Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 22 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 22, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Absent: Kathy Sutter Marlene Dawson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96- 051 A) (The committee will be accepting written public comment only. People wishing to speak to the Council on this issue should plan to attend one or more of the three scheduled public hearings) Those also speaking included: Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Dan Gibson, Council's counsel Ward Nelson, Council member Tom Brown, Council member Starkenburg noted issues he, as Chair, wanted to discuss included County -wide policies. He directed staff to instruct the Planning Commission review the changes to the County -wide policies within 45 -60 days and return this section of the Comprehensive Plan to Council. Sjostrom stated the Interlocal Agreements pose no conflict with these policies. Basically, the only corrections attempting to be made are items that should not have been put in these policies in the first place, such as the designated population projections (the population has changed). Gibson stated that one issue with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) is: What does the County do with areas already committed to a pattern of development which is neither rural nor urban? Policies for these areas need to be addressed. Starkenburg moved to request the Planning Commission complete their work and send it back to Council within 45 -60 days. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 1 I Another item to be discussed was shadow platting. Starkenburg noted that much work 2 needed to be done. 3 4 Gibson and Knapp (handout on file) explained shadow platting, defining it as use of land 5 more efficiently with minimum density; and that it establishes a pattern for future development. It 6 is used to address the issue of infill. It was noted the GMHB is favorable to this concept. Further 7 discussion followed regarding pros and cons of this concept. Gibson noted this concept would be 8 implemented in a timeframe of 20 -40 years. Future discussion topics would include plan 9 implementation, hamlets, plan review, and parcel size. Knapp stated this concept is not an 10 incentive program but could be labeled one - -in some cases - -on larger lots. Gibson said there 11 would be two ways of accomplishing this: either as a requirement or by informing the applicant 12 that if he indeed had a shadow plat, he would be allowed additional densities, e.g. 13 14 Moving to the chapter on Land Use, the incentive program was discussed, specifically on 15 Map 10 (Incentive Rural). Starkenburg asked for the total amount of ag land necessary in the 16 plan, and wondered why other areas of 5R10 were omitted. Knapp replied ag land has been 17 diminishing for various reasons. Gibson interrupted to note a distinction between Incentive Rural 18 and Incentive Ag, which is not reflected on Map 10. Incentive Rural, if adopted, would offer 19 Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) for keeping a larger undivided parcel in its larger undivided 20 state. Gibson began explaining Incentive Ag, which is not reflected on Map 10, but then was 21 interrupted. 22 23 Incentive Rural was then discussed (Map 10). In answer to Starkenburg's question as to 24 who selected the specific areas as noted on Map 10, Gibson replied that in its March decision, the 25 GMHB invalidated the County's rural zoning (R2As and RRl, RR2, and RR3). By way of a 26 planning device, one way of addressing the GMHB's issue would be to reduce densities in those 27 areas somewhat voluntarily through an incentive program (TDRs). As to the specific areas on the 28 map, he continued that all those areas have been invalidated and asked how the County could 29 achieve compliance without overburdening property owners in those areas. 30 31 Sutter asked for other options other than the incentive program. Gibson responded by 32 stating one option may be bonus densities for clustering. The GMHB has, at this point, tended to 33 frown on that because, in the Board's view, people are being placed closer together in an area 34 which is likely to be incompatible with ag use, e.g. Whether or not this is the case needs further 35 exploration. 36 37 Nelson inquired as to the accuracy of the zoning on the maps. Are there any underlying 38 issues? Knapp replied he didn't believe so. Nelson thought clarity of this issue was necessary to 39 be established in order to know what needs to be protected. 40 41 Knapp commented as to the incentive program, which has worked on the East Coast, and 42 there are ways that it can be varied here. If it works to the benefit of meeting Growth 43 Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 2 I Management Act (GMA) goals where those densities are being moved out of ag land, e.g., it 2 might work. This does not work well as a bureaucratic transaction. 4 Starkenburg asked how many acres are in the Incentive Rural. Sjostrom replied 5 information would be forthcoming at a later date. If TDRs were implemented in the Incentive 6 Rural (IR) areas, Starkenburg asked where the transfers would go. Gibson stated receiving areas 7 would be designated within cities. The challenge would be that the density within those receiving 8 areas must be set lower than what the County would want it to be in order for there to be a 9 market. 