HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 9 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
November 9, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ESTABLISHING POLICIES TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE PLAN AND
CONSIDER UTILIZING ITS TECHNOLOGY IN TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS (AB2004 -355)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the County reviewed the transportation
chapter in 2002. Since then, the bike plan and intelligent transportation system
(ITS) technology has come up.
The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the bike plan, but too late
to get to the Council in time. This change will include a reference to the bike plan.
The Council of Governments (COG) requested that Whatcom County and city
governments incorporate ITS language in their comprehensive plans. Use
technology to gather information and make it available to drivers. It will decrease
delays and expedite travel, increase efficiency, decrease pollution, lower wait times,
and reduce congestion. The recommendation is to amend policies as shown on
Council packet page 92.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council, subject to
concurrency.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (APPENDIX G OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (AB2004 -370)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the Growth Management Act (GMA)
authorized local governments to collect transportation impact fees. Countywide
planning policies encourage fair and reasonable impact fee ordinances An action
item in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to develop an
impact /mitigation fee ordinance. In 2003, the Council adopted two ordinances
requesting that this process begin. It delegated the task to the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) to develop an ordinance. The TAC worked on this for the last six
months. It is almost done with the transportation impact fee ordinance. The
Engineering Division has to work more with the Council of Governments to
determine the pro rata shares from different areas of the county.
State law says the County has to amend the Comprehensive Plan first to
identify deficiencies in the transportation system, additional demands by new
development, and transportation improvement projects that are required to serve
new development.
First, the Engineering Division evaluated deficiencies. They calculated the
volume divided by the capacity, compared to the level of service (LOS) stated in
the Comprehensives Plan. All arterial and collector roads meet LOS in the existing
or proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Fleetwood asked if those roads with deficiencies are eligible for impact fees.
Aamot stated new development shouldn't have to pay for existing deficiencies.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is very excited to see this. Down the road, new
development will mitigate future impacts and problems. She asked if this would
not bind the County's only option for the Guide to be widened to four lanes. Aamot
stated the County must identify the projects for which the impact fees would be
collected. That can be modified once per year.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it's too late to have some of the development that
is already platted in Sudden Valley contribute impact fees for Lake Louise Road.
Aamot stated once adopted, fees are paid during the plat stage. The County can
also collect at the building permit stage. That option will be in the ordinance.
Brenner stated results did not show any county roads that are deficient, but
the language allows the County to go back six years and collect fees. She asked
why the County would do that. Aamot stated there are projects, such as the
Samish overpass, that is built in excess of capacity that will be used by new
development. The Council will ultimately decide on the fees for those are projects.
Brenner stated it's a vicious circle. They might use it if it's built, but they
don't need it now. They wouldn't need it if it wasn't built, and they wouldn't use it.
She asked how they know which person uses it and how often, if it was something
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
they didn't need to begin with. Also, it's hard to believe that certain county roads
are meeting LOS standards, such as Hannegan Road and Northwest Road. If
they're building transportation for future development, and LOS is not deficient for
now, she doesn't understand how the County can go back and collect fees from
people.
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic /Development, stated the fees
aren't necessarily for deficiencies. They relate to fair and equitable value of the
project. The County can't charge a development a large percentage, but only a
small percentage of the cost of the project.
Aamot explained how the City of Bellingham collects its traffic impact fees.
Donahue stated staff went through an analysis of what the County can and
cannot charge.
Fleetwood asked if the Council would see an ordinance in 2005. Donahue
stated it would.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they can't say there is a problem now, even though
there may be one. They know the large -scale development will cause a problem.
Donahue stated the TAC is sending a letter of recommendation to the
Executive.
Brenner asked about a project on Council packet page 107, Sunset Drive
from Woburn to the city limits. She asked if some of that right -of -way is in front of
apartments that are already right at the road. She asked how they would widen
the road.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the right -of -way for that area is
being purchased right now. That project shown is the second of a three -phase
project. From Woburn Street to the city limits, they have a lot of right -of -way now.
The apartments are located in the area done during the first phase, and it was very
difficult.
Brenner asked about widening the Guide Meridian north of Badger Road.
Donahue stated the State analyzed it a few years ago.
Aamot stated the area up to Badger Road is in the immediate plan. He
understands the plan to widen it will start in 2007 or 2008. The Comprehensive
Plan shows the intent to widen the road all the way to the border.
Brenner asked what they have to do to get the Whatcom connector, on
Council packet page 112, off the list. Rutan stated that if the Council gives staff
direction to not include the Whatcom connector on the next six -year plan and
remove reference in the Comprehensive Plan, staff would proceed accordingly. The
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
Council included the connector on the six -year transportation improvement plan
(TIP).
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of removing the connector from the
2006 -2011 six -year transportation improvement plan. She'd rather add street
lights in the Kendall and Paradise area.
