HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 9 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 9, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP FOR SOME AREAS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AS DEFINED ON THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP)
(AB2003 -386)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated she hoped this would come forward in
January. They are also working with the transfer of development rights (TDR)
program updates. Because the Planning Commission recommendation is for
approval contingent upon a TDR program being in place, staff wanted to bring the
two items forward together.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the Planning Commission
recommendation to remove the provision that this be approved only if there is a
TDR program in place.
Pederson gave a staff report and gave a history of the issue. She submitted
a packet of maps of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and
some aerial photos. Those are the criteria they used to delineate revised
boundaries. The proposed zoning and Comprehensive Plan map designation should
reflect new boundaries that are in accordance with the criteria, and should be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan locational criteria.
vote.
Crawford stated the Planning Commission recommendation was only a 5 -3
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Jonathan Sitkin, 1500 Railroad Avenue, Bellingham, stated he represents
Western Washington University. The issue is the Lakewood property and the
adjacent tract owned by Western. He suggested language to change the text for
the allowed uses. It is zoned urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3), a more
urban designation. It has now been downzoned to rural, which has inherent issues.
He suggested text changes to change the conditional use permit to an outright
permitted or an administratively approved use with mitigation. The Planning
Commission neglected to address this issue. He supports the recommendation for
a public hearing that would allow them to consider his issue. Staff concurs with his
proposed language and text amendment.
Fleetwood asked what it means in terms of increased development. Sitkin
stated the impervious surface limitations would still apply. It allows for adding
anything from additional restrooms to a meeting facility without going through the
conditional use process unless they exceed a certain size limitation, which would
trigger an administrative approval process. In all respects, any change would still
go through the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) policy and the
impervious surface limitations still exist.
According to the regulations, it comes down to the conditional use criteria by
which they would be evaluated, either urban or rural. In the past, they've been
evaluated by the urban designation. The zoning changed to rural. No one's
seeking a density increase an increase of impervious surface limitations on the site,
but it eases the process for Western if they do seek any building additions or
modifications.
Fleetwood asked if staff recommends the request.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she does recommend the
amendment. This is an anomaly of a project that's already there. The language is
tight enough to be limited to a use acceptable for a recreational facility associated
with a university, without becoming a second campus.
McShane asked if The Firs falls under a different regulation. That zoning
may change also. Goodwin stated The Firs was rezoned with a concomitant
agreement that was very specific to what they could and couldn't have there. It is
a much larger facility, including housing. The Western facility is a day facility. The
Firs has maximized the use it has. Once rezoned, it would become a
nonconforming use, which could be expanded by a conditional use permit. The
intent is not to have much more expansion at The Firs.
Fleetwood moved to accept the amendments proposed by Mr. Sitkin to
Whatcom County Code sections 20.36.64 and 20.36.136 in his letter addressed to
Sylvia Goodwin dated October 3, 2003.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the existing impervious surfaces already meet or
exceed 5,000 square feet. Sitkin stated the university has no concrete plans, but
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
may want to expand the meeting facility to increase the occupancy from 50 to 100
persons.
Goodwin stated that adding an additional 5,000 square feet of impervious
surface is a significant increase for something that receives infrequent use. Sitkin
stated it is a lot of impervious surface. The percent limitations still apply to the
site. The existing downzone regulations on impervious surfaces still apply to the
site.
McShane asked the acreage of the site. Sitkin stated the Lakewood facility is
approximately eight acres. They acquired the adjacent Byron tract of 4.8 acres.
The total acreage is approximately 12.8 acres.
McShane stated the impervious surface allowed would be a little over an acre
for the entire property.
Brenner asked why it's in the public interest to allow the additional 5,000
square feet.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the State university uses it for classes, retreats, and
other functions.
Brenner stated she thought they were working on the impact of impervious
surface, not the altruistic intents of who gets to add the impervious surface.
