HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 23 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
March 23, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sharon Roy
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004-
121)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the plan is the result of a
four -year community effort. Stakeholders were involved who helped fund the plan.
The community was divided into neighborhoods. A representative from each
neighborhood sat on the steering committee. Issues in the community have been
worked out. The plan is a good representation of the community's feelings.
Population growth in the plan is consistent with countywide adopted
population growth projections. Cherry Point is removed from the subarea plan.
Commercial development is disbursed throughout the community at key
intersections, rather than having it all down at the beach. There is a lot on
transportation, utilities, services, and governance. There are many good ideas
about impact fees, local improvement districts, and shorelines, wetlands, and water
quality.
The Planning Commission made some amendments that were good changes.
One amendment is a concern, which is to create the area as a stormwater special
district and water resource special management area. Staff can barely keep up
with Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish now. Adding this area will require more staff
to implement it. It's not a bad idea, but there is also a fiscal issues. The Planning
Commission version had policies on wetlands. Initially the Planning Commission did
not allow any wetland fill in Birch Bay until the wetland ordinance is done.
However, that's not realistic. They can't do development in Birch Bay without filling
in a sliver of wetlands for the access road. The Planning Commission modified it to
allow onsite mitigation and no net loss of function value, which is consistent with
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
the County's critical area ordinance. There was a lot of discussion about the
proposed Ellen Shae spa rezone.
They need a discussion of the road level of service. The Birch Bay Subarea
Plan said to have a level of service (LOS) C for roads in Birch Bay, which is a higher
level of service than any other urban growth area in the County. There is not a
plan for how they are to achieve this. Review whether or not this is a need, and
how Birch Bay would pay for those roads. The plan allows impact fees and local
improvement districts, but the question now is how the County would fund a higher
road level of service in Birch Bay.
Fleetwood asked if discussion on how that would happen is necessary.
Goodwin stated it's a policy issue for Whatcom County. Discuss whether there is
justification for a higher quality of road in Birch Bay than in the rest of the county.
She prefers to have consistency throughout the county. The other urban growth
areas have a level of service D. If the Birch Bay area is going to have a higher
level of service, they need an impact fee or local improvement district to fund the
higher level of service.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the Public Works Department thought.
Goodwin stated the Public Works Department said it is not a good idea. The
department would have to set up a separate transportation model, which is over-
complicated. It recommended keeping the level of service the same as the rest of
the urban growth areas.
The last issue is regarding table 8 -5, the land supply table, prepared by the
plan consultant. It is not much different from the table prepared by staff, but it is
much more complicated. Some of the assumptions are questionable. She's
brought it up to the steering committee, Planning Commission, and now the County
Council. 1,000 Friends of Washington is threatening to appeal. She would feel
more comfortable having numbers that she knows are correct and logical. The
existing table is more complicated and less logical. She submitted a substitute
table 8 -5 (on file).
Other than those changes, she recommends adoption of the plan. Most of
what is in there is sound and can be implemented.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced plan page 5 -10. She is concerned that they
want to adopt a minimum density of four units per developable acre. She's heard
that some areas are very prone to soil erosion. At some point, the County may
want to figure out if it really wants that kind of density in areas that might not be
best for it. This policy, as written, may tie the County to that level of density.
They could eliminate the word "minimum" in policy LU -1g.
Brenner stated some of the acreage won't be developable because of those
problems. This language doesn't interfere with that concern.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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 asked if the developable acreage would not include areas
such as a high erosion bluff or something else. Goodwin stated developable
acreage would exclude wetlands, critical areas, and shoreline areas. If there is an
eroding bluff, the development could be clustered further back from the bluff.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this language would force them to have a
minimum of four units per acre. Goodwin stated it would, unless there is a critical
area wetland and aquifer recharge area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the development would have to be at four units per
acre. The County may not want the human impact to occur in that area. Goodwin
stated it would have to be four units per acre if someone is developing a
subdivision. Right now, a lot of that eroding bluff is zoned one house per five
acres, and it's not going to force any of that land to convert into subdivisions. If
they do convert, there won't be one acre suburban tracts.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County may deem certain areas in the future as
not appropriate for that level of density. She asked if this language prohibits them
from removing those areas from that density. Goodwin stated this is a broad
policy. The urban residential zoning code, when staff writes it, can exclude eroding
bluffs or other concerns.