10 11 Brown requested clarification regarding such receiving areas. The TDRs would go into 12 the urban growth areas or a hamlet. 13 14 Looking at time frames, Nelson noted they could be extended if so driven by the market 15 due to speculation. Some of the potential solutions include urban development within the rural 16 areas that could be future receiving areas, depending on many factors: water resources; sewer; 17 infrastructure support issues, etc. As these issues are addressed, the receiving areas "become 18 better and can then go into a higher density". Development of communities will take place. An 19 issue that needs to be addressed is how these communities develop in compliance with growth 20 management. 21 22 Gibson stated the counties would have to designate receiving areas, as the point of this is 23 to move densities away from rural or ag areas toward urban areas. So these receiving. areas could 24 be urban growth areas outside the cities or within city limits. Traditionally, if greater densities 25 have been achieved through political means -- upzoning- -and if it can be done more economically 26 than buying TDRs, that is what a county will do. This is an untested concept, which does not 27 mean it cannot work. 28 29 Brown inquired if the concept of transferring a given number of houses to commercial 30 designations has been considered. Knapp replied in the negative but thought it was a good idea 31 because value increments have been created. 32 33 Starkenburg asked of staff what the zoning would be were this system to be implemented. 34 Gibson replied it would be a low enough density to meet the requirements of the GMA (R10 or 35 Ag, e.g.). Gibson then noted he misspoke himself and replied the zoning that would be obtained 36 relates to the amount of TDRs that were sold off. Starkenburg stated that if the ultimate goal was 37 to drive it to the point of being back to Ag, he would then ask if more ag land were needed. 38 Gibson responded to the issue of more ag land needed by stating that the County has just under 39 90,000 acres zoned Ag. The ag census shows that approximately 140,000 acres are in 40 agricultural usage; however, the definition of "agricultural usage" may not be especially 41 meaningful. The question might be: What is going to happen to the ag economy if those 50,000 42 acres not zoned ag are converted to another incompatible use? Knapp added that critical mass is 43 important. If there is much transition on the edge, then the critical mass begins to become more Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 3 I difficult to maintain. Gibson further noted the critical mass is a dynamic concept. Starkenburg 2 stated this county is not one of "one size fits all" in dealing with the Comp Plan of Whatcom 3 County vs. another county. His opinion was that the best input possible is needed to custom 4 tailor the Comp Plan. The issue of the definition on "ag" is one he requested staff to examine to 5 begin the process of the options regarding the definitions. 6 7 Sutter noted population projection is another issue that needs to be dealt with, stating it 8 may need to be revisited frequently. 9 10 Nelson stated one of the problems of growth management is preventing farms areas being 11 paved over, as was done in King County. 12 13 Sutter asked what the criteria is for determining the amount of ag land needed. Knapp 14 replied that what the market can reasonably maintain must be examined. 15 16 The next topic was transportation. County and state levels of service were addressed. 17 Gibson stated there are some state roads of great regional significance; traffic loads on these are 18 not determined solely by the County. On the other hand, there are state roads primarily of local 19 significance; the state will not provide a high level of service on these. Knapp pointed out that 20 whatever the state decides on the level of service, they would be subject to the GMA. If a high 21 level of service is chosen and this County has no control over that, the state would then be 22 obligated to find ways to fund that level of service. 23 24 Nelson was concerned that if the County established a level of service too high, the 25 collateral effect from the state road would impact the County. Gibson noted that maintaining a 26 level of service is clearly related to costs for developers, which would be impact fees. These fees 27 would be paid by either the taxpayer or the developer. Brown was concerned about the moving 28 of the County's industry from resources to tourism, which creates more traffic and no 29- development to collect those impact fees. 30 31 Starkenburg noted Council heard from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the Cascadia 32 study, which spoke to the city's having only one commercial port, which is a critical piece of the 33 transportation issue. Rail is also an issue. Nelson stated access is a real asset for high- paying 34 jobs, noting that WWU is a big asset. He thought one of the issues that needs to be addressed in 35 the Comp Plan is site facility utilization in the community that can help develop into a commercial 36 property with telecommunication capabilities, either as an industrial company or strictly a 37 telecommunication one. An inadequate job is being done as to how to facilitate this problem. 38 Starkenburg stated the issues in the Comp Plan need to be examined in the broadest possible 39 manner. Gibson noted that Council has an obligation to make certain that the information it has is 40 adequate to address the needs of the community for the next 20 years. 