Crawford stated this is not as related to the downzone issue as it is to the
impervious surface issue. They're talking about simultaneously changing Title 20 at
the same time they are considering a downzone of certain areas in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. Sitkin stated he brought this issue forward during the
process for planning essential State facilities. There wasn't a process for siting
educational institution facilities such as this that was adequate. They also
addressed this in the downzone process because the property is being downzoned
from urban to rural. In trying to address how they might facilitate the approval of
this kind of educational facility, they met with Planning Department staff. They
talked about conditions that might occur for administrative approval of outright
permitting. A 5,000 square foot limit for the building does not take it outside the
gambit of the impervious surface limitations. They would still be subject to the
impervious surface limitations.
Crawford stated a new meeting facility would also require parking. Sitkin
stated there is a very large existing gravel and dirt parking area. Western would
say that parking requirements as a part of the total site area for a new use would
be acceptable.
Crawford stated they would have to add that language. He asked why they
would make an exception for Western. Sitkin stated they've changed zoning from
an urban density to a rural density. When they changed that zoning, the question
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
becomes how they are going to regulate the uses and they have to recognize that
this type of use is appropriate for the site. The question is how they are going to
implement the regulations. His proposal suggests how to do that. This type of
recreational use is in a public interest. It's part of a State educational facility. The
question is whether they are going to regulate it through a conditional use permit,
administrative approval, or as an outright permitted use. This property and the use
are unique. They aren't used residentially. The property won't have urban
residential density, as may have been allowed by the urban zoning. The property is
unique in that it has not ever been or was ever intended for residential use. It's
always been used recreationally for an existing university. That is different from
everything except The Firs, which historically was dealt with by a concomitant
agreement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the site is different because it provides education at
the site. Professors such as Robin Matthews also do work at that site, which leads
to protection of the lake. It's an educational institution, which makes it different
and unique in and of itself. The homes in the area don't provide education to the
public. It's different even from businesses because it's not - for - profit.
Fleetwood withdrew his motion.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the 5,000 limitation wouldn't apply, but the 20
percent would. Sitkin stated they could add language that says the impervious
limitations of the code will apply to any developments on the property. That's the
full intent.
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated he agreed with the
downzone as it was originally proposed. However, there are planning reasons for
the downzone being what it is today. It's become a significant but modest
proposal. The areas being downzoned for the most part are areas that were zoned
as they are before there was long -term monitoring data on the lake. The long -term
monitoring data on the lake has shown that there are issues to deal with. The
downzone is one aspect of what the Council needs to do. The Title 20 changes also
needed to be done.
The area zoned rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) in Geneva should
be rezoned to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). That's not the way the
downzone came out of the Planning Commission and is not the staff
recommendation, but it is a significant area including two watersheds and sub -
basins. There is a pending or vested plat there. However, the downzone may
convince the owner to sell the property. It would be a good thing to do. That area
is included in the zoning boundaries in the interim downzone.
Some people say that TDR's have to be based on underlying zoning, and
others say they don't. Clearly, a lot with services should be taken out of
circulation, especially in Sudden Valley. With those kinds of lots in the watershed,
most of the build out in the watershed will come from the areas zoned urban
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
residential, three units per acre (UR -3). There are a lot of lots there that have
services. That's where TDR's are needed to reduce the build out in those areas.
Giving people TDR's for property that doesn't have services and hasn't proved its
development potential is questionable. TDR's will be important to reduce density in
the watershed. He's concerned that TDR's may be spent here that will be needed
elsewhere. He asked the committee to approve the ordinance, even though the
proposal is modest.
Jim Trowbridge, 1853 Academy Road, stated he owns 15 acres in the
watershed. They just had a 100 -year storm, and Water District 10 did not have a
sewage overflow because of a new technological solution. Many years of harassing
lawsuits from so- called friends of the lake kept Water District 10 from providing a
technological solution to a recognized problem until recently. The same people who
sued the district are the people who have been most vocal in presenting the
downzone. Their primary interest is not keeping sewage out of the lake. They've
had a not- in -my- back -yard (NIMBY) philosophy. This is a rather drastic plan. A lot
of science still needs to be studied. There is a solution better than this broad brush
approach. Start over and come up with something fair.
This temporary moratorium came up more than two years ago. Many
councilmembers told him it would only last six months. At the end of the six
months, they would have better control of stormwater. The moratorium has
become permanent. They've forgotten why they first started this.
