HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 15 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 15, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96-
051A) (THE COMMITTEE WILL BE ACCEPTING WRITTENPUBLIC
COMMENT ONLY. PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL ON
THIS ISSUE SHOULD PLAN TO ATTEND ONE OR MORE OF THE FOUR
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 95 -033 AND THE WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE SECTION 20.92 REGARDING APPEALS OF HEARING
EXAMINER DECISIONS TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL (AB96 -288) (FROM
10 /1)
Those speaking included:
Dan Gibson, Council's counsel
Dana Brown- Davis, Council clerk
Tom Brown, Council member
Ward Nelson, Council member
Barbara Brenner, Council member
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
There was discussion on the motion regarding transcripts.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING LAKE WHATCOM SUBAREA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
Planning Minutes, 10/15/96, Page 1
ZONING MAP FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES FROM RURAL
FORESTRY (RF) TO RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A) (AB96 -344)
Terry Galvin, Planning, spoke briefly.
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Sutter moved to amend by correcting the date on packet page 100, line 32:
"WHEREAS, the Council held a public meeting on October 1 1996 to consider
this matter...."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to recommend approval as amended carried unanimously.
3. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT (AB96 -051A)
Starkenburg noted today's meeting will deal with Chapters Two and Four of the Comp
Plan (Land Use and Capital Facilities). The first public hearing will be held this evening.
Those speaking included:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Tom Brown, Council member
Ward Nelson, Council member
Dan Gibson, Council's counsel
Knapp and Sjostrom spoke to the process of the Comprehensive Plan. Topics discussed
included: a proposed schedule; and Growth Management Act (GMA) goals.
Land Use was first discussed. Topics discussed included: the incentive program
(Transfer Development Rights, TDRs); options to TDR incentives; "fully contained
communities "; population projections; a specific commission to examine the needs of the "fully
contained communities "; and shadow platting.
Capital Facilities was then discussed. Sjostrom gave background information on the
Capital Improvement Plan. Topics discussed included: level of service; city parks and their
Planning Minutes, 10/15/96, Page 2
I availability for the general population; policy issues regarding revenue base and funding by cities;
2 tourism; future federal monies; essential services; department survey input; new technologies; and
3 bonding.
4
5 Starkenburg noted for the record that on page 2 -2: "This chapter has been coordinated
6 with the Transportation, Housing, Utilities and Environment chapters. Natural resource industries
7 are encouraged and property rights and the permitting process are addressed. County -Wide
8 Planning Policies (CWPP) are supported...." He stated that based on population numbers, this
9 section was requested to be revisited.
10
11 Knapp mentioned there had been a number of discussions regarding "new fully contained
12 communities" (page 2 -2). He stated the question the committee needed to address in its review
13 was: should new fully contained communities be discouraged upfront or should there be the
14 option for that as a way to approach growth? Gibson noted that if development of fully contained
15 communities were allowed and planned for, development must be thought of in relationship to the
16 size of urban growth areas for existing communities.
17
18 Nelson spoke to the unincorporated areas and wondered how they are recognized as
19 possibly developing or evolving areas. Discussion followed.
20
21 Parks and Recreation was then discussed, topics which included levels of service and
22 capital facilities. Starkenburg inquired of Batchelor where Whatcom County stands regarding the
23 level of service on parks per person - -how does our County rate compared to other counties in the
24 state? Batchelor responded by stating that the state's standing is approximately ten acres per
25 thousand population; the County's recommended level of service is approximately 9.8. As to
26 other counties, he noted there is quite a range, going from 2.1 to 10.2. Each counties' capital
27 facility plans are organized different from each other.
28
29 Brown noted the inconsistency regarding funding jails - -no proposal for increased jail
30 expendatures in the Comp Plan- -while Parks is calling for additional funds for more facilities. He
31 said Roads "have done a very adequate job" of their proposals. The Parks Department is
32 requesting millions in additional funds for 110 miles of trails in the next six years that far outweigh
33 the number of new roads. Brown stated essential services need to be covered. He stated other
34 counties do not have the existing facilities that Whatcom County has. Over 2,500 estate acres of
35 state park land is in very close proximity to Bellingham. Parks state they manage over 4,000
36 acres of park land; those numbers, however, are inconsistent. The City of Bellingham has over
37 2,000 acres of park land. A different level of service is available when one examines the other
38 entities. He noted that all the projected propoulation is not going to be living in the county and
39 will not be dependent on county facilities. Some will be dependent on the city and state facilities.
40 All these opportunities need to be included in Council calculations.
41
42 Starkenburg requested discussion on whether or not the city, state or other park land was
43 taken into this analysis as to the ratio. In order to arrive at a good decision, Council needs to
Planning Minutes, 10/15/96, Page 3
I know how much park land is available for a cumulative mass of people in Whatcom County. He
2 asked Batchelor if this planning process was dealt with singularly or corporately.
4 Batchelor responded by stating the level of service for Park facilities is for all the County
5 population within the cities based on providing services to all County residents. All those who
6 live in Bellingham are county residents. In answer to the question whether this included the
7 acreage the state has for its acreage of park land, Batchelor replied in the negative, stating this is
8 not a Whatcom County facility. Batchelor stated this County is basing its level of service on the
9 entire population but not counting what exists at the park lands within the city limits. He noted
10 the national park area is closed and not accessible to most of the county residents at this time of
11 the year.
12
13 Knapp stated there are two policy issues to consider: the County's declining revenue and
14 the question of how cities contribute to funding the County -wide park systems, since most of the
15 city population do use County parks; and the policy that relates to the number of tourists for
16 recreation purposes.. Is revenue being received based on that tourist influx? Is this enough
17 revenue?
18
19 Starkenburg noted that an issue the public would want Council to consider in the Comp
20 Plan is one of total lands available. He requested the number of acreage cumulative between state
21 and cities to use as a consideration. He asked if the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
22 that the process be done as Batchelor stated or if it is open so as to include the city and state park
23 lands.
24
25 Knapp replied it must be calculated as to how to pay for funding. If there are limited
26 resources, the focus would be on some type of sharing. Gibson stated there would be nothing
27 within GMA preventing Council from considering the accessibility of other park land. This may
28 be a different story regarding IAC issues.
29
30 Knapp noted the majority of the population would be in cities. How much park land is
31 available does need to be considered. There must be a way to pay for the future facilities.
32 Batchelor noted the funding for trails is currently coming from ICTEA funds, IAC and volunteers.
33 Where funding comes from must be identified. Basically, Land Use is adopted first with Capital
34 Facilities then adopted to service the Land Use. The annual budget follows.
35
36 Brown pointed out that there is misleading information being distributed regarding the
37 number of miles of trails; information is switched to suit the need. Discussion followed.
38
39 Discussion followed regarding the cooperation and participation of various department
40 heads in Batchelor's survey.
41
42 Nelson inquired of capital facilities regarding advanced communication technologies in
43 various areas. A brief discussion ensued.
Planning Minutes, 10/15/96, 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
Starkenburg referred to page 4 -3 regarding revenue bond debt. He asked if there was any
additional information. Batchelor replied he is relying on Brad Bennett, Finance, as his source of
information since two of the experts (Tom Sutberry and Bob Woods) are not now employed by
the County.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Elia Beth Bennett, Recording Se retary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Council M m er
(Clerk's Note: The next Planning and Development Committee meeting will be held on October
22, 1996 at 2: 30 p.m. The committee will be discussing the draft "atcom County
Comprehensive Plan [AB96- 05]AJ)
Planning Minutes, 10/15/96, Page 5