HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 12 19961
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`;4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCEL
Planning and Development Committee
December 12, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96 -051D)
Starkenburg gave background information on the work Council has done so far on the
Comprehensive Plan. He then announced the format of the day's meeting, which would begin
with the Housing Chapter.
HOUSING
Michael Knapp, Director of Planning and Development Services, stated that most of the
affordable housing is going to be in or near the cities. The dilemma for the County is, outside the
growth areas, the Growth Management Act (GMA) makes it very difficult because it is difficult to
get services. He asked if the County can still have affordability out the rural areas, but not the
densities. Starkenburg replied that affordable housing should be kept in the cities where public
transportation is available.
Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments, stated that an area identified as urban growth
area (UGA) will not necessarily be built out. Also, access to transportation is addressed in the
chapter policies.
Starkenburg suggested deleting the word "unincorporated" in the introduction part of the
Chapter. This would provide flexibility. Committee concurred.
Starkenburg stated the action plan is going to require staff time and more work. The
ultimate goal is to reduce the cost of regulation in Whatcom County and become more flexible.
Terry Galvin, Senior Planner, stated that there are other programs that are going to take
care of much of the work, including regulatory reform, efficiency at the front counter, and
development standards.
Planning Minutes, 12/12/96, Page 1
I Starkenburg read from action plan #8. The long -range goal is to reduce regulation and
2 make housing easier. There is duplication in the forming of the committees, and he suggested
3 pulling out the duplication and requested staff seek these out. In action plan #25, the indication
4 there would be impact fees. There was a suggestion to reduce or eliminate impact fees for
5 affordable housing. It would no longer be affordable housing if those fees were required.
6 Another issue is the changes in providing the flexibility on the infrastructure. When providing
7 flexibility, he asked how one keeps a handle on who does what. Staff would have to make many
8 decisions that may become arbitrary. A procedure for decision making is needed. Staff must
9 spend time to develop a mechanism to fairly treat all parties and provide consistency.
10
11 There was discussion on accessory housing. Sutter suggested adding to 3C -1 accessory
12 housing as an option of affordable housing.
13
14 Discussion on lot consolidation then took place. Knapp stated that the Growth
15 Management Hearing Board (GMHB) does not want lot consolidation in the UGAs.
16
17 Starkenburg read action #24 regarding the special needs population. Rogers stated that
18 developers may be reluctant to build a special home because of increased cost. There is no
19 incentive. The intent of the paragraph is to provide incentive.
20
21 Committee concurred that the issue of transfer of development rights (TDRs) is not an
22 option at this time but should be examined in the future. Sjostrom stated that the land use chapter
23 would be a more opportune time to consider this issue.
�.4
25 Starkenburg moved to action #1 regarding allowing multiple parks in the UR zone.
26 Rogers stated that the current idea is to develop parks to address meeting density and
27 affordability. This is a move to affordability.
28
29 Donovan Kehrer stated that action item is to allow mobile home parks in urban residential
30 zones where they are not allowed now. Density for mobile home parks is about seven units per
31 acre. A mobile home park only works for portable things. Modulars are intended to be moved
32 only once. This action item is intended to have people think about creating a higher density in
33 urban residential with a higher compatibility.
34
35 Sutter replied that UR zones are not standing out in the County but associated with the
36 cities. There is a policy to establish a design criteria to fit these zones into the community.
37 Committee must consider if the mobile home park densities exceed allowable city densities in
38 areas that are going to be annexed. Sjostrom replied that this is not a problem because most of
39 the time cities must provide utilities for these parks. Knapp added that cities could allow
40 annexation if services are done properly. They do not want huge costs to bring services up to city
41 standards.
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/12/96, Page 2
I Starkenburg summarized action #27 and asked about the intent. Rogers replied that the
2 intent is a fall back position for people and developers who do not want to participate in any low -
3 cost affordable housing. This would be a way to still meet the idea of low -cost housing by
4 contributing dollars to an account. The developer gets the benefit of an incentive without
5 developing affordable housing, as in a high -end development.