The County Charter says that they cannot burden any citizen unduly without
compensation. It must be just compensation, which is a price agreed to by willing
buyers and willing sellers. The downzone has eliminated the possibility of having
willing buyers and willing sellers. By that standard, the TDR program will not work.
The Planning Commission recommended that the Council do not do the downzone
until they could institute a fair, just compensation package for the people who are
losing property rights in the watershed. If they go forward tonight, the Council will
further damage people in the watershed. The program has not been proved. It will
not work. There are 1,800 TDR's to be sold. There are 200 potential buyers. This
is not a free market. It's a fire sale. The only people who benefit are buyers, not
sellers. The Planning staff is planning to increase the density at the two worst
intersections in the county to clean up the problems they assume are in the lake.
Support the Planning Commission recommendation.
Caskey- Schreiber moved accept the amendments proposed by Mr. Sitkin
to Whatcom County Code sections 20.36.64 and 20.36.136 in his letter addressed
to Sylvia Goodwin dated October 3, 2003, amended to reflect that the 20% rule is
still in effect.
Brenner asked why they are doing this as an outright permitted use, rather
than a conditional use. She doesn't have a problem with doing this, but it seems
inequitable. She wants to be convinced why they should allow it.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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 facility was in an urban zone. Certain criteria applied to
it. That zoning is now changed. The facility becomes a nonconforming use.
Because of the nonconforming use, the facility would have to go through a
conditional use permit to do anything. That wasn't the case before. Goodwin
stated the facility required a conditional use permit before. Now, it would require a
conditional use permit to expand beyond a certain amount. Small amendments
would be allowed outright.
Sitkin stated the criteria for a conditional use permit requires them to be
compatible with the zoning regulation and Comprehensive Plan policies for that
Comprehensive Plan designation. By changing the zoning from urban to rural,
they've changed the intensity of the uses and nature of the uses by which the
facility must be compared, which makes it more difficult to do modifications. One
example they just went through was with light fixtures.
Brenner stated she still feels like they are giving extra treatment.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's a public facility. The public gets the benefit of
this decision.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber restated her motion to remove the TDR program provision.
The downzone was done as carefully as possible to respect the areas that are
platted. It concentrated on certain areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that the areas the downzone
concentrates on are areas without infrastructure or development. The value lost is
speculative value. TDR's should be used for existing, platted land that has a
serious likelihood of being developed soon. Don't saddle the TDR process with
1,800 lots or it will fail.
McShane stated he supports the motion. The intent is to address those
areas around the lake where the ability to develop is very speculative. What was
originally proposed as an interim ordinance lifted the moratorium so people with a
reasonable expectation of being able to develop and had services were able to
subdivide and move forward. There was a concern that allowing continued
subdividing of land would saddle county taxpayers with some significant costs for
dealing with stormwater around the lake. The original proposal was pretty broad.
It was purposefully broad to look at all areas. As time went on, more parcels or
areas dropped out as they learned more about them. He's always been open to
any suggestions along those lines. When convinced, which has been most of the
time, he's accepted a claim that someone can develop at their density. He
continues to be open to those arguments. They would water down a TDR program
that really is necessary for those areas where people have one existing lot. Some
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
of the people who would be affected by this downzone wouldn't have to develop at
a density of one house per five acres. They could sell those development rights
and get more money for them because they are proven rights.
Fleetwood stated he is in favor of the motion. The question is whether they
can dictate that they designate Lake Whatcom as a TDR sending area in all fairness
and good policy. They have not yet established a comprehensive TDR ordinance.
It's premature to condition acceptance of this proposed downzone with the TDR
program. The downzone is justified aside from whether or not they attach the TDR
program provision. They may decide at a later time to include TDR's. This vote
doesn't limit them from doing it at a later time.
Crawford stated the motion should amend the wording in the ordinance's
15th Whereas statement. They should also amend the next to last Whereas
statement.
Fleetwood stated they've considered the issue to a considerable extent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the crux of the argument is determining what is
"unduly burdened." All of these properties they are downzoning still hold a great
deal of value. She's comfortable with that.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the RR2 zone south of the Geneva UR -3 urban
growth area on the map on Council packet page 473. It is an existing plat that is
relatively speculative. It would be prudent to change the zoning there from RR2 to
R5A.
Fleetwood asked why it wasn't proposed previously.
