Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources August 13 20021 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 Natural Resources Committee August 13, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM (AB2002 -200) (Clerk's Note: The committee recessed from 9:31 to 9:41 to await staff's arrival.) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the County hired a contractor to do a study on transfers of development rights (TDR's) in 1996. That study is still relevant. Staff did a follow -up study in 1998 or 1999, before the Council adopted the TDR program. That is the basis for the program they have now. She also submitted an information packet for landowners, developers, and anyone interested in buying or selling development rights. It is meant as a step - by -step instruction manual. They need to figure out why it's not working, which is probably the lack of receiving areas or the ration between the sending and receiving areas. No staff is working on this project now, except Hal Hart. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated TDR's have been around since 1968. It is an incentive -based tool. The key thing is setting it up so the incentives are really there. In Whatcom County, it is currently set up so the sending areas that are rural or urban would send TDR to urban residential, mixed (UR -MX) zone areas. There are only three UR -MX areas and five total sending areas in Whatcom County. McShane asked how successful the UR -MX zone has been overall. Some developers are frustrated that they are not at urban densities. Goodwin stated it is a high priority for text amendments this year. Staff has received a lot of complaints from developers. There are differences of opinion between the County and City of Bellingham staffs on what should be allowed. County staff reads the code literally. The City has other ideas. The zone is a bit different in the city limits. A lot of things are negotiated. If someone wants city water, he or she has to do what the City says. Developers are having problems working with the City. If the zone allows multi - family, the County assumes someone can do that, but it isn't the Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, Page 1 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 case if they can't get water from the City. Those are the issues the County needs 2 to work out with the City. 3 4 Also, the neighborhood commercial zones were not intended to be for uses 5 that are moving in there. It was intended to be a pedestrian- oriented corner 6 grocery store or business that someone would walk to. Generally, a neighborhood 7 doesn't have enough people to support a chiropractor's office, for example. That is 8 not a neighborhood commercial zone use, but it is allowed. They need to go 9 through the code and tighten it up so they get the types of uses they were hoping 10 to get. They also need to work with the City to identify areas zoned UR -MX, but are 11 where the City really doesn't want multi - family housing. There is resistance 12 generally from the public on multi - family housing in an established neighborhood. 13 That is an issue that society needs to get over if they are going to have pedestrian - 14 oriented businesses. They can't do that at a density of four units per acre. 15 16 Hart stated one of the recommendations from staff would be to make the 17 UR -MX zone more compatible with the TDR system. 18 19 Fleetwood asked why they chose a density of ten instead of something else. 20 Goodwin stated the logic is that a zone of ten units per acre is compatible with 21 single - family residential zoning. More than ten would be multi -level high rises. In 22 a zone of ten units per acre, one can get a combination of single - family homes, 23 fourplexes, and townhouses. They are trying to maintain something to fit in with 24 established neighborhood. 25 26 Fleetwood asked if there was a discussion or decision on whether there 27 should be a neighborhood concept with houses as opposed to going up into high 28 rises. Goodwin stated they spent a lot of time on that when they worked on the 29 City of Bellingham urban fringe plan. The City and County worked on that for ten 30 years. That is when they discussed which areas would remain single - family homes 31 as opposed to having multi - family zoning or a combination. The UR -MX zone only 32 allows 25 percent of attached multifamily units, interspersed with single - family 33 detached houses. 34 35 Hart stated the legal theory is that everyone has a bundle of property rights 36 associated with their property. Those property rights can be limited through zoning 37 and environmental regulations. The TDR concept is that the right to develop can be 38 transferred from one site to another to achieve a public purpose goal. Most TDR 39 programs offer a combination of incentives and regulations. King County began 40 with a TDR concept similar to Whatcom County's, then got into a more staff - 41 intensive concept, which involved a banking process of those TDR's. King County is 42 trying to take rural, farm, timber, and environmentally sensitive areas, and transfer 43 the development rights in downtown Seattle. 