Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 8 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 July 8, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 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 L. Ward Nelson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING), CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B) Fleetwood stated that staff is not ready to address the issues the Council brought forward, so this item will be held in committee until its August meeting. Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to address a letter the councilmembers received from Tom Pratum regarding the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulating the non - conversion forest practices. Fleetwood stated they will wait until the August meeting to make all amendments and discuss the issues. McShane stated Mr. Pratum said in his letter that the tree retention language would impact existing platted lots as it is written now. Even if there was no intention to build houses on those lots, they are treated automatically as a conversion. He hoped to work out language with staff before the August meeting. Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated Peter Sim spoke with Jim Cahill at DNR. Mr. Cahill said DNR can issue a Class IV general on platted lands. They would be the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) lead agency, provided the County does Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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 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. not issue a permit. They need to make a change to the ordinance that allows that to happen. Fleetwood stated they would take that up in August. Nelson stated the Forestry Forum has discussed other counties doing this. If DNR takes the lead, there may be legal implications. Baumgarten stated DNR can do that legally. Staff would like to double check that claim and come up with language to address it. McShane stated he has a map from the Planning staff that shows the type A and B soils that have at least six feet of clearance from groundwater. The map will show what area that encompasses. 2. SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF A PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM HELD ON JUNE 16, 2003 (AB2003 -250) Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated this is related to the Lake Whatcom Joint Management Program. She provided the history and background of the transfer of development rights (TDR) issue. Brenner asked how much Rick Pruetz was paid for the TDR Program study. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated Mr. Pruetz was paid $5,000 from a grant. She introduced Troy Holbrook, who has been hired to work on all of the open space acquisition programs. His focus so far has been on the TDR program. They are finding that they can't have TDR's without a Bellingham urban fringe plan receiving areas and utilities. They have been working with the City of Bellingham. Troy Holbrook, Program Coordinator, stated the PowerPoint presentation is included in the Council packet. He read from his memorandum to the committee dated June 26, 2003 on Council packet pages 192 through 196. Brenner stated she is concerned that Mr. Pruetz does a lot of consideration for sending sites, but there is little consideration for receiving neighborhoods. Those are where most of the people already are. Do stuff that is compatible with the area that already exists. Otherwise, they will negatively impact enough people. It's important politically and morally to be sensitive to the receiving areas. She's concerned about the compatibility to the neighborhood, not increasing density. One recommendation was to increase multi - family housing to above 25 percent. The Birchwood area used to be beautiful, but it has been trashed by all the multi - family rentals. If they are going to go above 25 percent, only do it for owner -type buildings, not rentals. Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated receiving areas are in the city. The County doesn't have control over that. Brenner stated the County could express its opinion. Some of the rights will go to urban growth areas. Caskey- Schreiber stated high- density development does work in some areas, such as around the University. Brenner stated a lot of it isn't standard, impersonal - looking multi - family housing. A lot of it is converted houses that have some character. Do fast tracking. They should create off - the -shelf architectural designs that they know is visually compatible to certain areas. Don't relax the development standards. She was disappointed in the Pruetz study. It seemed to be done on a machine, and wasn't personalized to Whatcom County. There is a lot of good stuff in there. She liked everything she didn't mention. Caskey- Schreiber stated the cities will be addressing their urban growth areas (UGA's). It sounds like the County should have a program in place before they expand the UGA, otherwise the County is giving away the TDR program. Whatcom County has acquired a lot of property in the Lake Whatcom watershed. They could already establish a bank, but it doesn't seem like they have the details worked out enough to start this year. Holbrook stated they are now revising the population projections. That is the driving factor for the shape of the UGA's. They are also working on revising the urban fringe area plan, which is also dependent on the population projections. The hope is to have them adopted by the end of the year. Once they know the density, they can tweak the TDR program to fit it and create a market. He doesn't suggest making changes to the TDR program until they know the densities, where the transportation corridors will be, the capacity of fire and police services, and environmental constraints. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they want to work in conjunction with the developer who is ready and willing to pay the TDR prices. Fleetwood stated they could condition an upzone. Holbrook stated an upzone is one issue. That could be done anywhere in the county. The details of the UGA need to be worked out. Goodwin stated the current TDR Program says that they should evaluate the need to purchase development rights when there is an increased density. All of the discussions they've had with Caitec is that they are planning on and expecting to buy development rights if that area is added to the UGA. The other biggest area of the UGA expansion is at Slater Road. They can condition any expansion of the UGA on not developing at an increased density until development rights are purchased, or any other criteria. Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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. Holbrook stated they need to work closely with the City of Bellingham to make sure infill and density have the urban amenities that make receiving areas compatible with the urban character of the city. Most receiving areas will be within the UGA. Caskey- Schreiber asked the County's role in the TDR program. Caitec may be required to purchase development rights. She asked if the County will be responsible for mitigating the impacts to that area, such as impacts to schools. Holbrook stated the developer is not relieved of any responsibilities to mitigate impacts. Goodwin stated she attended most of Caitec's work sessions on the project. They've done an excellent job. They are talking about providing one or two school sites, offsite transportation improvements, extending utilities, and other things needed to offset the impacts of density. Once that area is added to the UGA or becomes rezoned, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will have to look at traffic impacts and improvements to Smith Road. That area will probably be annexed into the city before it is developed. The County must work with the City so they can deal with the issue of offsite traffic improvements. Fleetwood asked if they could go into the UGA's for other cities in the county. Goodwin stated the main reason they look at the Bellingham UGA is because it is closest to the Lake Whatcom watershed. It is the drinking water for Bellingham, not Ferndale or Lynden. There is less connection. Also, the other UGA's are big already. There isn't a need to increase those UGA's. It's not an area where they