McShane stated it was. This is the first time the change has been brought
forward to the Council.
Goodwin stated it's the site of the Summitview vested preliminary plat,
which is a vested plat. They went through a considerable court case on that issue
during the 1997 Comprehensive Plan process.
Fleetwood asked the effect of the downzone.
McShane stated the developer could go ahead and develop. Alternatively,
the downzone would have an effect if the developer decided to significantly alter
the plat. It would need to comply with existing zoning and existing impervious
surface requirements, which are different for RR2 zoning to R5A zoning.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the entire area is platted.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
McShane stated it is. There are about 360 lots.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood moved to schedule a public hearing on this item as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin asked about the Summitview property. She asked if they are still
leaving it in the urban growth area (UGA). If the area is going to be R5A, the
question is whether or not they want to leave it in the UGA.
McShane stated he's been under the impression that for public health and
safety purposes, and for protection of resources, one can do density reductions
even in urban growth areas. He doesn't see that it needs to be removed from the
UGA. Given the fact that it is platted already at RR2 zoning, it may be appropriate
to leave it in the UGA unless they hear differently from the City of Bellingham.
Goodwin stated the City didn't want it in the UGA in the first place. That's why they
spent all those years before the Hearings Board. They should discuss it further with
the City.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AB2003 -075A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the ordinance is an
amendment to the Introduction chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The most
controversial item is the population projections. The Planning Commission
recommendations for the population projections is on Council packet page 531,
chapter page 1 -10. The City of Bellingham held a hearing last night and
recommended support of the County and City planning commissions for a
population projection in the amount of 113,055 for the City of Bellingham for the
year 2022. All of the small cities have submitted letters recommending higher
population projections for the small cities, which are the ECONorthwest high
population, as modified by the County oversight committee. The Planning
Commission did not recommend the oversight committee's recommendation. The
overall population projection for the entire county is the medium projection from
the ECONorthwest study. It was allocated between the cities, which a slightly
higher population in the cities and County urban growth areas and a slightly lower
projection for the rural areas. Staff recommends a higher population.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Birch Bay, Columbia Valley, and Point Roberts aren't included in the chart on
page 1 -10. The recommended population projection for Birch Bay is 7,116, which
is less than recommended by the Birch Bay Steering Committee subarea plan.
McShane stated they should give some deference to the mayors of the cities
who are attending this meeting.
McShane stated there will be one representative to speak on behalf of all the
mayors. The committee has already taken testimony in previous meetings from
others in the audience, and is familiar with those points of view. His intent was to
only allow committee discussion today, but will make a special exception for the
mayors.
Gary Tomsic, City of Blaine City Manager, stated he is the spokesperson for
the Whatcom County small cities caucus. Roland Harper is a consultant that has
worked with some of the small communities on the population projections.
Consider the caucus request to establish the population projections for the small
cities at the level of the ECONorthwest high projection, except for Nooksack.
Nooksack has requested that its population be set at the medium level. This
request is consistent made by the City of Blaine Planning Department, working
through the Growth Management Oversight Committee. These numbers best
represent what their future might be.
Over the past few months, the councilmembers have heard from the County
Planning Commission and City of Bellingham Planning Commission. Some of the
comments have been to accept a lower population forecast for the county. Those
with that point of view have a real concern for growth and development in the
county. The small cities are concerned that a lower level projection would present
several problems. This is not a science. The State demographers put together
information based on historical data and their best reasoning of what will happen.
The more the numbers are aggregated, the less reliable they become. To
compound that unreliability, some in the county have intended to use them as
targets for growth in the county, rather than simply forecast numbers. That type of
reasoning is not supported. If there are communities in the county or the County
wants to limit growth, do it by designing policies and regulations appropriately.
These numbers are only forecasts, but they're important for a couple of reasons.
First, they are what the city comprehensive plans are based on. Their capital
improvement planning for infrastructure is based on them as well. If they
underestimate the projection, it will be a serious mistake. Cities would rather not
underestimate what their facility needs will be. They depend heavily on State and
federal grants and loans to get infrastructure done. These entities look at the
population projections. If the population projections under - reflect what really
happens in the communities, the help from these agencies will be less. It's
important that the small cities be listened to. The high projections are best for the
small cities.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 9
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.