Brenner stated that setbacks from the bluff will prevent development in the
eroding bluff.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's correct, but there will still be a big sewer field
and other things.
Roy stated the language says "minimum" and "developable." She asked if
they have to put four houses on a lot where 75 percent of the land is wetland. The
critical areas and wetland regulations would supercede this. The language is not
saying they have to have four, regardless of the appropriateness. Goodwin stated
it's four units per developable acre.
Crawford asked if "developable acre" is defined. Goodwin stated it is not
defined in the plan, but it is defined in the urban residential mixed use (UR -MX) and
urban residential medium (URM) zoning, which are the only zones with minimums.
In the UR -MX zoning, it may exclude public facilities and rights -of -way.
Fleetwood asked why four units per acre were chosen. Goodwin stated
zoning is urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4). They could not require more
than the maximum density allowed by the zoning.
Fleetwood asked how it would be inconsistent if the zone is changed to six
units per acre, or if anyone talked about changing it to six units per acre. Goodwin
stated they could change it to six, but the plan recommends that a lot of the areas
remain at four units per acre. A good portion of the subarea is zoned URM -6. A lot
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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
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.
is designated for multi - family housing, which can go up to 18 or 24 lots per acre.
The overall density will be much higher than four units per acre. A lot of areas are
zoned UR -4, but it is not appropriate where there are lots of wetlands. A density of
four units per acre could be large lots. It doesn't promote efficient transit and may
not include streetlights and other urban levels of service because the housing is too
stretched out.
Fleetwood asked the minimum number that 1,000 Friends of Washington
proposed. Goodwin stated they proposed four. They were confused. When they
came to the meeting, they looked at all the area zoned rural, and averaged it into
the entire plan. They also were looking at the steering committee version, not the
Planning Commission version.
Caskey- Schreiber read from 1,000 Friends of Washington letter, which urges
a higher density. Goodwin stated part of the confusion was because the version on
the County website was the old steering committee version, not the updated
Planning Commission version.
Fleetwood asked if the proposed boundary is not Kickerville Road. Goodwin
stated it is not. That was the boundary for the study area. It would be helpful if
the urban growth area boundary were marked on the map with bold black lines.
The orange area on the map is the five -acre zoning, and is not in the urban growth
area. Neither is the open space area at the bottom of the map. The urban growth
boundary is shown on figure 8 -7. They can also include the boundary on figure 8-
4.
Fleetwood asked about the dip in the boundary along Lincoln Road. Goodwin
stated that is the City of Blaine urban growth area. It is the West Semiahmoo plan,
which is already approved but not annexed.
Brenner asked about the goal of not bumping two urban growth areas or
cities against each other. Goodwin stated the zoning pattern has been established
since 1974. They could downzone a certain area. There are proposed development
projects in that area, but the development hasn't occurred.
Roy stated the extension of Lincoln Road is on the County's six year road
plan. The boundary continues to abut almost to Blaine Road.
Crawford stated figure 8 -4 shows the proposed land use plan. He's confused
about the southern -most general commercial area being proposed. He wants to
see economic development promoted. He asked if spreading the general
commercial areas around the community is an appropriate way to plan for the
future. Those areas have less and less density as they move out from the
commercial area. They are slowly graduating the density downward as they
expand out from the commercial area.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
He asked why the line was drawn that separates the single family low
density residential from the rural residential, which dissects a property in section
32. The Council just dealt with a zoning transition in the middle of the Faber
Brothers property. According to figure 8 -7, there is no property line there.
