HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 25 20011
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
48
49
50
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 25, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND THE
TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
ESTABLISH A PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA AT SUDDEN
VALLEY (AB2001 -310B)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this was docketed as an
urban growth area. The Planning Commission recommended approval. It is
recommended as a provisional urban growth area. If the Sudden Valley Association
is unable to achieve incorporation within five years, Sudden Valley would resort
back to a Resort Recreational subdivision. In most cases, there is reduced density
in areas. There is an overall reduction in density. Areas previously zoned as Urban
Residential - mixed, twelve units per acre (URM -12) have been changed to Urban
Residential, three units per acre (UR -3). There are several areas zoned Resort
Commercial that have changed to Neighborhood Commercial and Urban Residential.
Some of those areas already have developed condominiums or already - developed
uses. There would never be a commercial use there. The zoning was changed to
match the existing use.
Some areas go from URM -12 to Rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The
considerable decrease in density is because much of the area is steep. Get the area
into open space. One of two areas of discussion at the Planning Commission is the
Firwood Camp, which was previously included in the amendment. It is an area of
approximately 300 to 400 acres. It is a religious- oriented camp, and will remain
so. It is zoned urban residential. The proposal is to rezone it to Rural, one unit per
two acres (R2A), and leave it out of the urban growth area. The Planning
Commission left the zoning as it is, but did exclude it from the UGA. The staff is
concerned about leaving it urban residential outside of the urban growth area
(UGA) because it is not consistent with the Growth Management Act, but that is
how it is now. The owners of the camp spoke at the hearing. There are no future
plans for additional development. The UR -3 zoning is more flexible to build
permanent structures or residences for caretakers.
Another area changed is an old airstrip. The owners were mistakenly not
notified of the change. Staff brought that property back to the Planning
Commission after the hearing. The Planning Commission voted to reconsider, and
then excluded that parcel and the parcel, Lakewood Camp, owned by Western
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
50
Washington University from the UGA. That is a logical move. The zoning will not
change. Western Washington University would like to remain outside of a UGA.
The zoning of the airstrip is urban residential and will remain that way. Lakewood
Camp is zoned Rural Residential, four units per acre. The use of the airstrip is now
grandfathered in.
Staff can live with the Planning Commission recommendation. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal. Any change would require a public hearing.
Crawford asked for an explanation of the provisional element, in terms of
economics. He hoped there would be some analysis done on the economic
feasibility of a city there. There has even been action in the state legislature that
will further reduce or possibly eliminate any funding. He asked if that was
discussed at the Planning Commission. He asked if the provisional element is to
make Sudden Valley show how it will be financially viable. Goodwin stated the
Sudden Valley Community Association did its homework for the Planning
Commission, and submitted information on a potential city budget. Many of their
assumptions would be that they would continue to contract for shared services from
the Sheriff and for zoning permits and jail services. They based their estimates on
a preliminary discussion with the Sheriff and people who would be affected. There
is no firm binding agreement with anyone on these costs. The revenue would come
from the property taxes they would collect and from potential state money.
Crawford stated they don't automatically get their property taxes reduced
from the County. Goodwin stated the County gets what it gets now, but the County
will not get the road tax. Sudden Valley residents' biggest issue is that they
maintain their own roads, but still have to pay road taxes. When the area
incorporates, the taxes don't go up, but the County loses the road tax. Their
analysis is that incorporation is feasible. She is not convinced that it would be
feasible.
The zoning density would be reduced. It would be a net decrease in the
density in the watershed, and the County would maintain control of zoning,
stormwater, and development permits. Nothing will happen until there is
incorporation.
Crawford questioned whether the only reason for this would be to look at
incorporation. Goodwin stated yes.
Crawford stated Sudden Valley presented a potential budget to the Planning
Commission, and think they can make this work. The Planning Commission
response is to allow them five years to try and make it work. Goodwin stated
correct. If not, it goes back to a recreational subdivision in five years.
Crawford asked what happens when a small portion of the county becomes a
city.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County receives property tax
revenue in the form of road fund revenue, which is eight percent of the property
taxes paid for everyone in Sudden Valley. It is not that much money.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
Nelson stated the amount is $495,739 from the road tax.
