect. Establish park and transportation impact fees, and set
them aside for future transportation or park improvements. At the time of
incorporation, those funds would go to the future city. They could even set aside a
stormwater fund for capital facilities. It might be an incentive.
Brenner stated they've gone about as far as they should go in encouraging
Birch Bay to incorporate. She doesn't like the plan to reflect annexation because it
is very polarizing. Don't hold up the plan because of the discourse on
incorporation. She agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber, but they don't
need to add more language at this time. There is already a lot of language that is
encouraging.
Roy stated one way to encourage the community is to give it support for the
incorporation process, which is very specific. One of the first things they have to
do is have a community committee to do a financial analysis. The people of Birch
Bay could use the County's help in developing a financial analysis of the feasibility
of running their own government. Assessor Keith Willnauer said the property taxes
from the residents in Birch Bay may not be enough to support a city, and it needs
to be analyzed. He also said that Birch Bay really needs industry and business to
have a healthy tax base. A lot needs to be studied and analyzed to see if it's a
financially viable alternative. The County can help the residents of the area move
in that direction by helping with that analysis.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed. It will be a tough issue. They've got to
be viable. That's one of her arguments for making the UGA smaller. According to
1,000 Friends, the urban level of growth doesn't have the governance structure to
support it. King County is paying communities to incorporate. The County has
problems serving some of the law enforcement needs out there, and she doesn't
see that problem changing. The County needs one planner for that area exclusively
because it is the size of a small town already. Adding more growth won't make the
situation better. That's the reason she wants the community to have a clear path
to follow toward independence.
Brenner stated she doesn't disagree, but the County can't make the
community incorporate or annex.
Goodwin stated the governance chapter of the plan includes a fiscal analysis
on all the revenues that would be generated if a city that is fairly thorough. The
analyst's conclusion was that incorporation is financially feasible. There was
criticism that the analyst may have underestimated some of the expenses. She
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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
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.
doesn't know if the budget is 100 percent accurate, but it's consistent with a city of
that size. She can add a new action item or language to action item two at the end
of the governance chapter that the County will provide assistance to the committee
in doing a more detailed financial analysis for incorporation. If that language is
included, the County needs to fund it or she needs to do the work.
Roy stated this was in the governance chapter. All the information is there.
She asked if this is thorough enough for the Boundary Review Board. Goodwin
stated it's fairly close to what the Boundary Review Board would want to see. They
need to do an estimated budget and revenue for the future city to show whether it
would be viable. The analysis shows that the revenues are about equal to the
expenses if the community were to incorporate.
Roy stated she heard that the County was clearly against incorporation
during the last attempt at incorporation in the 1990's. She asked if that was true.
Goodwin stated the County was against. The City of Blaine was against it also
because the City of Blaine wanted to annex the proposed Beacon Movie Studio, but
Birch Bay wanted to keep it. By arguing about that, they killed the project. The
big issue then with Birch Bay incorporation was Cherry Point. Birch Bay wanted to
draw its boundaries around Cherry Point and bring the industry in as a tax base.
The County was adamantly opposed. The County now has strong Comprehensive
Plan policies that says Birch Bay does not include Cherry Point. She never heard
anyone from the County express strong opposition to incorporation of Birch Bay,
only against the inclusion of that Cherry Point tax base.
Caskey- Schreiber stated 1,000 Friends mentioned that Skagit County drafted
an interlocal agreement with an area that it wanted to incorporate to share sales
tax receipts. Whatcom County can explore that with Birch Bay as it gains more
commercial development.
Brenner moved to include language in the action item section of the
governance chapter, "The County should work with the committee to develop a
more detailed financial analysis and application for incorporation."
Roy stated there is more to it than a financial analysis. Help with the whole
application process.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced page 16 -38, action strategy item three. She
asked if impact fees can be put in one area and not the whole county. Goodwin
stated that as long as there is a defined service area with a separate transportation
model or transportation capital facilities plan. This plan has a specific capital
facilities plan for this area. Another incentive for incorporation is to collect the
impact fees, which might also slow the growth.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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
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.
Goodwin referenced the capital facilities chapter. Remove the second
paragraph of the Scope section on page 17 -1. It's really not relevant to the plan.
Page 17 -7 is where revenues and expenditures start. She can add the details of
those revenues and expenditures. There are $440 million of assessed valuation in
Birch Bay, based on 2002 Assessor's records. That totals $572,000 of revenue per
year from property taxes. Over 20 years, that's a lot of money. Property taxes in
the general fund pay for many County services. A portion should go back into
capital facilities in the Birch Bay area. She can add language about the general
fund tax revenues generated in Birch Bay. They would have to do countywide
calculations on how much would go to that region. That might be useful. All the
staff can do that would be feasible would be to look at the entire general fund,
identify the amount that goes for the various services, and divide the expenses per
capita.
Fleetwood moved to direct Sylvia to put together some numbers.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Roy stated the figures from 2002 may be already outdated. Property values
are going through the roof in Birch Bay.
Fleetwood stated they can contemplate the increased value and do their own
math.
McShane stated it comes down to the mill rate. Regarding capital facilities,
there is the real estate excise tax (REET). He is interested in using that and rural
sales tax to create a fund for the community to incorporate. He is not interested in
the County managing an urban area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Councilmember McShane. This is
an urban area experiencing an urban level of growth. That goes against GMA
policies for the counties. The cities are best designed to meet urban levels of
service. That's why she's pushing for a plan for incorporation.