Goodwin stated that land is owned by Goldstar.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the residents identified the fact that they didn't
have a large commercial area, but they wanted commercial nodes. The commercial
centers in the midst of neighborhoods is their vision for their community.
Goodwin stated that property in section 32 is one property. If it is added to
the urban growth area and rezoned to UR -4, the owners will plat that piece of the
property and a property line will be developed there. The owner wants that parcel
to be added to the urban growth area to square off the corner and make
developments on all four corners. They intend to put a property line along that
UGA boundary.
Roy stated the feeling of the community is to keep Birch Bay Drive for the
resort commercial. That is the overriding concern of the community. Keep the
resort businesses such as restaurants and stores on Birch Bay Drive. Resident
businesses such as cleaners and pharmacies would be in the neighborhood nodes,
off of Birch Bay Drive. There is a tremendous amount of housing development
happening in the south side of Birch Bay. There are 500 houses that would be near
that southern commercial node.
Goodwin stated the steering committee heavily discussed the difference
between nodes and one central commercial center. The community decided on the
nodes.
McShane asked if there was any consideration of having the option of
commercial zoning within the medium density zoning of six units per acre instead of
out as far as it is. Allow that commercial development to occur within the six -unit
per acre zone. Goodwin stated it could be done. They were thinking that Blaine
Road is a State highway and it is at an intersection that is more accessible. Farther
west is the Bay Horizon Park. This is the intersection they decided is most logical.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she felt the plan lacked areas for designated
recreational fields. She was told the committee discussed Bay Horizon Park being a
future elementary school site with ballparks. If that's the case, she doesn't want
commercial areas right next to a school. Goodwin stated the County currently
owns Bay Horizon Park, and the Council would have to approve selling it. The
school hasn't identified a school site yet.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is a location for potential recreational fields.
It's a large acreage that should be in the Parks and Recreation Plan. Goodwin
stated they are updating that plan this year.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
McShane stated the level of service request was to widen some of the roads
around those areas. He asked if the County can improve traffic flow on a State
highway. Goodwin stated it cannot get directly involved.
McShane asked if there is some purpose to a State highway, or if they just
happen to be in certain locations. Goodwin stated this particular one purpose
connects Birch Bay State Park to other state parks and the highway system. There
was some idea to connect all the parks. It is a logical place for a State highway
and should be improved to State standards. It's inadequate right now. Eventually
it will get upgraded. Putting it in the plan and designating it a highway is a good
idea. State agencies must be consistent with County plans. Designating it as an
arterial, it's in an urban growth area, and it's currently inadequate might help to
move it up on the State's list.
McShane stated he is concerned that if they want to move traffic through
this area rapidly, they might be undermining that by adding development.
Goodwin stated a lot of cities and counties adopt limited access policies for State
highways. They've talked about a limited access on the Guide Meridian, but
haven't done a very good job.
Fleetwood stated the logic for the commercial areas seems to be to disburse
them throughout the area. The logic is the same for parks and open space. There
are many in the area west of Shintaffer Road and Lincoln Road, surrounded by
single residential homes. He asked why some part of that wasn't considered for a
possible park site. There is beautiful land with beautiful views. Goodwin stated the
County and State don't own land there. They would have to buy the land. As
these large chunks of land that are all owned by one developer are developed, they
would include parkland in the development.
Fleetwood asked if a planned unit development has public open space set
aside, not for private benefit of residents. Goodwin stated there is some public and
some private open space.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin stated there is no assurance that it will developed as a planned unit
development (PUD). The County fee structure discourages a PUD. It's extremely
expensive.
Roy referenced page 8 -23 regarding mixed land use. This was one of the
most hotly debated issues in the steering committee between landowners on
Cherry Point, which is the current industrial area, and the community. It was not
unanimous to put houses out there. The steering committee's unanimous decision
was to have more buffer between west Cherry Point and the Birch Bay community.