want to encourage additional expansions now. The County could tie any expansion of any UGA to the purchase of development rights (PDR). One example is the Birch Bay Community Plan, which is finally complete. One of their recommendations is to add 100 acres to the Birch Bay urban growth area at ten units per acre. The question is whether the County should require that property owner to purchase a portion of the development rights. McShane asked how many transfers of development rights out of the Lake Whatcom watershed they are thinking about. Holbrook stated there are just over 100 development rights that are certified. There were 3,000 development rights prior to the downzone. There is about half that now that are out there. One question is whether the County wants to keep the development rights if the downzone becomes permanent. McShane stated he prefers that the downzone not include a TDR component. If they need to move beyond, they would use the TDR's in the areas, particularly areas that are more urban levels of the County that won't be affected by the proposed zoning change. He liked the idea of requiring a purchase of development rights of upzone requests and UGA expansions. He liked the idea of the City of Bellingham Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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. requiring purchase of development rights as a condition of utility extensions, with a caveat. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) McShane stated there are places where they want high density, and they shouldn't have to make people buy it. Find that balance. They don't want to create disincentives to high density in certain areas. Stroebel stated one issue that has come up in staff meetings is how they create a TDR program as an incentive so they are getting the target densities in these areas where they want to have higher densities. She welcomed any ideas for providing incentives. McShane stated they are living with some zoning that was done years ago that allows for a lot of rural, but not agriculturally compatible development. The question is how hard they push for acceptable receiving areas that might speed development that would be detrimental to agriculture in the long run. He encouraged staff to look at agriculture TDR's also. It is equally important to Lake Whatcom. The permitting in the county has exceeded the growth estimates. The agricultural areas are growing faster than thought, primarily because it is cheaper and easier to develop there. There may be opportunities to protect the land that they are missing. Regarding rentals, they need to carefully word the issue of the look of multi- family housing. Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane about paying for TDR's when they should become denser already. If one of the objects is to hold the geographic line on the cities so they can preserve rural and agricultural land, they have to become denser in the cities. People have a severe reaction to that concept. If they don't become denser, they may create an urban fringe that have high -rise buildings, and the downtown areas are maintained as they are. He hoped that in the long run, they consider increasing density throughout the zones in the entire city. If they have that reality, it takes away from the market of a TDR program. Have a TDR program that works, and also have increased densities throughout the cities. Crawford stated it is not realistic that the City and County will work closely together. No one on the City Council could get elected by saying they want to increase density in the city. It's not going to happen. To deal with the issue realistically, he doesn't believe that they will be able to increase density or have a successful TDR Program. Fleetwood stated he agreed that it would be difficult politically. However, they don't have an option. If they don't have leaders in the city who will encourage their constituents, then in 100 years they will have suburban developments throughout all of Whatcom County. Once that happens, Whatcom County will have to grow upwards. Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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. Crawford stated he agreed, but the reality is that no one who wants to increase density in the city will get elected to the City Council. Fleetwood stated a person could sell the idea and create a vision for increasing density that is somewhat attractive. It takes a lot of hard work and effort. They have to try because the alternative is sprawl. Crawford stated the Caitec concept seems to make sense because it is a planned unit development, the density is predictable, and the political reality of not increasing density makes sense. What that area looks like has not yet been formed in the public's perception. They are going to need to shape it up front. Caitec is pursing the only route that is politically acceptable to make an area a higher density. That's the road they are going to have to go down. He's concerned that they keep saying they have to work with the City, but nothing happens. They must work with the City on the urban residential, mixed use (UR- MX) zone because it is all in the urban growth area. Working with the City to increase density is not reality. Fleetwood stated the City is putting forth significant effort this year over past years. There is hope. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Caitec concept is not the way to handle urban density. It is still urban sprawl. They are sprawling up the Guide Meridian. She agrees that agricultural lands be a part of the TDR program. One mitigation option is for Caitec to purchase some of the farmland in that area for conservation. If a development is done right, they can have density and make it an attractive area where people will want to live. There are examples of how that has worked. The City truly does want to work with the County on this. She is optimistic that this is the time to make this a viable program. Brenner stated they can't increase densities in places that are completely built out unless they want to level the area and start over. They have to have some respect for the people who are there already. A person's home is very important. They have to be very respectful of that. They can't view TDR as the ultimate answer. It is another tool to use. When there are heavily dense areas, include amenities in the area to make it compatible with the neighbors. Redevelopment is a perfect tool for TDR and high density, but going into existing neighborhoods doesn't work. Fleetwood stated that if the cities don't institutionalize their geographic boundaries and go up, they will sprawl out. They cannot have it both ways. Goodwin stated staff hopes to have a draft of the Bellingham urban fringe area done by early August and schedule a work session and public hearing with the Planning Commission. They are also having a work session with the Planning Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, 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 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. Commission on the UR -MX zoning. Both the City and County are talking about having a tour for councilmembers to look at some quality multi - family and higher density developments around the Bellingham and Ferndale areas. The City now has design standards for multi - family housing. OTHER BUSINESS Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, submitted the monthly permit chart. One mistake is the number of single - family residents permitted the first six months of this year should be 524, not 624. That was the total for the entire year, not too many years ago. There are updated population numbers. It's very difficult to determine where growth is going on a regional basis. The current mode split that is really happening versus what they want to happen is difficult to control. His office has been very busy. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated TDR has legal implications. The City of Bellingham and County had an outstanding demonstration on June 16. Austin and Beaver Creeks and Lookout Mountain watershed are areas for everyone to work together. Keep an open mind on the TDR's. It's a good idea. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription /X—E&i71 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 7