Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 15 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 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee June 15, 2004 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004- 121) Brenner moved on behalf of Councilmember Roy to restore Birch Point to the urban growth area (UGA) and on all relevant maps and references. Caskey- Schreiber stated Richard Grout from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) recommended not including Birch Point and also removing Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Because of this memo and the recommendations of the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT), she will vote against these areas being in the UGA. Brenner stated she initially voted to remove this area from the UGA because it might have been possible to put that density in other areas of Birch Bay. However, no one has shown her any way that could happen. Caskey- Schreiber stated that when they looked at the density zoning, they found there is room to increase density slightly. They don't need to though because they are already over - planning for a population of 12,000 to 13,000 people, and they anticipate some of the occupants being part -time. They can reduce density and not suffer in the main area of Birch Bay. The community doesn't want to suffer the effects of density in the Birch Bay area, but there are larger regional effects of putting development on those bluffs. The opposition of DOE of having these two areas in the UGA is all she needs. Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. Brenner stated 1,000 homes is not minor. It's quite a few people. It will be hard to find space for that number of people. She doesn't always agree with DOE. The Council also heard from a group that said stringent standards could be incorporated in the Birch Point area so people are prevented from building close to the bluff. Fleetwood stated he agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. However, he is very aware of the reality that four members of this Council will support putting the area in the UGA. The political reality is that it will be included. Therefore, to move this along, he will support the inclusion. He reserves the right to take it out again on the 29t" Caskey- Schreiber asked if this would cause further delay to allow for a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the plan was reviewed as is, with Birch Point included. It didn't require any SEPA review. If they take Birch Point out, she will run it by the SEPA official again. It will not be a significant delay. Caskey- Schreiber stated this is not an area were they want low impact development standards. They would want to remove the runoff from the bluff area. If developed, a lot of runoff from the development would run into the sound. Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed. Goodwin stated the changes to the Capital Facilities section start on packet page 156 and is in chapter 17 of the most recent version of the plan. All the changes she made to the plan reflect the changes the committee made at its previous meeting. She reviewed the changes made as reflected in the most recent, June 15, version of the plan. Caskey- Schreiber moved to add to the last sentences in the Real Estate Excise Tax section on page 17 -8, "If incorporation occurs, o8ver a 20 -year planning period, REET collected..." and to use a similar sentence on page 17 -7. Otherwise, people will think that money is available when it frequently isn't. It goes into the general fund, where it's used countywide. They would have more control of it if incorporated. Goodwin stated chapter 16 clearly states the estimated property tax that would be generated if incorporated. Caskey- Schreiber stated it's worth repeating. Crawford asked if Birch Bay would get to keep it's own real estate excise tax (BEET) if incorporated. Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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 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 it would. The County collects REET for unincorporated areas only. Crawford asked if incorporation of Birch Bay would automatically occur everywhere the urban growth area is. Goodwin stated it would not. It depends on where someone draws the incorporation boundaries. Crawford stated this estimate of REET is for the entire UGA. Goodwin stated the actual amount collected if incorporated would actually be about double this amount. This only assumes the .25 percent that the Council is saying would be set aside for parks and stormwater. The estimate doesn't include the first .25 percent, which would go to criminal justice facilities. There would actually be about $3.5 million collected. Motion carried unanimous /y. Brenner stated she thought that it would be difficult to find a place for the density of 1,000 homes that they've planned for Birch Point. She asked if that is correct. Goodwin stated there are other options to increase density in other portions of the UGA or to expand east. However, there are wetlands to the east. If they change the density from urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4) to urban residential medium, six units per acre (URM -6) and put fourplexes everywhere, they could increase the density of Birch Bay, but it would change the character of the neighborhood. The steering committee looked at it, and decided it isn't what it wants. Caskey- Schreiber asked how to tie the possibility of incorporation into the third sentence of the third paragraph on page plan 17 -7. Goodwin stated that if incorporated, the maximum levy rate would be $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. That would bring in about $704,000. This section is about the County's general fund and how it gets revenue to pay for capital facilities. Language about incorporation would be out of context. Caskey- Schreiber stated the last sentence on the page is misleading and makes people think the money generated from property taxes is available for parks and recreation facilities in Birch Bay. The County doesn't look at where general fund and property tax revenue comes from when deciding on expenses. Goodwin stated she added this language because the committee asked her for language that is specific information on how the County generates revenues to pay for these services and facilities until Birch Bay incorporates. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's not what she said. She asked for an interlocal agreement with them that talks about retaining revenue that is available to the community if it incorporates. Goodwin stated she added that language too. The committee also asked that each section explain how they would fund improvements and services needed in the area in the interim. Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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 disagreed. She worried about not being able to meet their service needs. What they're setting up is a situation about their needs not being met. Goodwin suggested another paragraph at the end about incorporation. The language would say that if the area is incorporated, it could keep the sales tax, property tax, and other taxes that are already generated. She could use the figure estimated in the previous paragraphs. Caskey- Schreiber agreed with having another paragraph that explains her concern. Fleetwood moved to include language in the general fund section of the Capital Facilities chapter about the taxes generated for Birch Bay if incorporated. Motion carried unanimously. Goodwin continued to explain the changes made during previous meetings and reflected in the latest version of the plan. Brenner moved to approve the changes reflected in the latest version. Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber referenced the development density for clusters on plan page 8 -21. They talked about finding out where the estimate of 5.8 housing units per acre came from. Staff added the minimum density for the mixed zoning. Goodwin stated that was added by the Planning Commission. Caskey- Schreiber stated they talked about clustering in strategy three. She asked to increase the minimum to eight, to allow for more open space. Goodwin stated the committee vote to leave it the way it is. There are various ways to calculate the density and what type of housing a developer builds. They'd have to rewrite the whole chapter. The way Mark Kask did this, by separating the areas likely or not likely to become planned unit developments (PUD's), was not particularly logical. There's no way to assume who would or wouldn't do a PUD. The PUD ordinance is written in a way to discourage people from developing PUD's. She could make the change, but it would take a couple of weeks to rewrite the chapter. Caskey- Schreiber stated that considering the area and wetlands, it's a good policy to encourage open spaces. The additional 1.8 housing units allowed isn't enough incentive for someone to choose to do a PUD. That's why she argued for increased density to encourage preserving open spaces. The whole low impact development premise is to keep stormwater infiltration on site. There is a better chance of doing that if they have large reserve tracts instead of many individual islands of impervious surfaces everywhere. Goodwin stated what the chapter says is irrelevant. What matters is what the PUD ordinance says. The PUD ordinance allows for different ways of increasing density. This plan is just a summary of what Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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 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. the consultant's assumptions were of what a developer might do with the ordinance. This plan doesn't give incentive, it just assumes the incentives that may be used. Caskey- Schreiber stated item three says the development density will increase from four to 5.8 units per acre. She asked if she could modify that language to change 5.8 to eight. Goodwin stated if it's changed to eight, it needs to be changed throughout the chapter, and then they'd need to modify the assumptions and redo all the tables of information. Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought they were going to do that. Goodwin stated that wasn't what the committee approved. Brenner asked many more housing units would be allowed if the density were increased to eight. Goodwin stated the assumptions in the PUD vs. non -PUD table would change. It would allow 50 to 100 extra units in one section and another couple of hundred in another section. That's if they take a ten acre piece and set aside 40 percent. That leaves six acres. At eight units per acre, the lots will be about 4,000 square feet. Caskey- Schreiber stated that would be appropriate in the short -term UGA, not Birch Point. Goodwin stated the rest of Birch Bay will be developed for small houses. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's not necessarily true. The biggest in- migration in Birch Bay is from retirees who don't want yards. The community wants to attract tourist residential units. Goodwin stated the change assumes all will be on those little lots, not just some. Brenner stated a recent presentation on low impact developed showed examples of over 20 units per acre, and the units were all single family housing. Fleetwood stated the option is to change it, not introduce the ordinance at this evening's meeting, and not have a public hearing on June 29. Another option is to leave the ordinance and the schedule as they are, and they contemplate a motion after the public hearing on the 29tH Caskey- Schreiber moved to increase the density to eight units per acre in the short -term urban growth area, as shown in item three of the development density section on plan page 8 -21. This is a big deal. This is what they want to encourage out there. Four thousand square foot lots are fine for retirees, who are the population that would be attracted to Birch Bay. If adoption of the ordinance goes into July, that's okay. This is a 20 -year plan. There's no rush. Brenner asked how much they could increase density for the short -term area. Goodwin stated that if this change is only applied to the table that has the short term planning area and PUD column, the density would be increased by 2.2 Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. units per acre, for a total of about 100 houses. This change is just to the assumption, not the actual PUD ordinance. Brenner asked if they could increase the density even higher than eight units. She was very impressed with the possibilities shown in the low impact development presentation. Goodwin stated that was a multi - family area. They're talking about the density of the single - family areas. The multi - family density is already ten units per acre, and can go to 24 units per acre. Brenner asked if they can put the thousand single - family housing units from Birch Point elsewhere, without creating fourplex that look like boxes. In Canada, they create multi - family housing that is beautiful and unique. Caskey- Schreiber stated a 4,000 square foot lot size is fine. That would allow eight houses per acre. They can increase the density to ten houses per acre. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that the largest in- migration would be from seniors who don't want large yards. With the 40 percent reserve tract, they would still have their open space. Goodwin stated the increased density can happen, but don't assume that every neighborhood would increase at that density. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's not. It's an incentive for developers. They are not going to mandate it. It's to encourage open space. McShane stated his neighborhood is 4,000 square foot lots. The density is ten units per acre, but subtract acreage for streets and infrastructure. The practical density is around seven or eight units per acre. Brenner asked how they would have added more density according to the low impact development techniques as previously presented. McShane stated they would allow small cottages to be built in the backs of the houses. His house used to have a cottage in the backyard. Most of those small cottages are gone now. Parking is the limitation. Goodwin stated the other limitation is stormwater. Another option presented was vaulted underground cement stormwater storage and underground parking. Those techniques make the housing expensive. Caskey- Schreiber stated those houses were in King County, which explains some of the cost. Forty percent open space should take care of the stormwater issue. Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to increase the density to ten units per acre. Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. Caskey- Schreiber accepted the friendly amendment. Goodwin stated they will need to change the zoning map to rezone all of Birch Bay to URM -6, which also allows fourplexes and multi - family houses. If they do that, then they have to change all the traffic options. Brenner withdrew her friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Goodwin stated she would go through the entire chapter and, in every place that references the land supply calculation, she would rewrite the methodology for calculating land. Brenner asked if they can do a density higher than eight, since they're going to look at it. Make sure they have a place to put those 1,000 units if they don't include Birch Point. Goodwin stated they could do that by rezoning the URM -6 and allowing multi - family housing in the other UR -4 areas. Brenner stated she doesn't want to detract from residential areas. McShane stated one issue is that the types of low impact development presented aren't allowed in Bellingham. Goodwin stated Bellingham is working on changing it. They can do that in Birch Bay also, but it will not be done with the existing zoning. They'll have to come up with a new zone of URM -24 that has townhouse -style housing with underground parking. Caskey- Schreiber stated that since they're taking this extra time, it would be nice to see some options about how to accommodate density outside the feeder bluff areas of Birch Point and Point Whitehorn. The Council has never looked at it or discussed it. It just looked at what the steering committee recommended. The committee concurred to have staff to look into options for increasing density outside the Point Whitehorn and Birch Point areas. Brenner asked if the steering committee would be receptive to that. She was surprised to read in the plan about minimum and maximum densities. It should be based on architectural standards rather than numbers. Fleetwood stated the Council will not introduce the ordinance tonight. Fleetwood suggested they talk about proposed changes to the aquifer recharge area. Goodwin submitted revised map 7 -2 and other corrections that need to be made to scrivener's errors (on file). The cross - hatched areas on the map are not aquifer recharge areas. They are areas that have Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) hydrologic soils groups A or B. Add the note, which is a quote from the critical area ordinance section on aquifer recharge areas, to Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. clarify that the cross - hatched areas are aquifer recharge areas only if they are underlined by permeable subsurface materials. Fleetwood moved to amend the the aquifer recharge area change map, figure 7 -2, as presented today. Motion carried unanimously. Goodwin discussed minor amendments outlined in the information she submitted (on file). The corrections are mostly to typos. Brenner moved to fix the scrivener's errors as presented. Motion carried unanimously. McShane stated he has concerns about the conversation about minimum density in an area where they've determined to have residential housing. Setting a higher density would be nice, but there are negatives to that kind of development, such as stormwater control. Going to multi - family is a fundamental shift. If they look at the whole UGA as proposed by the plan, there are a lot of quarter -acre lots. They are going to be permanent housing. His main concern is developing in Point Whitehorn and the Birch Point areas. Have a plan that leads towards a City of Birch Bay. If that doesn't happen, the area shouldn't be allowed to grow any larger. The County should not be responsible for that growth. The County government has a hard time with urban zoning. Caskey- Schreiber stated there are about 6,000 full -time residents now in Birch Bay. In the past six months, the County has permitted another 1,000 units. They are already accommodating for 8,000 people. It shouldn't be that much of a leap to plan for another 1,000 people. Ellen Gray, Thousand Friends of Washington, stated she supports these actions to shrink the UGA. She has concerns with the capital facilities plan. The plan identifies a greater need for capital facilities than is provided for financially. Look at the capital facilities costs, especially with transportation. She submitted information (on file). Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon, stated the shoreline and nearshore habitat in these areas are internationally significant for shore birds. Many years ago, someone decided the area should be zoned UR -4. The area can't sustain that level of development. The DOE agrees. It's important for the Council to realize that. Some of these areas need to be removed from the UGA. Remove Point Whitehorn from the UGA. Patty Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo, stated there $34 million is needed for transportation. They can collect only $23.5 million of revenue. She asked where the extra funding will come from and who will make sure the budget is actually Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. balanced. The original planned density per household was changed. She asked if they did change density to 2.33 persons per household, if they lowered the amount of housing needed, and, if so, by how many. Hilary Culverwell, Puget Sound Action Team, stated she sent a letter previously. She works at the local level on growth management issues affecting Puget Sound. This decision facing the Council is the most significant she's seen in terms of it's potential of negatively impacting Puget Sound's resources. The most critical issue is the UGA expansion in Point Whitehorn and Birch Point. These areas are very significant feeder bluffs. She explained the purpose of the bluffs. Any development on the bluffs can adversely affect the environment. Jo Slivinski, citizen, read a petition from the people of Birch Point. Twenty of the 36 households at Birch Point support removing Birch Point from the UGA. Councilmember Brenner said at one point she would support the amendment to remove Birch Point provisionally, but she wanted to hear the will of the people and know where the densities would go. A majority of the residents is asking the Council to remove the area from the UGA. The Birch Bay Steering Committee did not support the amendment to remove Birch Point, but not one of the members making the recommendations lives on Birch Point. This is what the people of the area say. Dave Pros said earlier that they are under a countywide planning policy that says they must take into account testimony and make evident in their rulings what is heard. Please do the same. Lincoln Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo, stated 9,619 people are projected for Birch Bay in 2022. During the 2002 census data, 4,961 people lived there. That means only 4,658 people are left to arrive during the next 20 years. In the first quarter of 2004, over 750 permits were issued to build residences at a density of 2.33 people per household. That represents 2,330 people. To do this properly, go back to 2002 and take into account all the permits issued in 2003. They're only trying to accommodate 750 new single family residences. He submitted a picture that represents area that encompasses 1,132 single family homes in Birch Bay Village. Over the next 20- years, all those homes could be accommodated in a small area. There are a lot of lots currently available in Birch Bay that can accommodate some of those 750 homes if they stressed in -fill. The entire geographic area zoned urban dates back to the 1996 appeal before the Growth Management Hearings Board, which established why the County erred in establishing this dramatically large UGA in the first place. If they only need 750 houses in the next 20 years, it's ridiculous to talk about 930 in Birch Point alone. If they adopt and enforce the law, the place to make the UGA smaller is in the aquifer, wetlands, forested lands, and the resource lands. Goodwin stated to say that the houses that are already built aren't going to be needed in the future, they would have to take all the vacant land supply and subtract that out. Many of those 750 units are for time share condos and recreational units, not residential units. If part of the housing is already built, the land that shows vacant in the land supply is no longer vacant. Since this has gone Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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. on for two years longer, they can redo and update the whole land supply calculation. Barbara Skudlarick, submitted information (on file) from the Seattle newspaper. The article is appropriate to Whatcom County. In all these developments, the environment seems to be extremely important, especially in sensitive areas. They've taken great measures to keep buffer zones with forested areas. There are similar bluff issues on Whidbey Island. There is a huge development in Cle Elum on the river. There is a huge forested tree line on either side of the river. The developers stated the environment is what people want, and they are developing with these things in mind. Regarding the area of Birch Point being put into pasture land, in the last two weeks, two retention ponds with rock - lined pathways from the pond into the ditch that runs around the entire area. The ditch has a pipe that takes the water off the bluff. The second retention pond just built directs water from the interior 550 acres directly into the ditch. The pipe is connected to the water pipe. The water from the development across the street will go into her nine -lot community. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated they have to look at reality. It's unlikely their going to build out to the density they've anticipated in any part of this area. Moving that density to another area without expanding the UGA is not realistic. They have wetlands people. They still haven't finished the new critical areas ordinance, which will have an impact on how much of that property is developable. The pressure is going to move around. If they can't develop in those areas, they better figure out where they can or they will end up with a bigger mess. Mary Dickenson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs Director, stated be careful of creating a one - size - fits -all solution. It won't work. Anything is possible, but it may not be practical. It will be impossible to put onsite stormwater on 4,000 square foot lots with a house. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Dickenson continued to state that the low impact development presentation is something she's been following. The BIA president is interested in doing one of those development sites in Bellingham, which they cannot do right now. The developments are expensive. A cost of $480,000 for a 1,000 square foot home in Birch Bay may not be likely. It's something the citizens of Birch Bay will need to discuss. It is their community. The County Charter and Comprehensive Plan talk about citizens rights and responsibilities. There are many different things that play into this, beyond Birch Bay, that the community will have to discuss. One size may not fit all in Birch Bay or in any place. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -122) Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, 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 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 stated this item is held in committee. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 11