The community is talking about the very tip of Cherry Point that abuts Point
Whitehorn. There are now housing developments approved within a mile of the
heavy industrial area. The community feels this has an impact. The steering
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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
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.
committee recommended buffering. All reference to the mixed use land has been
taken out. Testimony at the public hearing requested that a citizen from Birch Bay
be invited to participate on the committee to talk about buffers and impacts. There
is a real relationship to these two areas. The community feels it has a right to have
a voice. Amend plan page 8 -23, "Mixed Land Use. Because of the proximity of
new large housing units one to one and a half miles from the Cherry Point heavy
impact industrial zone, the Birch Bay Steering Committee recommends that the
concept of a mix of light industrial, open space, and parks and recreation be
considered for the area west of Cherry Point, west of Jackson Road, and south of
Grandview Road. Because of this proximity and the attendant impacts, the Birch
Bay community should have representation when the subarea plan is reviewed for
this area." This amendment asks that the community be able to have a dialog
when this subarea plan is reviewed.
Crawford stated one iteration of the proposal was that this might be a good
spot for a hothouse tomato growing business. He asked if that would be a good
place for it.
Roy stated it would. She worded her language to say that it would be
considered. Light impact industrial zones, where there is less impact on Point
Whitehorn and these housing developments, could be created. One voice on this
committee may not carry the day, but the community wants a voice.
Fleetwood stated they want to have the right to complain about their
proximity to a heavy industrial zone. He is concerned about the legal theory of
nuisance. These people moved in next to the industrial zone.
Roy stated that the County has a responsibility to make sure there is an
interface between a heavy industrial zone and a residential zone. The County
designated this an urban growth area right up next to the industrial area. Look at
how they can cooperatively make this interface less stressful for everyone. This is
an issue that won't go away.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the amendment. The community will
advocate for a buffer or transition zone of some sort. It's totally reasonable.
Crawford suggested that, to be consistent with current development, specify
the north -south centerline of section 12 rather than Jackson Road. He understands
that BP welcomes buffering between their plan and residential uses. There is
already heavy impact industrial development west of Jackson Road. If they want to
move the line over to the center of the section, it would make more sense. Even
with that done, the question is who owns the property and their intentions.
Roy stated she's not sure that's germane to what she's trying to say. When
the Cherry Point subarea is reviewed, the property areas at west Cherry Point will
carry the day. She assumes they will not object to having a Birch Bay person there
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
with another perspective. All she's asking for is to add one voice from the
community abutting Cherry Point.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend plan page 8 -23, "Mixed Land Use.
Because of the proximity of new large housing units one to one and a half miles
from the Cherry Point heavy impact industrial zone, the Birch Bay Steering
Committee recommends that the concept of a mix of light industrial, open space,
and parks and recreation be considered for the area west of Cherry Point, west of
the north -south centerline of section 12, and south of Grandview Road. Because of
this proximity and the attendant impacts, the Birch Bay community should have
representation when the subarea plan is reviewed for this area."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to restore the language that was stricken from
the Industrial Land section of plan page 8 -23. The Planning Commission shouldn't
remove what the steering committee recommends. Goodwin stated the west
Cherry Point area is not in the Birch Bay Subarea. The steering committee can
make a recommendation, but it's a little inappropriate to make a recommendation
for another subarea.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is land directly west of it in the Birch Bay
Plan. They should have some say. It surrounds the land on two sides. There's no
harm leaving the language in there. Goodwin stated it's been an ongoing issue for
four years.
Brenner stated it's not appropriate to put the committee's recommendation
in the Cherry Point Plan.
Fleetwood stated it's something that a steering committee member would be
able to express to the residents working on the Cherry Point Plan.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to set aside this area as more of
a transitional zone than what it currently is.
Motion carried 2 -I with Brenner opposed.
Roy stated someone ought to make a motion to attend to the road service
level issue. There may not be a lot of objection from the Birch Bay Steering
Committee.