1 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the city councils recommend the higher
2 projections. Tomsic stated he believed they do.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to make sure the small cities put it
5 forward to their councils. Tomsic stated the Blaine City Council approved the high
6 projections. He can't speak for every community.
7
8 Caskey- Schreiber stated Lynden has limitations on available water. She
9 asked how the Council can, in good conscious, encourage a higher projection
10 knowing Lynden can't accommodate it right now. Tomsic stated adopting the
11 numbers does not encourage a high growth rate. They aren't targets. Lynden may
12 grow less than that. If it doesn't have water, it will certainly won't grow to that
13 level. If Blaine doesn't get a new wastewater treatment plant, it won't grow to it's
14 projection level. If they don't have the infrastructure, the growth won't happen at
15 those levels.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the current urban growth areas are sized to meet
18 the high projections. Tomsic stated the UGA's were sized before these projections
19 were developed. He doesn't know if the current UGA's are sized to meet these
20 projections.
21
22 Goodwin stated all the cities said they have adequate or oversized UGA's.
23 Some of the cities are talking about reducing or amending their UGA's. The general
24 consensus is that the UGA's are adequate for these populations, it's just they want
25 the projections consistent with their planning efforts.
26
27 Fleetwood moved to adopt the medium projection, and allocate it
28 accordingly so they can include high projections for certain cities.
29
30 McShane stated using infrastructure to fight growth will fail. Politically, it is
31 very hard to convince city councilmembers to approve the high projections. As a
32 County Council, they should be bold and greedy and go forth with the high numbers
33 so they can craft a long -term plan that won't need changing in seven years. He's a
34 consulting geologist who is hired by people who pay him for his opinion on geologic
35 issues. They have planners in the county for all the cities and the County. They're
36 all saying they should go with the high projection. He's talked to planners from
37 other areas and a variety of political views. They should sometimes defer to
38 expertise. In this case, defer to the experts in the cities and County. Approve the
39 high population projections. He appreciates the small cities for stepping up and
40 asking for the higher projections. He's disappointed that the City of Bellingham
41 doesn't want to do that. They want to protect their neighborhoods, which is a great
42 idea but won't work. He fears that it is a formula that will put a lot of pressure on
43 the unincorporated areas between the cities. Future councils may not hold the line
44 on sharp boundaries around farmland, may not protect the drinking water source
45 for half the county, and may not protect salmon streams and forest reserves. He'd
46 rather plan for high population growth.
47
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Fleetwood stated the medium projections is consistent with the Planning
Commission proposal. The language indicates that a medium projection can be
allocated to low rural projections and high city projections.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has also spoken with planning experts that
disagree with staff. She's willing to hear them out and find a happy medium.
There is induced usage when they put infrastructure in. She's fine with the small
cities using the high projections and Bellingham using the medium projection. The
small cities high growth rate will double their population in 15 years. The City of
Bellingham is enormous. They can't grow that fast. She's most leery of adopting
the high number because people will want to expand the UGA's to accommodate
the growth before they've maximized density in existing areas. That's the big
issue. The question is how they get the density without expanding the UGA's.
Historically, Whatcom County has had a growth rate of 1.3 percent. They can
readjust the number in five years.
Crawford asked if Councilmember McShane's proposal for higher projections
in the cities and a very low projection for the rural areas equals the medium
projection overall.
Fleetwood stated the Planning Commission findings recommend low
projections for unincorporated areas and medium to high projections for urban
areas. He read finding 13.
McShane stated his view is not a lot different from the Planning
Commission's view. The projections should be higher in the cities than what the
Planning Commission recommended. He liked scenario 8, with one exception. The
oversight committee recommended a population growth in the unincorporated area
as 19,025. That's unacceptable. They need to reduce the potential growth in the
unincorporated part of the county. Past planning decisions in the county were bad.
They can ignore that problem and allow a build out of unincorporated areas that will
be very harmful to agriculture, farms, shellfish, fish, and forestlands. They need to
go after the number. It's not just population projections they're dealing with. The
plan is not a good plan. If the cities are doing their part to incorporate growth, the
County can do it's part to not incorporate growth. Go with the lowest number of
3,898 for the unincorporated part of the county. Adjust scenario eight accordingly
to 247,000 total.