44 45 The sending areas are the UR -MX zone. Landowners in sending areas are 46 restricted from making the maximum economic use through this process. This is a 47 way to compensate for that restriction. The TDR program is one more tool they Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, 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 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. have at their disposal. They can look at the current receiving areas, and other areas where they are trying to encourage density in Whatcom County. Work with the City to link to the downtown core. Also look at other urban growth areas. There are other growth areas outside of the City of Bellingham. If they have large developers active in those areas and who want to expand or change the densities, investigate that option. TDR's are dictated by supply and demand. Use has been minimal to this point. If they are to make changes and get into this, then a public cost in staff time will be required. Roy asked if the banking concept is actually money exchanging hands, or the administration. Hart stated it is a transfer, hold, and sending out of those rights. Roy stated it seems there are two options, voluntary and required TDR's. She asked for information. Hart stated that the committee should investigate the consultant's report. It is discussed. Staff can make a series of recommendations if that is what the Council would like to do. A lot of communities are using TDR's for open space corridor preservation and protection. There have been successful programs in other areas in the country. Fleetwood asked why the present TDR program does not work. Hart stated the UR -MX zone is one of the main reasons. They can broaden the program to make it more useful. Identify more sending and receiving areas. Work more closely with the City of Bellingham. One potential receiving area could be the Yew Street area. Goodwin stated one of the big problems is that no one knows much about it. There hasn't been a lot of public outreach about it. There has also not been an incentive. Now that there is a downzone in the Lake Whatcom watershed, there would be an incentive for people to transfer development rights if that right was maintained. If, in the final ordinance, people are given the development rights to sell but aren't allowed the option of building, then there will be marketable land that people will be interested in selling. There aren't enough receiving areas. The difficulty is getting utility approval from the City. As they expand urban growth areas, the code says that the County could require people to purchase development rights. They've never required that yet, although they've discussed it. The incentive for the seller, the incentive for the buyer, and the availability of land are the issues. They need to create a market for the rights. Hart stated it is important to allow the building industry into this process. Get their insight on how to develop the incentives better. Roy suggested also including the real estate industry. Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, 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. Goodwin stated a committee did that in 1999, and included realtors, developers, bankers, and lawyers who put together the TDR program. After working with the ordinance, they learned that they need to revisit it. They could reactivate that same group of people. Chris Spens from the City of Bellingham Planning Department attended most of the meetings. Roy stated City Council Members have told her that they are interested in this. McShane stated the County could hope the City will create sending areas and understand the needs. He sees that the timeliness of adjustments to urban growth areas would be helpful. There are places where they will decide they want urban growth to go. He doesn't know that those should be receiving areas. They should encourage growth without requiring a TDR program. When they look at UGA's, they will find big chunks of land and owners who want to be included. In some of those locations it would make perfect sense to be urban. There are other areas that would be okay to be urban, but not ideal. There might be some divisiveness in the community about it. If a landowner or developer wants to be in a certain area they have to provide benefits to the community beyond just building lots of houses. They need to have things prepared within the TDR program before they create the urban growth areas. The TDR program should be linked to UGA's. Fleetwood stated that if urban areas are going to have urban levels of density, then zone it that way. The implication is that voluntary, incentive -based TDR programs might not work. A successful TDR program assumes that the receiving area has restrictions on it. That's what creates a market and incentive for the developer to go and get it somewhere else. If an urban growth area has appropriate zoning, it will funnel the growth into that area and they won't want that many restrictions on it. They want developers to have the capacity to build as densely as they want, which implies going up. However, they can't have the beautiful Northwest farms, forests, and open space and not go into the cities. Voluntary, incentive -based TDR's might not work. If they have the right zoning in place, there won't be an incentive. The land should just be zoned at an urban density so people will develop up. The overwhelming rate of growth will overtake the UR -MX zoning. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Roy stated the other part is that it may work, but it may not be something they want to do. They may need to get a group together to look at the details of this. It seems that they could make it mandatory in certain circumstances. There has to be a very big incentive. They should be able to build to a lot more density than is zoned. Fleetwood stated the incentive is created by a restriction in the receiving area. He's not sure there should be a restriction in the receiving area. Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, 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 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 asked if that is out of the County's control. McShane stated it's the City's decision. The County can define areas where it wants urban growth and where urban growth would be just okay. The people who own that land stand to profit enormously when they grant urban growth areas and density. If it's not good for the community as a whole, then they should maybe pay back some by purchasing development rights. It's hard to have the perfect zoning. People have an expectation of developing their land. The TDR gives the Council an option of not being totally draconian by the zoning approach. Roy stated some people get a windfall if zoning is changed, and other people will get hurt. A function of a TDR program would be to balance that out a bit. Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association, stated none of the 21 neighborhoods in the City of Bellingham have provided for any increase in density in their growth plans. He asked what authority the neighborhoods have over what the City of Bellingham government ultimately does. If the City is not doing its fair share, then that ought to be understood. McShane stated the City is sometimes accused of not being as dense as it could be. His neighborhood is mostly single - family residences on 4,000 square foot lots. However, it is zoned multi - family. Any homeowner could convert his or her home into multi - family housing. There is nothing that would prevent them from doing that, other than economics. In Bellingham, they are starting to see a shift. However, the limiting factor is parking. Over time, the demand and value for property will go up enough that it will be economically viable to build the increased density. Figure out what the County can do within its power. If the City wants to cooperate, then that would be great. For now, the County will do what it can within its limits. Roy stated the County could be firmer in its resolve to deal with this issue. Emerson stated there are target densities to be achieved by both the City and County. Goodwin stated the City of Bellingham never adopted the targeted densities because it didn't agree with them. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the County should ignore Bellingham and try to develop areas where it can't change density. He's interested in the farmland issue. If there are a bunch of five -acre lots lined up around farmland, then go someplace where there are five -acre lots that aren't lined up around prime farmland and allow them to buy a development right. It would be a simple, easy thing to do. It wouldn't increase the density in the county, but it would shift the density to an area that is more appropriate for a house. Make it easy for the person who wants to acquire the development right. That is the problem now. If Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, 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. they are intent on downzoning these areas, give an outlet to the people who are going to be harmed. Hart summarized the comments. He may schedule a subcommittee meeting to discuss this further. To have a successful subcommittee meeting, the councilmembers who volunteered should review the materials he provided. He would think about a regional approach and try to find a successful voluntary system and other types of systems that are more regulatory. He will bring that information to the next meeting. Roy stated an issue is how this fits in with all of their zoning. It is not a separate issue. Goodwin stated they hope to have a buildable lands inventory for Bellingham and Bellingham's UGA by September. It will give them an idea of what land has potential for additional development. Identify areas that can take more density. If there were a large vacant area zoned for a high density, it would be a good tool for them to use. Hart stated they need to investigate how they can work with the City of Bellingham. He knows the City is interested in working on this. They should combine interests and find a regional approach. Roy asked about the zoning of the old Georgia Pacific (GP) property on the waterfront. Hart stated he is not sure what will happen with that property. He will pull together the other planning directors in the County between now and next Tuesday. He will survey the success of other programs. The subcommittee will look at them more intensively. Fleetwood stated they should broaden this to consider farmland. Hart agreed. The Code mentions two or three reasons why they are doing this. They want to amend the Code to add additional reasons for the TDR program. Goodwin stated that areas to be designated is discussed in the consultant's report. Since there was a limitation on receiving areas, and Lake Whatcom is one area where they knew they needed to transfer density, they started with designating just Lake Whatcom as a sending area. If they designated agricultural and other rural lands, then they would really have a shortage of receiving areas. Until they can identify a lot of additional receiving areas, don't designate a lot of agricultural lands or other rural areas as sending areas unless they start designating rural areas as receiving areas. They have to make sure the County doesn't get challenged for putting growth into rural areas. Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that in the past, they talked about a more holistic effort for developing properties in the UGA. They should revisit that in this discussion. There are not very many big planned unit developments coming Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, 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. through because people have a problem with a concept of a large developed area. Therefore, everyone is coming in, one parcel at a time. That does not make a neighborhood. There is not a cohesive sense of anything. As this moves forward, think about how they develop UGA's and how they work with cities. Once they get out of Bellingham, most of the cities barely have a planning staff. In the UGA's, those small town staff take it one property at a time. There is not a sense of community and good planning. All of this has to be looked at in terms of developing what they have any control over. The UGA's are huge, and there is a lot of potential there. McShane asked if there are any subdivisions coming through. Olason stated subdivisions are normally done one parcel at a time. McShane stated a number of subdivisions are done via exemptions. Olason stated he doesn't consider those in the same category. There is some five -acre zoning in UGA, but most is outside the UGA. Another concept is that the TDR might be a buy -down, versus a buy -up. Normally, they see development in areas with views at a lower density than allowed. Just because a property is a view property doesn't mean the developer is off the hook for meeting minimum density. People have to fairly share the burden of density. OTHER BUSINESS Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, discussed the resolution establishing an Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program guidelines (AB2002 -337). They will be approved as a resolution, rather than an ordinance because they will be easier to update. It will be done at the next Council meeting. The ordinance now identifies the Planning and Development Services Department as being the administrator of the program. It's not clear how that will be funded, and whether or not they will have staff for that. They talked about expediting the program and trying to get the application rounds open a month earlier to get an early start. Staff submitted a supplemental budget request that probably won't come forward. The department is left with determining how to staff that program. It's important to get a sense of how they are to carry this out. It's critical to know who will run the program. They also talked about assigning funding to it. Keep funding in mind. If they are required to absorb the program within the current staff and budget, they will have to decide what not to do. As they continue to discuss TDR's in the agriculture area, it requires staff time, information education, and management. The issue is that, as they move forward, staff needs to understand how to do the program. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated two supplemental requests are coming forward this year. The one that was approved was for a full -time equivalent (FTE) employee to deal with water resource issues, Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, Page 7 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 specifically for this year. They will need that again in the budget for 2002. There is 2 going to be a handoff between Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) issues and 3 critical areas, zoning, and other regulations. The request that is being held is a 4 PDR /TDR supplemental. The administration asked him to have a conversation with 5 the Council to get a sense of the Planning Department work program. The 6 administration asked him where the work program could be tightened up, so they 7 don't have to ask for an additional .5 FTE. The PDR program will require a .5 or .6 8 FTE. They need staffing for TDR's, PDR's, conservation easement tracking, and 9 bicycle /pedestrian issues. All those issues are regarding Comprehensive Plan 10 implementation and coordination of four or five programs. The County is involved 11 on a regional basis, open space, protection, preservation, and pushing development 12 away from things. That is the purpose of the additional FTE. If they don't have 13 that, then the question is what comes off the work program. They could limit the 14 number of Comprehensive Plan or zoning amendments they do every year. 15 However, those are very important. Other work program items may no longer 16 reflect the current Council's priorities. 17 18 Roy asked if increased fees could fund this position. Hart stated it is a 19 possibility. They are discussing it. However, the administration has a valid point. 20 The department may be doing things before that it no longer should do. 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 Olason stated that as of September 10th, they've completed the planning phase of PDR's. In terms of the typical long -range planning function, they are done. The question that needs to be worked out between administration and Council is how it should be carried out. McShane stated this was instigated by a controversial vote on splitting conservation futures money 50 -50 to buy agricultural land, even though there was no program to buy agricultural land. The administration didn't want to split the conservation futures fund without a program. The administration is bringing this fo rwa rd. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:12 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, Page 8 1 2 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. Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 8/13/2002, Page 9