Brenner moved to adopt a road service level of D instead of C throughout
the plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some of the traffic patterns in the current UGA's are
horrendous. It may not be a bad idea to try and achieve a higher standard. She
asked if it would place an enormous burden on the system. Goodwin stated it
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
would be not an enormous burden, but they would have to figure out how to pay
for it. Now they don't have traffic impact fee anywhere in the county. Staff is
working to get a basic transportation impact fee ordinance. It will be difficult
without a traffic model. Having different levels of service would complicate a future
model. Having a LOS C doesn't make the roads better without a plan of how they
would accomplish the higher LOS.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if including that higher LOS in the plan would give
them a chance of getting the impact fees to address to pay for that LOS. Goodwin
stated fund a traffic model and staff to run the model. Every subdivision that goes
in will have to achieve an LOS C without a way to get pay for it.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to get the impact fees going.
Brenner stated they get the impact fees first and then change the LOS.
Don't have an LOS without the impact fees to pay for it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they cannot charge impact fees to fix any problems
that exist now. She doesn't know that they'll ever be able to improve if they settle
for an LOS D.
Crawford stated there was testimony about keeping Lincoln Road's rural
character. Over time, the Blaine Road will become a more heavily used road.
Another goal was to reduce traffic on Drayton Harbor Road. That is a contradiction.
If folks want to drive to Semiahmoo from the north, they would ultimately be
encouraged to take Blaine Road rather than Drayton Harbor Road. He asked how
to keep a rural environment on the new Blaine Road. Goodwin stated the
assumption is correct. One element is the bridge over Loomis Trail needs to be
straightened out. The new construction is planned to become the main route to
Semiahmoo. The plan is also to bring Birch Bay Village traffic on a new angled
road.
The City of Blaine would like to see more rural land uses, which doesn't seem
appropriate in an urban growth area. However, there are wetlands on both sides of
the road. One way to do that is to widen the road that has a road corridor, and
build a meandering bike path or berm to give it a rural feel. Limit access so not
every lot has a direct access to Lincoln Road. There are things they can do with
design standards. She can write language to describe the vision for Lincoln Road.
Crawford stated that would go on page 11 -14. If the committee wants to
propose that, he would support it.
Roy asked if it is appropriate to work with the City of Blaine on this.
Goodwin stated she would write something and run it by the Blaine city planner.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
McShane stated Lincoln Road could be a place for a boundary between Birch
Bay and Blaine. Take out the northeast quarter of section 19 of the UGA. It's a low
density. Create somewhat of a buffer. Also take out the west half of the northwest
quarter of section 20. He doesn't believe sewer is available. Goodwin stated that is
correct.
Brenner asked if this was discussed at all. Goodwin stated it was not
discussed much. The City of Blaine wasn't very involved in the process. It was
something that was lost in the discussions.
McShane stated a decision was made early on to not change the zoning.
They wanted to avoid that fight. The County will have a hard time supporting the
urban level of service until Birch Bay is willing to take on the services those areas
need. That area is fantasy zoning for the time being.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the downzone process is more elaborate than this.
It's a separate ordinance. Goodwin stated they could do zoning to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. It's best to do that so the plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she'd rather change the zoning separately to not
subvert the public process.
Fleetwood agreed. He asked why a proposed amendment to take something
of the UGA wouldn't be all along the Lincoln Road line, if the object is a buffer.
McShane stated the northwest quarter has an existing developed plat. There
is an existing commercial resort zoned area. There is sewer service there. A
zoning change wouldn't change anything. There are multiple reasons for the
downzone. There is a desire for a buffer. The problems of having an urban area
and the connections to a road they're trying to put through to move traffic with an
urban density around it undermines the goal of the transportation corridor issue.
Or they will fight with limiting connections. That area has been split up into rural -
type lots already.
Fleetwood stated there are areas west of the commercial area and east of
the developed area and also on Harborview Road and Lincoln Road.