Brenner asked if Ferndale has the capacity for the high projection in the
existing UGA. Goodwin stated Ferndale would have the capacity for more than the
high projection.
Roy stated they all want to keep growth out of rural areas. They want infill
and to give the cities the high projections as solutions. There are other policies
they need to do to keep the rural projections low. She is reluctant to support high
numbers for Bellingham when their Planning Commission and City Council have
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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
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.
projected the medium numbers. Ultimately, it's the County's decision, but she's
reluctant to do that.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roy continued to state that the people who represent Bellingham have said
what they wanted. The committee held up its decision while waiting to hear what
the City of Bellingham had to say. The committee should respect that. She has
trouble not respecting that. There's a lot of room here. She's going to have
problems with going against what the Planning Commission and Bellingham
Planning Commission want.
McShane suggested they defer the discussion of population numbers until
after he's made a couple amendments within the text that might shed some light
on his own views.
Crawford asked what happened at the Bellingham City Council meeting the
previous evening.
McShane stated there was public comment, there was discussion, and they
adopted the City of Bellingham Planning Commission recommendation.
Brenner asked if they have any idea of the amount of infill that has occurred
in all the cities. Goodwin stated they are seeing a lot of infill in all the cities. The
City of Bellingham just approved a project that would provide 99 housing units on
one acre in Fairhaven. That's considerable infill. The cities are attempting to infill
at urban densities.
Brenner stated it's one thing to build on a vacant lot, but it's another thing to
change density. Goodwin stated a lot of the lots in the small cities are smaller lots
or higher densities. It's a dilemma for the cities. The planners and elected officials
are trying to have higher density.
Brenner stated she heard regulations are in place for high density
development, but the underlying zoning doesn't allow it. Goodwin stated they are
having a problem in the Bellingham urban fringe because of the County's critical
area ordinance and the setbacks. The critical area ordinance conflict with the goal
density of four units per acre in an area where there are restrictions on lot sizes,
setbacks, and buffers. They are working to address it.
Brenner asked if four units per acre is the density in the cities before they
began to do infilling. Goodwin stated the density of four units per acre used to be
the maximum density. Now, in the City of Bellingham urban growth area, that
density is the minimum density. They have policies in the new Birch Bay plan that
make four units per acre a minimum. They are holding Trillium's feet to the fire.
She told them to redesign their subdivision so it has a density of four units per
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
acre, not one units per acre. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it's much better than
a density of one unit per acre.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are talking about working with scenario one,
and then making modest modifications to appease what the cities have requested.
Fleetwood stated he is. Population increases when people want to live here.
A density structure exists that permits it. The Growth Management Act requires
the County to accommodate growth. Therefore, the County has a duty to maintain
a zoning structure that permits an increase in population. If people want more
local authority to stop growth, they've got to go to the legislature and amend the
Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act confers an enormous
amount of authority to the local government to determine how they accommodate
growth. The Council can hold the line on geographic expansion of cities if it
chooses. The Council can increase densities to accommodate growth in the cities if
it chooses. Regardless of the chosen population projection, they can have vibrant
cities and maintain beautiful rural character. Ensuring these things is doable if they
collectively decide they want to. Choosing this projection does not sound the death
knell for quality of life in Whatcom County.
Brenner stated the Growth Management Act says anything someone wants it
to stay. It's a nebulous document. They shouldn't give up any kind of feelings that
they have about what should happen in Whatcom County because of the State
Growth Management Act. The County has a lot of authority. It just has to justify
anything it does. That justification for anything they do already exists.
McShane moved to amend the first full paragraph on chapter page 1 -9,
"...in the future, af�d ensuring an adequate land supply to accommodate this
growth, the need to plan for growth, and the need to protect the quality of life and
natural resources in Whatcom County. This population projection is selected for
planning purposes only, and does not obligate the County to encourage growth.
However, given past population trends and the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, planning for population growth, whether or not it occurs, is
critical for the quality of life, natural resources, and economic health of Whatcom
County." It's not specific to any number. He asked if the language causes a
problem.
Caskey - Schreiber stated the last sentence is too vague. She's not
comfortable with it.