41 42 Gibson reminded all of the timeframe that is involved and asked how much of this is 43 needed now and how much can be integrated into later updates. Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 4 I Sjostrom called attention to the fact that the Council of Governments has been working on 2 transportation issues and suggested their information be incorporated into this document. 3 Discussion followed with Nelson noting that as communities, resources and economic 4 development desiring to be utilized must be identified. 5 6 A short discussion followed regarding the process of the Comp Plan. Knapp stated the 7 highlight is the analysis that occurred on Capital Facilities and the ways of funding. The GMA 8 requires staff to link land use decisions with the funding sources. As cities take more land and the 9 transfer of assets goes to cities, the County revenue base declines. This needs to be reevaluated 10 because the picture is different the closer the Comp Plan becomes a reality. 11 12 Gibson stated that one thing the GMA has included and the GMHB "hammered on" is the 13 notion of public and an iterative (back and forth) process. The final goal is the adoption of the 14 Comp Plan implementing regulations. The GMA as well as the GMHB is looking for evidence of 15 a back and forth between citizens and decision makers and citizens and each other as movement is 16 made toward the final goal. This public process that has occurred is a reality which must be dealt 17 with. At the same time, that input is ongoing. In a general sense, as movement is made toward a 18 decision, it must be borne in mind that the decision must be rationalized in view of that input. 19 Council has tremendous freedom but only within the context of information received from various 20 sources. Starkenburg noted Council should tie its work schedule to the subarea chapters so an 21 idea can be seen of how these chapters will be correlated. 22 23 Brown was concerned with the need for public education regarding the public hearings. 24 Gibson commented tapes of those meetings (town meetings, e.g.) should be submitted as part of 25 the record. Nothing prevents people from saying anything (they are not under oath, e.g.), so that 26 becomes a challenge. The decision of the GMHB is one based on the record, which is the 27 collection of comments and data memorialized by tapes or writing. Sjostrom suggested Council 28 can memo the file, which becomes part of the record. Council can also note its decision is based 29 on information received from staff, testimony, forum, etc. 30 , 31 Starkenburg then stated after the public hearings, Council will hold work sessions, which 32 will be a time to draw conclusions to various issues. Staff will assist Council regarding any 33 changes to the existing Comp Plan. He asked how all the subarea chapters tie into this process. 34 Which language is going to be "the language "? Gibson stated the Comp Plan is the driver of the 35 subarea plans. The goals and policies Council adopt by way of the Comp Plan are then lived out 36 through the subarea plans and ultimately through regulations which implement those goals and 37 policies. He further stated Council does not need to have subarea plans. Subarea plans have been 38 chosen in the past because apparently there is a perception that more justice is done to the way 39 things really are if they are examined in line with geographic entities. Nothing has changed that 40 perception. Knapp elaborated by saying that subareas are more detailed and address the 41 uniqueness of each area. Gibson stated that the challenge faced is that those subarea plans are the 42 County's Comp Plan, and they govern land uses within those areas to the extent they are consist 43 with the zoning regulations. The question to be faced is if the Comp Plan is adopted in March Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 5 1 1997, what prevails until the implementing regulations are adopted? Knapp replied that if there is 2 a conflict between the Comp Plan and the subarea chapters of the Comp Plan, the umbrella Comp 3 Plan would prevail because it has the more recent evaluation. The subarea plan does need to be 4 reviewed and changed over a period of time to be consist with that umbrella part of the Comp 5 Plan. 6 7 Nelson inquired as to how to fine tune the regulations to comply with the Comp Plan in 8 relation to various subareas. A brief discussion followed in which Brown stated he felt Council 9 was being too specific within the Comp Plan in not allowing the public flexibility regarding the 10 subarea plans. Gibson thought subarea deals more with land use. Knapp stated it is so but capital 11 facilities also need to be examined. Starkenburg stated more information needs to be obtained 12 regarding each subarea. 13 14 Sjostrom stated the logic of doing the process this way is to allow people an overall view 15 of each one of the elements of the Plan for their special needs. 16 17 Starkenburg then reviewed the plan for the public hearings and work sessions. 18 19 ADJOURN 20 21 The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. 22 23 24 / 25 l 26 Eli beth Bennett, Recording S retary 27 28 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 29 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 30 31 32 /% l 33 34 Dana own- Davis, Coun it Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Counc' e Planning Minutes, 10/22/96, Page 6