McShane stated west of Harborview Road is something else he would
consider cutting from the urban growth area. He's more hesitant about it west of
Harborview Road. The proposal for general commercial zoning on Shintaffer Road
might not be a bad idea given the fact that nothing else is out there.
Crawford asked if this area is currently in the UGA. Goodwin stated it is.
Crawford stated that if the area doesn't have a UGA designation, it cannot be
provided with water and sewer. In the absence of water and sewer, the maximum
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
density that can be developed is one housing unit per five acres. Goodwin stated
that's correct.
Crawford stated that would be a de facto downzone, even though they aren't
changing the UR -4 zone. If the area is out of the UGA, the maximum density is one
unit per five acres. He hopes that if this is a recommendation and goes before the
full Council, the hearing for this change should be announced to those property
owners. This is a fairly significant action to those property owners.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has concerns about the size of the UGA also.
She talked with Councilmember Roy and read the information from 1,000 Friends of
Washington. However, this UGA was sized according to the population projection.
She asked if increasing densities elsewhere would compensate for the density they
take out.
Brenner stated she does not agree with 1,000 Friends of Washington. She is
not comfortable doing this without getting a lot more input from the people in the
Birch Bay area. They put this plan together, including the boundary. It goes
against her nature to vote for downzones unless they're extremely critical. She's
not sure this is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this isn't a downzone. It is an attempt to slow
down development. There's no harm in proceeding cautiously.
Roy stated years went into these discussions, setting the boundaries,
working with the population projections, and working with the consultant. The
Council needs to be very certain that the benefit of making changes far outweighs
the non - benefit, just because the councilmembers think they know better. She
always supports the input of advisory committees and community groups.
Remember that 1,000 Friends of Washington was working with erroneous
information. They weren't looking at the real boundaries.
Crawford asked if the urban growth boundary on figure 8 -7 is through
section 20 should be moved to the western quarter of section 20.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the 1,000 Friends used the accurate proposed
UGA map. Goodwin stated the statistics 1,000 Friends used were from the June
2003 version from the internet. They assumed all the rural lands were in the UGA.
She doesn't think they used the correct information.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the map they submitted matches the current
proposed urban growth area boundary.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Fleetwood stated this is a very smart plan. He asked what sort of
demonstrated commitment existed in the process to have a sustainable urban
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
growth area. He asked if anyone thought about the possibility that there would be
a natural size to the Birch Bay and Blaine area. Goodwin stated it was discussed.
That was the reason for the idea of putting this higher density land at Arnie Road
and Alderson Road. They didn't discuss downzoning the existing UR -4. There was
not a lot of public support for putting higher density zoning in every residential
neighborhood. A lot of the resort areas are developing at a high density, up to 22
houses per acre. By the time they take the wetlands out of the areas zoned for six
houses per acre, there will be lot sizes of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. There is a lot
more multi - family housing going in. There is a lot of higher density going in. The
policy of a minimum density of four units per acre is to address those people who
were developing up to four units per acre, even if allowed.
Crawford stated that when they talk about a connector road earlier this year,
he pictured a north -south connector. He asked if the diagonal connector was
proposed then. Goodwin stated the County has always tried to get Selder Road to
be the area where traffic from Birch Bay Village comes to Semiahmoo Parkway.
The City of Blaine opposes that location for a connector road. Trillium owns the
platted west Semiahmoo property. That new road would go through the middle of
a golf green and probably won't be built. This new proposal is in the design
process. That diagonal road will meander through a project and be open to the
public.
Crawford stated the diagonal road is a representation of some proposed
road, and isn't designed yet. Goodwin stated that's correct. She's not sure if
they've taken Selder Road off the six -year road improvement plan.
Crawford referenced figure 11 -3 on plan page 11 -9, and asked why that
proposed connector isn't included. Goodwin stated that map shows what would
happen if those roads weren't built.