McShane stated the ordinance adopting the six -year TIP is before the Council
at the evening meeting. There are changes proposed to that plan.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced a project on Council packet page 107, State
Route (SR) 9 south of Sumas. She thought this just came before the Council, and
the Council chose something different. Rutan stated the Council chose not to close
the south leg. Staff will realign the south leg.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they include it even though it's a State route.
Aamot stated the County won't collect impact fees on state routes.
Rutan stated Council packet page 308 lists five projects. It references the
six -year plan. The Council must have a decision saying that they don't want the
connector in future editions of the six -year TIP. Reword language in the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect that decision.
Brenner referenced a project on Council packet page 107, Ferndale's Main
Street - Interstate 5 overpass. She asked about an on- and -off ramp at Smith Road
to Interstate 5. She heard that is being discussed. Rutan stated that is a State
project. It is not on the County's six -year plan.
Aamot stated the State is still in the study stage for that project.
Brenner asked if the main street overpass is not a State project. Donahue
stated the City of Ferndale is taking a lead on the Smith Road project.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the State hasn't decided on its option yet.
Brenner asked if they can remove the reference to the connector from
Appendix G. Rutan stated staff will proceed with whatever the Council's direction
is.
Aamot stated that if the Council changes the six -year TIP, it should also
change the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent. They will need a public hearing
to change the Comprehensive Plan.
Fleetwood asked if the effect of removing the project from the TIP would
effectively be to remove it from the Comprehensive Plan. Aamot stated that's
correct, but the County wouldn't want to collect impact fees for areas they aren't
going to do, because the County would have to give back the fees.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to remove Whatcom connector from the list on
Council packet page 112. The Council will have to schedule a public hearing on this
item.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to recommend a public hearing on the amended version to
the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 9 — RECREATION (AB2004 -352)
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated the Parks Commission and Planning
Commission reviewed all the proposed amendments. The amendments include
factual updates to reflect existing conditions. There is also policies added to adopt
the bicycle plan. There are policies and action items to promote and include parks,
trails, and open space elements in development proposals. That gives them a
policy for the County to ask for these types of improvements and to incorporate
them into the development regulations. The last major amendment was to modify
map 23 in response to a property owner's request to remove the Knotty Bay area
from the map. The property is private and is not up for sale. There have been
trespass problems.
Fleetwood asked if there are public amenities accessible from the water at
Knotty Bay. Holbrook stated there is for the Bellingham Yacht Club, which has a
private agreement with the property owner. The amenities are privately operated
by the yacht club. The public is not entitled to go there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Recreation Chapter would undergo major
revisions when the Parks plan is done. She referenced Council packet page 127,
the fourth paragraph of the Background Summary. She asked if its true that most
public land is located in the eastern two - thirds of the county and there is little
public land near the population centers, since they have done so much watershed
acquisition. Holbrook stated it is. The language was taken from the 1987 parks
and open space plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the language makes it sound like there is little park
land around the cities. There is plenty of land. Holbrook stated the land
acquisitions were not of large acreages. This section will be updated with the Park
plan update.
Brenner moved to amend the fourth paragraph of the Background
Summary on Council packet page 127, "...in the eastern two - thirds of the county
and little publie land is available neaF the population " The County has
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
substantial public land available for parks. Don't discount what is available in the
cities.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the amendment, but staff should
figure out the proper wording.
Fleetwood asked if anything positive would be lost by the amendment.
Holbrook stated there isn't.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 134, policy 9D -5,
"...should be eneeHFageel required as new subdivisions...." Add infrastructure that
benefits the community. They need areas for the kids to play. She asked if the
same thing is also on Council packet page 142. Holbrook stated they are
intertwined.
Brenner stated she'd like to hear from Paul Schissler. The amendment may
raise the cost of housing. If that's true, make an exception for housing for people
with lower incomes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated low- income homeowners need open space and
recreation opportunities more because they have more kids.
Fleetwood asked about situations where a new development happens to be
next to a place that already has ample open space.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they can put impact fees in another area. The
development would add more residents who use the park.
Brenner stated the County should subsidize some of the low- income housing.
Holbrook stated there are provisions in State law to provide exceptions for low -
income housing. It's part of the subdivision process. A Hearing Examiner criteria is
to look at provisions for recreation and open space. Unfortunately, the County
doesn't have standards for it. The County can require it, but it doesn't have
standards. If in the Comprehensive Plan, it gives staff an opportunity to work on
standards.
Fleetwood stated "should be required" doesn't mean it will be required.
Paul Schissler, Kulshan Land Trust, stated State law allows jurisdictions to
waive exempt impact fees if another source of funding is found. They can't say
that certain housing is exempt from impact fees. It must pay its fair share.