McShane stated the last sentence in his motion says that the population
projection is selected for planning purposes only. If they didn't have GMA, the
Council probably wouldn't be planning for growth. They are obligated to choose a
number.
Fleetwood stated the language is harmless.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, 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
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.
Roy stated she would like to see some qualifiers on some of the language.
She suggested adding "protection of natural resources."
Brenner suggested not including the last sentence.
McShane amended his motion to amend the first full paragraph on
chapter page 1 -9, "...in the future, e+fd ensuring an adequate land supply to
accommodate this growth, the need to plan for growth, and the need to protect the
quality of life and natural resources in Whatcom County. This population projection
is selected for planning purposes only, and does not obligate the County to
encourage growth. Given past population trends and the requirements of the
Growth Management Act, planning for population growth, whether or not it occurs,
is critical for the quality of life, natural resources, and economic health of Whatcom
County."
Caskey- Schreiber stated the last part of the language makes it seem like
they are making a value judgment.
Fleetwood stated the language in here is sufficiently milquetoast that it's not
going to cause major problems.
Roy stated they still need a qualifier before "natural resources" in the last
sentence.
McShane amended his motion to amend the first full paragraph on
chapter page 1 -9, "...in the future, ai-,d ensuring an adequate land supply to
accommodate this growth, the need to plan for growth, and the need to protect the
quality of life and natural resources in Whatcom County. This population projection
is selected for planning purposes only, and does not obligate the County to
encourage growth. Given past population trends and the requirements of the
Growth Management Act, planning for population growth, whether or not it occurs,
is critical for the quality of life, protection of natural resources, and economic health
of Whatcom County."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the first paragraph on chapter page 1 -11, "To
avoid tightening the urban land supply and raising housing costs, the County is
using a projection of xxx,xxx for land use and facility planning purposes, and te
" He read his rationale for the motion as stated
in his memo to the Natural Resources Committee dated December 7, 2003
regarding the December 9 Planning and Development Committee (on file). The
message is that he would like to see the cities go with high population growth in a
manner that would increase the densities in the urban growth areas so they don't
have to ask for expansions every seven years.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the third line of the third paragraph on chapter
page 1 -13, "...encouraged commercial activities and residential development
outside city centers. Coal mining ceased,...."
Brenner stated they should say they encouraged all kinds of development,
not just commercial and residential.
Crawford stated he agreed with the motion. This section and language
paints a picture of the history that has shaped the issues they will be dealing with.
The primary issue they're dealing with in growth management is residential
development outside of urban centers. Councilmember McShane is right on when
he specifically defines residential development as the pattern that occurred in
Whatcom County with the increased use of the automobile.
Brenner stated they should either include all development or state only
residential development.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood stated there is a motion to accept the Planning Commission
recommendation with changes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to work with scenario one, look at
the cities, Birch Bay, Columbia Valley, and Point Roberts, and then go from there.
McShane moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation to
accept the small cities' requests for population projections:
Blaine: 6,629 7,942
Everson: 3,641 3,912
Ferndale: 16,318 17,322
Lynden: 16,628 16,900
Nooksack: 1,937 1,881
Sumas 1,566 1,669
Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to include the medium projection
for the City of Bellingham.
McShane stated he did not accept the friendly amendment. He wants to deal
with the small cities only right now, and get it done with.
Fleetwood asked if there is a scenario where they can still succeed in being in
the medium projection of the Planning Commission and ECONorthwest, and adopt
this amendment. Goodwin stated they could. They'd have to take up the slack in
the rural areas and in the Columbia Valley. Bellingham could stay where they
were.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 15
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 City of Bellingham approved the medium density, not
the medium high density. Goodwin stated the City of Bellingham approved a total
20 -year growth amount of 31,600.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for
the Birch Bay urban growth area population projection to 9,619.
Roy stated the Birch Bay planning group wanted to go with 11,000. The
9,000 is a compromise.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are adding 2,503.
Fleetwood asked if this amount is the medium -high number according to
ECONorthwest. Goodwin stated that number is the same as the ECONorthwest high
projection.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for
the unincorporated area population projection to a new projection of 55,874. It is
lower than the low projection from ECONorthwest.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that subtracts 2,737, which will take care of the
Birch Bay urban growth area increase.