Desler stated the County would lose revenue from any retail sales that occur
in that area. The County would receive 15 percent of one percent instead of a full
one percent. The City might be able to collect revenues for other small things. The
potential city would contract with the County for certain services. The County
would not loose about $600,000 that it receives now from taxes of the area. The
City of Sudden Valley could adopt a utility tax.
Crawford asked why Sudden Valley wants this. Goodwin stated they feel that
the extra $495,000 from the road tax, and some of the revenues they will get from
the state, will be enough to support the government if they add it to the amount
they get in association dues.
Crawford stated the crime rate in Sudden Valley is low. However, there has
to be a response time concern. On the other hand, they would contract with the
Sheriff's Office, so response times wouldn't change.
McShane asked if there are required response levels for urban areas.
Nelson stated the proposal is to add five deputies to the security, at a cost of
$100,000. They are only going to pay for 20 percent of that team of deputies, in
the amount of $100,000.
John Geehan, Committee for Incorporation of Sudden Valley, stated he
looked into sheriff's coverage. Sudden Valley would keep its existing fulltime
security, and then use five deputies to cover the area. They estimate that they
may use a deputy about 20 percent of the time. The use of 20 percent of five
deputies is the equivalent to one fulltime deputy, which they would pay for. The
amount would be $100,000. In addition, they would pay for jail services. They
would keep their security as it is, and take care of animal enforcement like they do
now. Their security officers can enforce the current covenants. They would overlay
the community association on top of the community. The sheriffs would respond as
they are now.
The basic issue driving their desire to incorporate is not to build a new
empire. The issue is not the need to expand, but to reduce. In order to reduce,
they lose the dues from lots they purchase. In order to continue density reduction,
they have to find another source of income. Part of that source is the taxes they
are already paying into the road fund.
Nelson stated one concern is a potential for an expansion once a UGA is
created. People in Sudden Valley have good intentions. He asked how to ensure
increased densities won't occur. Geehan stated everything is already platted. They
agree to sign an interlocal agreement with the County. Sudden Valley is
surrounded by land owned by the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
WWU, and The Firs.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
50
There would be other small sources of revenue. All they are asking for is the
Council to approve the UGA so they can study incorporation.
Nelson asked how UGA changes public access. Geehan stated it doesn't. It
would become more open to public access once they become a city.
Desler stated it is useful to have the analysis done again because there may
be misunderstandings. There are many restrictions on sources of revenue that
people assume are available for many things. In fact, the money is limited by State
law. There are references to taxes that might be collected and used. However,
those funds are not necessarily discretionary. Also, they should not assume that
there would be a capacity of five officers, one on every shift, assigned to a
particular area. The number of officers assigned are based on high crime areas and
the needs. The County has difficulty making arrangements with small geographic
areas for an exchange of better sheriff's service for payments. Payments come in
for a couple of years, and then disappear. That was the case in Peaceful Valley and
in Deming. In both cases, there was a good faith effort to expand law enforcement,
but the monies dried up.
Geehan stated a final analysis has to be done. That is not this point now. All
they are asking is to get the UGA, so they can finalize the figures.
Suzanne Blankston, Sudden Valley, stated the dues structure would remain.
As demands increase for the money from the lot owner membership, it will increase
the dues. The problem is that they are spending all their dues now on roads, and it
could be better spent on watershed protection. They have not gone into detail of
every expense. They have gone as far as they can to get the UGA approved. If
approved, they will spend money for surveys to see if they can meet the
requirement.
Crawford asked about fire services. Geehan stated they will continue with
the current fire district. The funds are designated funds. They are spending their
dues now to do roads. They will use road funds to do roads, which frees up the
dues to do other things. Also, they are not asking for additional police protection.
They will maintain the security force they have now. They will pay for what they
are getting at the present time, above and beyond the County taxes. They still
continue to pay the same amount as they do now to the Sheriff's Office through the
County tax structure, if they become a city. They would then pay an additional
$100,000 to have them spend some time in the city.
Crawford asked if the Sudden Valley Community Association exists
independently of the city. Geehan stated yes. It overlays the city. They would
maintain the covenants, which are more restrictive than anything the County has.
The dues support all that.