6
7 Brown questioned the amount of disclaimers that state the County is not liable for
8 however many inspections are done. There is a need to review the intent of the law.
9
10 There was discussion regarding the difference between accessory dwellings and elder
11 cottages. An elder cottage is a type of accessory dwelling unit.
12
13 RECREATION
14
15 Starkenburg opened the discussion with the level of service (LOS) for parks. Roger
16 DeSpain, Director, Parks Department, stated that the problem with combining with other
17 jurisdictional parks is there is no control over decisions made regarding access.
18
19 There was discussion regarding including other jurisdictional parks- -such as state and
20 federal parks - -in the calculations for park lands available to the public. Sutter felt it was justified
21 to include non - County parks in calculations because there is a required periodic evaluation of
22 needs; if other jurisdictions shut down, the County can adjust. In developing the LOS, total lands
23 were used, not just developed park land. If lands in the system continue to develop, the County
24 would be creating more park lands.
25
26 Discussion followed regarding a discrepancy in the amount of maintained park land by the
27 County.
28
29 Sjostrom suggested looking at a model the state provides on how to come up with LOS
30 and look at what is currently provided for and what County plans to provide for in the future.
31 The Capital Facilities Plan shows what the plan is. The County has an opportunity to set the LOS
32 and can set a lower LOS and justify it by stating the other jurisdictional park availability.
33 Committee concurred.
34
35 Starkenburg questioned the intent of the action items by asking if the focus was on more
36 purchases or continuing to develop what the County currently owns. DeSpain replied that the
37 County needs to look at both acquisitions and private sector development. There are some
38 upcoming opportunities where the County should purchase properties. The demand will always
39 be there. The private sector must be able to be brought in.
40
41
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/12/96, Page 3
I Starkenburg encouraged Parks to look at funding methods. County funding is not going
2 to be there to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan action items. The action items should be written to
3 reflect the intent of the County. A general policy direction would be to spend money with private
4 organizations to develop property rather than acquiring more property.
6 Brown stated that the more acquisitions the County gets, the more it impacts the schools.
7 There needs to be a study of the total parks east of the Guide Meridian. Open spaces impact the
8 ability to fund government and essential services. Also, building more parks creates traffic; there
9 is no mitigation to help upgrade roads. Starkenburg commented that revenue from tourism may
10 offset the loss of tax revenue income. He directed the Parks Department to look at that
11 possibility. Knapp responded that many people like to live around parks, and property valuations
12 are significantly higher around open spaces. This generates more property tax revenues, which
13 could also offset the cost.
14
15 Starkenburg recommended that harvesting of timber on parks land to generate an income
16 be an action item and look at whether that revenue stream should be coming from selective
17 harvesting. Current action items may not be able to be carried out unless funds are identified.
18 Regarding action #20, he suggested looking at cooling efforts in that arena and looking instead at
19 creating water storage areas along the river to mitigate flooding and creating a secondary use for
20 those reservoirs as a park/open space attraction.
21
22 Next, Starkenburg inquired about the revenue history of the Parks Department. DeSpain
23 responded that current revenue is going down. There have been fee adjustments, but they are not
24 keeping pace with actual costs. Fees generate approximately $550,000 per year and should be
25 kept at a market competitive rate. Starkenburg stated that fees may have to reflect that services
26 can no longer be provided at no cost.
27
28 The topic moved to the proposed bike plan maps.
29
30 Sutter stated that bike lanes on new road construction should only go where appropriate.
31 Starkenburg commented that committee generally supports the bike plan as an action item as a
32 long -term goal but has no plans to implement the plan in the immediate future. DeSpain
33 responded by saying they need to have a plan in place when applying for state funding. Knapp
34 concurred by stating that, as with the road plans, the state awards more points in the funding
35 process if there is a multi -model plan. Sutter stated that it would be appropriate to have a six -
36 year plan along with the Transportation Plan and tie the two together.
37
38 There was discussion on the clarification of Maps #26, 23, and 27 and the proposed
39 facilities referenced on those maps.
40
41
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/12/96, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5 p.m.
C
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana rown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Coun#Aember
Planning Minutes, 12/12/96, Page 5