McShane stated he chose scenario two, which had the premise of giving the
Bellingham UGA a high population projection, the other UGA's a medium projection,
and the rural areas a very low projection. The Planning staff had some rationale for
using the lower number. It fits with trying to hit the ECONorthwest medium
number. The population growth from the year 2000 to 2022 would be changed
from 6,635 to 3,893.
Crawford asked how the staff arrived at this low number from scenario two.
Aamot stated the Planning Commission voted to use an overall medium projection
and provided the general principal that they wanted a higher population projection
in cities and a lower projection in rural areas. The staff provided five scenarios.
Scenario two is one of those five scenarios.
Crawford stated he doesn't think that a rationale for good planning is saying
that the number for the County is simply the residual number after all the
projections for the cities are determined. They need to have good planning
projections, using the number of platted lots outside the incorporated areas. There
are 45,000 platted lots in the unincorporated areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 16
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 there are 20,143 potential additional dwelling units outside
the urban growth areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this Council has looked at ways to encourage
incentives where they want growth and disincentives where they don't want
growth. They have looked at instituting impact fees. One of the things they've
addressed is the fact that they need to deal with price equity issues.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for
the Columbia Valley population projection to a new projection of 5,000. It gives
deference to the Growth Management Oversight Committee recommendation and
the fact that they are seeing a lot of growth out there because they are all vested
lots.
Fleetwood stated they would have to do a lot of things differently if they base
the projections on the committee. He is against the motion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they received the letter from the Mount Baker
School District. Given the number of students the district already has and the
number of households already occupied, they already have a population of 4,000.
There are a lot of families with kids. It is one area where population growth is
occurring from births. They are likely to see an increase of at least 5,000. It is an
area with a great need for infrastructure. They can't ignore it.
Crawford stated the motion is a good one, but he questions the rationale. He
asked how it differs from the county. They are seeing a lot of growth in the
unincorporated county and in the Columbia Valley.
McShane stated the Columbia Valley is a UGA. Some day, it should become
a city. They should plan accordingly and do the things it takes to enable that area
to become a city. Accept the fact that there's going to be a lot of growth there, and
they can't do a lot to reverse it. In the areas zoned rural, one unit per five acres
(R5A), there are things the County can do. There's no reason to try to
accommodate growth in the rural areas. If they've already committed to an urban
growth area that is growing rapidly, they need to commit to really planning for a lot
of growth there. It's happening whether or not they like it. They don't do things to
accommodate growth in the unincorporated areas. They do things that transfer
that potential growth to other locations. Rural areas in the Lake Whatcom
watershed is an example. They will hopefully transfer that development into
Bellingham and the Bellingham UGA. The same is true elsewhere. Reduce the
number of cars on county roads.
Crawford stated there are already 20,000 platted lots in the unincorporated
areas. They will see more in the next several years.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 17
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.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford continued to state that when they anticipate the number of people
to plan for, they are going to ignore that platting and pick a low residual projection.
McShane stated he won't ignore it. He's specifically saying he wants to take
on that problem. That question gets to the fundamental issue of what they do with
the planning numbers. Those are the hard questions. This should be the easy
part.
Brenner stated the number is low. The Columbia Valley has an abundance of
good water. Everyone is talking about stimulating economic growth in that area.
Pick a slightly higher number to encourage the development of a city out there at
some point.
Fleetwood stated he is persuaded by the argument that the reality is the limit
is already there.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the City of Bellingham population
projection of 113,055 based on what the Bellingham City Council and City Planning
Commission recommended.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford stated there's been no discussion with the City of Bellingham about
how it arrived at that projection.
McShane moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for
the Point Roberts population projection to a new projection of 2,010, which is the
ECONorthwest high projection.
Brenner stated they haven't heard what the Point Roberts community wants.
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with the
adopted Point Roberts plan. She can double check it.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Fleetwood stated he hoped all these changes would approximately total the
ECONorthwest medium population projection.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they only added 82 more.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council as amended.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 18
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Goodwin stated they will need to hold a public hearing because they changed
a lot of the numbers.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 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, 12/9/2003, Page 19