However, those fees could be paid from another source.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
Brenner stated it's not just about impact fees. It's also about dedicating
some of the property. Holbrook stated they can't require it through policy. Policy
will direct staff to create development standards.
Brenner asked if the County is setting up a park impact fee anyway. She
asked if someone splitting a lot into two lots to sell only one lot would have to
contribute to a park impact fee. Holbrook stated that wouldn't be required
according to this change, which only sets the policy for staff to look at that
situation.
Brenner stated the term "development" includes even a single lot. Holbrook
stated "development" would be any new development. The impact fee wouldn't be
applied to an existing fee.
Brenner asked if someone building a house would have to pay another
impact fee. Holbrook stated they would not. Setting up the impact fee is
something that staff will analyze with the update of the parks plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff will figure out a fair proportion so a small scale
division like that will not incur the impact fee. All this is is policy for staff.
Brenner stated she would like to see an exemption for smaller developments
that just divide up a lot. Holbrook stated impact fees can be paid at the time of
subdivision or at the time of building permit issuance. Staff will bring forward a
proposal.
Mary Dickenson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs,
stated she doesn't know how much this fee would impact the industry. She is
concerned about affordable housing. The more they add impact fees, the higher
the cost of housing. Also, be careful of how they apply impact fees. Must be
proportional to development. There are exceptions for low- impact development,
but she's not sure how that works.
Fleetwood stated there might be an occasion where "required" is too strong
language.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this only provides policy direction to staff to draft
regulation. She wants strong policy language. Make sure there is mitigation for
allowed growth so surrounding neighbors don't suffer the impact of that growth.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment, may be
required in some cases as new subdivisions...."
Caskey- Schreiber did not accept the friendly amendment. They need to be
fair and above -board with everyone. They already know State laws will allow
flexibility for low- income housing developments. Staff is going to draft concrete
rules about how this will be collected. They need strong policy language or else it
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
won't be taken seriously and someone will complain about fees applied to one
person and not another person.
Brenner stated she would not support the motion unless they leave it more
open- ended.
Caskey- Schreiber stated leaving it more open -ended would be arbitrary.
Brenner stated it's not arbitrary. She wants to make sure developers have
flexibility to come up with solutions on their own. It's not something the County
can be challenged on.
Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember Brenner. There are
situations where this language could be too strong.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber in favor.
Fleetwood moved to amend Council packet page 134, policy 9D -5,
°...
should be strongly encouraged as new subdivisions..."
Motion to amend carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 142, action item
43, Consider the establishment e Establish park impact fees..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to forward to the full Council as amended for a public
hearing.
McShane stated he supports the last amendment, but make sure Dave Grant
looks at it today. This will not establish impact fees. He's concerned it will tie the
County's hands. Get legal review. The change orders those fees to be established,
but the Council doesn't know yet if it will establish the fees.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued at the end of the meeting.)
4. ORDINANCE REVISING AND AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 3 — HOUSING (AB2004 -353)
Elizabeth Olson, Planner II, stated the review of housing chapter went to a
consultant.
Paul Schissler, Kulshan Community Land Trust, stated the County secured
federal funding for Kulshan Community Land Trust to review the housing chapter.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
The section entitled Issues, Goals, and Policies suggests the overall goal of the
chapter. The Planning Commission approved it. Many issues, goals, and policies
from the prior version of the chapter are good and valid. New additional ideas are
at the end of the chapter.
Fleetwood stated he read a myriad of goals. He asked the overall goal of the
chapter. Schissler stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires housing that
meets the needs of all segments of the population. There is a growing percentage
of people in Whatcom County for whom housing is no longer affordable. Seventy -
two percent of households have extremely low incomes, which is 30 percent of the
area median income. Sixty -one percent of extremely low- income households spend
over 50 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Many people don't have
affordable housing. Those people spend too much of their income on housing.
Brenner asked the definitions of household and family. Schissler stated a
household is at least one person. A family is more than one person living together
and committed to sharing the economic burden of a family.
The greatest challenge is for those households at 100 percent or below of the
area median income and below. Given the land and housing costs in Whatcom
County, it's difficult for anyone to create affordable housing.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 172, the first complete paragraph,
"Further, the County and cities w+lf can employ innovative techniques...." She
asked why that language was changed.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is just background
information, not a policy. They can't say a city will employ innovative techniques if
the City doesn't want to.
Fleetwood stated it's not a legal policy directive.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend Council packet page 189, goal 3G,
"Identify and remove impediments to affordable housing where possible." There
may be instances where they can't remove those impediments, such as providing
adequate land supply through giving up agricultural lands. Schissler stated policy
3G -1 qualifies that goal. Also, this language is in the existing version of the
chapter.