Crawford stated the City of Sudden Valley would take over the roads. He
asked if they would take over ownership of the roads. Geehan stated yes. The
money they are spending now on the roads from the dues would take care of some
of the things they can't do. They've lost dues do to density reduction. The City of
Sudden Valley would collect the road taxes.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
Crawford asked the dues for a lot with the house. Geehan stated the amount
of dues is $420 for a lot with a house.
Crawford asked the property taxes. Geehan stated it depends on the value
of the house. Property taxes are about $1,200 for a house valued at $100,000.
Another option is for the County to take over the road maintenance.
Dawson stated the roads would have to be upgraded.
Blankston stated all the roads are a foot or two less than County
requirements. The covenants state that Sudden Valley has to spend a minimum of
$350,000 per year for road maintenance.
Dawson stated they don't want to increase the road standards, because they
are in the watershed. They want smaller roads.
McShane asked the population. Geehan stated there are about 4,000 people.
McShane asked the current build out, versus potential build out with density
reduction. Goodwin stated there are 1,789 developed lots. Some are condos.
Crawford stated there are about 1,500 left that could be developed.
Goodwin stated the proposal would reduce density further.
McShane asked how binding, for perpetuity, the interlocal agreement would
be that would lock in the density. He read policy 2Z -24 into the record. Also, the
City of Bellingham should be involved in interlocal agreements because Lake
Whatcom is the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin stated that is a valid concern. Staff will work on making the
agreement legally binding. The County's hammer is that future city of Sudden
Valley is counting on the County to provide police, zoning, and building permits. As
long as the County is providing services in Sudden Valley, it can make a good
legally binding agreement. The City of Bellingham should have input because it is
their watershed.
Crawford suggested writing a section six of the ordinance document that
states the interlocal agreement must be drafted and signed before the provisional
urban growth area status is granted.
McShane stated incorporate the policy in the ordinance. Goodwin stated they
could do that, but if Sudden Valley tried to incorporate without the interlocal
agreements in place, the County could argue to the Boundary Review Board that it
is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and growth management. The County would
have some legal basis to enforce this. The City of Sudden Valley wouldn't try to
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
violate this. If it did, the city could find itself before the Growth Management
Hearings Board.
Dawson stated they would also violate their own covenants.
Goodwin stated as they do density reduction, and a lot of undeveloped tracts
are owned by the association, conservation easements could be filed and recorded
for perpetuity.
Crawford asked if Sudden Valley gets its water from Water District 10.
Geehan stated yes.
Crawford asked where Water District 10 gets its water. Geehan stated the
water is from Lake Whatcom.
Crawford stated Sudden Valley would have a vested interest in taking care of
the lake.
Geehan stated that, of the total acreage, 50 percent is in green space.
McShane asked about other alternatives besides incorporation to deal with
roads. Goodwin stated another alternative is to decide whether the County will
take on road maintenance. The Public Works Department is not interested. It is
concerned about width, depth, and steepness of the roads.
Crawford stated the roads around his house are County roads, and they don't
meet County road standards. Maintaining the roads is a possibility. He moved to
recommend approval of the Planning Commission recommendation.
McShane stated he wanted to amend policy 2Z -24 from Council packet page
200 so that the City of Bellingham is included in the interlocal agreement. Goodwin
stated that if the Council doesn't make that as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, they don't have to have a public hearing. If the Council
directs staff to work with the City of Bellingham, they will.
McShane moved to request that staff work with the City of Bellingham to
include them in the interlocal agreement.
Crawford accepted McShane's motion as a friendly amendment to his motion.
McShane stated that down the road, Sudden Valley could decide it's not
happy with County Sheriff services, for example, and provide its own police service.
To do that, they would have to increase their density. His amendment is one more
check that is significant. The City of Bellingham would have to approve the
agreement as well. There is a temptation to have commercial development.
Geehan stated there is no room for commercial development.
McShane stated things change.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
50
Nelson questioned whether there are agreements now between Sudden
Valley and the City of Bellingham for services. Geehan stated they don't provide
direct help.
Goodwin stated there are agreements between the City of Bellingham and
Water District 10.
McShane stated the water district is deemed to be the bad guy at Lake
Whatcom. Their goal is to provide efficient service. To do that, it means greater
density.