Roy stated a foundation of the plan is to make the bay the centerpiece of
what goes on in the community, preserve the bay, and protect the resort
commercial uses on the beach. Now, Birch Bay Drive is a commuter road. All
those people at Birch Bay Village have to go down Birch Bay Drive. This connector
road to get people off Birch Bay Drive for general commuting is the whole point.
Get people to the Blaine Road so they can go north to Blaine or south to the
freeway. Goodwin stated that road will probably go along the west and south sides
of the commercial road. It makes more sense to curve the road up to Lincoln Road
than to go to Shintaffer Road. The diagonal line on the map was meant to be more
of a hypothetical line.
Roy referenced page 17 -19, Capital Facilities Plan. Add a section,
"Community Center. Working with Whatcom County in evaluating various funding
sources, including BEET, local improvement districts, and WA -CERT, the Birch Bay
community will pursue the evaluation and purchase of property and the design for a
community center to house governmental functions such as law enforcement,
County services, post office, library, and meeting places. Consideration should be
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, 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.
given to working with the Blaine School District on a combined elementary school
and community center campus." This language represents the need for the
community to have some sort of community center, especially for the future. The
Birch Bay Steering Committee will continue to meet to talk about implementation,
such as governance. One of the reasons for this language is that the Birch Bay
community will not be eligible for REET funds unless it is in the subarea plan. She
tried to be very soft on working with the Blaine School District. This would be
added to the list of projects.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if they ever want to charge impact fees, it has
to be in this chapter of the plan. Goodwin stated they can only charge impact fees
for parks, roads, and schools.
Fleetwood moved to add a project to page 17 -19, Capital Facilities Plan,
"Community Center. Working with Whatcom County in evaluating various funding
sources, including REET, local improvement districts, and WA -CERT, the Birch Bay
community will pursue the evaluation and purchase of property and the design for a
community center to house governmental functions such as law enforcement,
County services, post office, library, and meeting places. Consideration should be
given to working with the Blaine School District on a combined elementary school
and community center campus."
Crawford stated he is in favor of including the language. Page 14 -2 says
that the community is interested in having an elementary school in the area, which
would also incorporate a community center. Action strategies two and three for
that section aren't clear about how that would be developed. Goodwin stated the
community has no money. The idea was that the school district would create a
school site big enough to allow land for community facilities next to the school.
Crawford stated it might be good for the language in the motion to cross -
reference the coordination with the school district and the site.
Roy agreed to the suggestion to add, "...and community center campus (See
Public Education goals ED1, ED2, and ED3).
McShane suggested adding the rural sales tax in the list of funding sources.
Roy asked if the hotel /motel tax can be used for that type of facility.
Goodwin stated it cannot. That tax is related to tourism promotion.
Fleetwood accepted the suggestions as amendments to the motion to add a
project to page 17 -19, Capital Facilities Plan, "Community Center. Working with
Whatcom County in evaluating various funding sources, including REET, local
improvement districts, rural sales tax, and WA -CERT, the Birch Bay community will
pursue the evaluation and purchase of property and the design for a community
center to house governmental functions such as law enforcement, County services,
post office, library, and meeting places. Consideration should be given to working
Planning and Development Committee, 3/23/2004, Page 13
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.
with the Blaine School District on a combined elementary school and community
center campus. (See Public Education Goals ED1, ED2, and ED3.)"
Motion carried unanimous /y.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -122)
This item was not discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane suggested that the Council hold a public hearing on the Lummi
Island Subarea Plan like they did for the Birch Bay Subarea Plan.
Fleetwood agreed. He would like a public hearing before April 20.
Crawford asked if the committee intends to discuss the proposal for the Birch
Point rezone.
Fleetwood stated the proposed rezone would come forward if a committee
members makes a motion to bring it forward. He's thinking about it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't intend to bring it forward.
Roy stated she doesn't intend to bring it forward.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 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, 3/23/2004, Page 14