Roy stated there are different perceptions of that. They can't just say the
County is losing money or that the community's property taxes are subsidizing the
Frost River bridge, which is the perception in Birch Bay. Law enforcement is an
issue in Birch Bay. The community questions whether it is getting its per capita
money's worth. Probably not. Be careful about assumptions. Also, 6,000 people
living together in one area doesn't make a city. It doesn't mean there is industry
and business needed for a city. She is for incorporation. There is money for it.
The local people need to have local control. However, they are making certain
assumptions that are divisive. The County Council needs to take a more positive,
encouraging approach.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, 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 stated that if 6,000 people doesn't make a city, then why
should they add 3,000 more people. It's not going to make it any more of a city
unless they are aggressive about moving toward incorporation.
Roy stated the County Council can't dictate it. It can set up the structure,
but the citizens have to initiate and approve the process. That will happen if the
County is positive and works with the citizens towards a solution. The County
demanding incorporation won't make incorporation happen.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County can't force incorporation or annexation.
The County does determine how much growth it will steer toward that area. That's
why she proposes the UGA be smaller. Unless the governance chapter is
strengthened the way she'd like to see it, she's uncomfortable with approving the
plan as it is. She would feel much better if there were interlocal language about
retaining sales tax receipts for the community, outline steps to occur toward
incorporation, and provide incentive -based bonuses if they go toward incorporation.
Those are incentives and are not forced. A good recommendation from 1,000
Friends is to include incorporation in the governance chapter. Goodwin suggested
creating an action strategy to establish a reserve fund for future capital facilities
projects in Birch Bay that would be funded by a certain source such as impact fees,
rural sales tax, a percentage of the sales tax, and REET.
Brenner asked about setting up some districts in the area. Goodwin stated
local improvement districts are already in the chapter.
same.
Brenner asked if they can set up districts that uniformly tax everyone the
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Goodwin stated that a local improvement district taxes everyone who
benefits from a particular road, which pays for the road. An impact fee just taxes
new development. They may need to do both.
Brenner stated she's talking about a Birch Bay -wide district. Everyone uses
certain roads. Goodwin stated a local improvement district assesses everyone
within a service area, not necessarily people with road frontage on the road.
Fleetwood asked Ms. Goodwin to work on language. Goodwin stated she
would. She has other suggestions also. Add a section on page 17 -7 regarding
impact fees. They've talked about it already. A section on impact fees would be
appropriate. If they do a park impact fee of $500 per new house, it would create
$1.7 million for parks in 20- years. The 20 -year estimate of new houses is 3,456.
The entire parks budget for the 20 -year period is $3.2 million. They can fund more
than half of the park improvements just from the one impact fee. If they activate
the northwest recreation district, which includes the area the same as the Blaine
School District, it would generate $1.4 million per year. That's a lot of money. The
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, Page 11
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.
additional language would be to add action items. Add action strategies to page
17 -40 about a reserve fund for capital projects, a park impact fee, road impact
fees, a stormwater utility district, a bond levy for the northwest parks and
recreation district, a school impact fee, and a transit item. Then add a paragraph
throughout the plan on where those action strategies would fit. By just adding
impact fees for parks, transportation, and a parks district, they'll easily pay for the
capital facilities in this plan.
Roy asked if Birch Bay needs to work with Blaine on the northwest parks and
recreation district. Goodwin stated they will. She added language in the
governance chapter that the committee should work with the Blaine Parks Board to
do that. In the past, the Parks Board was very interested in activating the
northwest park district. If the levy is reasonable and citizens see that it would fund
parks, sports facilities, and senior centers in Blaine and Birch Bay, the levy would
probably pass.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they need an inventory of existing capital
facilities, a map showing locations, and proposed locations for future capital
facilities. What they just talked about will address the six -year plan to finance such
facilities. Goodwin stated there is an inventory, but that's not what it's called. All
the parks are in the section about parks. The fire stations are in there. There are
no schools. There is no city hall or police headquarters. They could add a
paragraph describing the existing facilities, which are parks, roads, and the fire
station.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add a paragraph to the capital facilities plan
to include existing and proposed facilities.
Motion failed 1 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber in favor and Brenner and
Fleetwood not voting.
Goodwin stated there is already information in the plan about identifying a
site for a fire station and a school. There is information about a community center.
Restroom facilities are not included, and she recommends that they add restroom
facilities.
Caskey- Schreiber said all of the hearings boards have determined that public
facilities and services must be available to serve development as development
occurs.
Goodwin stated she could add a paragraph about that.
Fleetwood moved to add seven action strategies to page 17 -40 about a
reserve fund for capital projects, a park impact fee, road impact fees, a stormwater
utility district, a bond levy for the northwest parks and recreation district, a school
impact fee, and a transit item, and then add a paragraph throughout the plan on
where those action strategies would fit.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, Page 12
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.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner not voting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about establishing a Birch Bay improvement district.
Goodwin stated there is already language about a road improvement district and
local improvement district. The transportation section is already detailed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is concerned that they get funding for a
community center. Impact fees will not pay for it. Goodwin stated language is
added to evaluate funding sources for a community center with Whatcom County.
Add something about public restrooms in that section.
Fleetwood moved to add language about public restrooms as
recommended by Ms. Goodwin.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated she would write up these new changes and include them in
the next packet.
Fleetwood asked about deleting reference to Birch Bay not being a city.
Goodwin stated it is now an interim option.
Fleetwood asked about tree retention being part of the plan. Goodwin stated
a new policy regarding tree retention for low impact development was added.
Fleetwood stated they never took action on the motion to include Birch Point,
but he understands that it was included in the revision. Goodwin stated that
assuming they could do all the things that everyone agreed to, they would put
Birch Point back into the UGA. They would need to make a motion at some point.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/2004, Page 14