Nelson stated that if the City doesn't grant Water District 10 any more
capacity, then the water district would have no ability to offer Sudden Valley
increased service if they try to expand.
McShane stated the City should participate in that discussion.
Blankston stated the contract between the City and Water District 10
includes all of Sudden Valley at their full build out density.
Crawford stated Sudden Valley would never have any desire to develop
Sudden Valley. Future generations are not going to have a problem with this
Council asking for an agreement to include the City of Bellingham for its input on
density increases.
Dawson questioned whether the City of Bellingham would have veto power.
McShane stated it would for increased density. That is what the County
already has in this policy. The City needs to be included.
Dawson stated she agreed with consulting the city, but they have no
jurisdiction.
Goodwin suggested talking with the City of Bellingham and Water District 10
in the next several weeks to explore the contractual relationship for sewer. She
would bring that information back, craft wording, and make that section six of the
ordinance. The Council can't adopt this until the end of November.
McShane agreed.
John Watts, City of Bellingham City Council Member, stated this is a tact that
might solve a problem. He was comfortable with an amendment to consult with the
City. Jurisdictional responsibilities will last in some fashion. A time may come
when another district sets up around the entire lake. A concern is what happens to
watershed protection at that time, and the role a new city will play. He also
questioned whether Sudden Valley residents understand the kind of work they are
taking on here. They might need to address early on the possibility of more surface
and stormwater management. That is not a cheap proposition. A concern is
protection of the watershed and reservoir, and respecting the Comprehensive Plan
intent to follow Growth Management. In addition to the monetary hit Sudden
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
48
49
50
Valley is taking now, there are also not monies or procedures in place to allow them
to retire some of the lots. That is a real problem. There may be some other
alternatives.
Crawford stated they are talking about two things. Councilmember
McShane's amendment is for the instance that the future city of Sudden Valley
would propose a density increase. The City of Bellingham and Whatcom County
would be party to an interlocal agreement in which they would have some say on
density increases. He questioned whether the city would want to comment on that
issue, or on the general idea of creating an urban growth area. Watts stated the
city would want to comment on the issue of density increases. The idea of another
urban growth area in the watershed is problematic and needs more discussion. He
supported talking with the City to explore the possibility of an interlocal agreement
to see how a future city might be accommodated through the facilities.
Crawford stated that the wording of the amendment would require the City of
Bellingham to sign the interlocal agreement, or they don't go forward with the UGA,
even though they are talking about an interlocal agreement on density increases
that haven't been proposed.
McShane stated that is correct. This is similar to the Lake Whatcom
Management Committee. They agree to work together on a lot of things, and
they've all put money forward to agree. This adds a fourth player separate from
the rest of the Lake Whatcom Management Group. They need to make sure
everyone works together on the shared watershed. In the past, there has been
animosity when one of the entities does something without consulting with the
other entities.
Crawford questioned whether the allowance of a provisional UGA would not
happen based on the request to pursue an interlocal agreement. He is not thinking
of holding up the UGA until Bellingham signs on.
McShane stated he agreed. The City of Bellingham would have a say in any
future increase in density.
Crawford stated he would not want to allow the City of Bellingham to stop
the UGA from happening.
McShane agreed.
Nelson stated the amendment would set a precedent. There are enough
safeguards in place. For example, Birch Bay has talked about becoming a city and
UGA. Ferndale and Blaine should not have the right to say how Birch Bay expands.
If Sudden Valley becomes a city, treat them like a city.
Crawford stated he rescinded his acceptance of McShane's motion. He
restated his motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, 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
McShane stated this would go forward to the Council with no
recommendation.
Goodwin stated this ordinance would be adopted with the other
Comprehensive Plan amendments at later date, not at the evening meeting. The
only reason it is scheduled on the evening's agenda is to discuss whether or not
there would be a public hearing.
McShane moved to amend that the UR -3 zone at Camp Firwood be changed
to R2A.
Dawson stated that is a downzone.
Crawford stated there was substantial comment from those folks. There was
a considerable amount of debate among the Planning Commissioners on that issue.
Motion failed 1 -1 with McShane in favor.
McShane moved to introduce the ordinance at the next Council meeting in
case the Council makes changes and needs to hold a public hearing.
(Clerk's note: This motion was not voted on.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/25/2001, Page 9