Fleetwood stated the motion is wide open and subject to interpretation.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion to amend Council packet page
189, goal 3G, "Identify and remove impediments to affordable housing where
possible and appropriate."
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 186, policy 3A -1, and asked where
they have simplified and streamlined existing permitting processes. Goodwin
stated they are doing a lot now with the one -stop shop, the tidemark system, and
the new permit coordinator position. Someone won't have to go to three or four
agencies to find out what the permit requirements are.
Fleetwood referenced policy 3A -3 and asked what international building
codes are. Goodwin stated the definition of the new building codes is an ordinance
coming before the Council soon.
Fleetwood asked Mr. Schissler to respond to the concern that affordable
housing be encouraged anywhere. Schissler stated this wording is not changed
from the previous version of the chapter. It reflects the sentiment of that process.
Increasing land supply does not result in more affordable housing. Relaxing
development standards or changing regulatory requirements doesn't result in more
affordable housing. It's a more complex challenge. If they want to make housing
available for every economic sector, they need other tools.
Fleetwood asked if policies won't be used as a justification to seek to
enhance increasing land supply in all areas. Schissler stated all jurisdictions will
continue to hear arguments that increasing land supply and decreasing regulations
is the answer to affordable housing. Whether or not they change the chapter, they
will continue to hear those arguments. It is demonstrably clear that increasing land
supply and lessening regulations alone will not increase the affordable supply of
housing.
Brenner moved to recommend a public hearing to the full Council as
amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. ORDINANCE REVISING AND AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX A (GLOSSARY), APPENDIX B
(LIST OF ACRONYMS) AND APPENDING D (BIBLIOGRAPHY)
(AB2004 -354)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, stated she waited until the end of the revisions to
Comprehensive Plan chapters before she amended the glossary, list of acronyms,
and bibliography.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they got rid of the short -term and long -term
planning area designations.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated many of the cities have
those designations, including Blaine, Everson, Sumas, and Ferndale.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced a scrivener's error on Council packet page 203, Natural
Resource Lands. Underline last word "mineral."
Fleetwood referenced Council packet page 203, Natural Resource Lands. He
asked if the commercial value of natural resource land also includes tourism.
Brenner stated it has to do with the commercial value of the physical product
of the land.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he agreed. It doesn't
have to do with the use of the natural resource. That language is probably from
the Growth Management Act.
Fleetwood stated he would like to add tourism if they can.
Goodwin stated staff would have to do a word search of the chapter to see
how they are talking about natural resource land throughout the plan. Usually the
chapter talks about agricultural, forestry, or minerals. If they don't want urban
growth areas (UGA's) to expand into natural resource areas. If a golf course is
used for tourism, it's not a natural resource land they would want to protect like
they would protect land for agriculture or minerals.
Grant stated the definition has to do with a Growth Management Hearings
Board decision interpreting the definition.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.28.010, OPEN
SPACE CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES (AB2004 -373)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, stated this chapter was written in the early
1980's. At that time, an application was only $30. The fee was not updated in the
fee schedule. The change is to generalize that purpose statement to reflect the
unified fee amount, not the fee itself.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 9 — RECREATION (AB2004 -352)
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he has a concern with the
committee's earlier amendment to amend Council packet page 142, Action item 43,
"''ensia„r the establishment e Establish park impact fees..." If they were to change
that action item as amended, the County would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan until it does establish those park impact fees. If someone
wanted to press the point, it would be difficult for the County to validate its
situation, not yet having established those fees. As the Planning Commission
recommends, the language creates a requirement that the Council consider that
requirement. The Council then may or may not establish the fees. In addition,
changes would require a public hearing.
Fleetwood moved to rescind the motion to amend page 134, policy 9D -5,
"...should be strongly encouraged as new subdivisions..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to rescind the motion to amend the fourth paragraph of
the Background Summary on Council packet page 127, "...in the eastern two - thirds
of the county ."
Motion carried unanimously.
Grant stated that any change to these items, whether or not substantial,
triggers a public hearing, according to the Planning Enabling Act.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she's concerned that their lack of time is driving
their policy decisions.
Brenner stated she is confident staff will come forward with a park impact
fee.
Grant stated the Council could limit the public hearing specifically to the
proposed amendment. That might limit the length of the public hearing.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated a public notice specifically
about park impact fees could trigger testimony from Building Industry Association
(BIA) representatives and other people concerned about impact fees, making the
public hearing longer.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants park impact fees. If staff says it will
bring forward park impact fees, then she is fine with leaving action item 43 as it is.
Fleetwood moved to rescind the motion to amend Council packet page
142, action item 43, "GensideF the establishment e Establish park impact fees..."
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2004, 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
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 unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council, subject to
concurrency.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 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, 11/9/2004, Page 13