Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole February 23 20161 2 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 51 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee of the Whole February 23, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 3:28 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer, Todd Donovan, Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan. Absent: Satpal Sidhu. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER 2, LAND USE (AB2016 -0478) Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, stated his presentation on the Land Use Chapter will be divided into three parts: the Growth Management Act (GMA) and countywide planning policies (CWPPs), an overview of the current content in Chapter 2, and several proposed amendments to Chapter 2. He submitted and read from a presentation (on file) and described the history of the GMA requirements and elements and the countywide planning policies. Aamot referenced Comprehensive Plan page 2 -1 regarding the vision statement. The vision statement has not been changed since 1997. It has guided Whatcom County's planning efforts. He continued the presentation. Last summer, the City of Bellingham recommended maintaining the existing Bellingham UGA boundaries. Preliminary direction from the County Council on February 9, 2016 was to concur. The Bellingham City Council also recommended creating a UGA reserve area on the north side of the city called the South Caitac area. He would like direction on whether the County Council wants to maintain the Caitac urban growth area (UGA) reserve area. Brenner asked if the Caitac property leaves out the Larson Road area. Aamot stated it does. Aamot continued the presentation with the Comprehensive Plan designations and open space. Brenner asked if designated forestland is a combination of what used to be Open Space /Forestry and designated forestry land. Aamot stated it is. Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 1 1 Aamot continued the presentation on essential public facilities and on historic and 2 cultural resources, and he began the portion of the presentation on proposed amendments 3 to Chapter 2. 4 5 Brenner asked at what point in the process the County Council can say no. Aamot 6 stated the GMA encourages growth in UGAs. The GMA mandates protection of rural 7 character, but there are many existing lots that have already been created. A lot of land 8 has been downzoned through the rural update. Transfers of development rights (TDRs) and 9 purchases of development rights (PDRs) are other possible tools for rural areas. The issue 10 of water provisions in rural areas is before the State Supreme Court. 11 12 Brenner stated the City of Bellingham seems to be growing less and less. She would 13 like to know what the balance is. 14 15 Aamot continued the presentation. 16 17 Brenner asked if combining the Open Space /Forestry and designated forestry land 18 and reducing the number of acres to five caused a run on getting that category. Aamot 19 stated it is now five acres. That is a question for the County Assessor. 20 21 He concluded the presentation and then referenced policy 2GG -3. Text in that policy 22 was inserted in 2012 in response to a Hearings Board order. Council should consider 23 whether or not to leave that language in. Other language is similar, but this is in the 24 context of rezoning land. 25 26 Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, described the history 27 of Policy 2GG -3 to address the ease with which someone could rezone from rural, one unit 28 per ten acres (R10A) to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The language in Goal 2GG is 29 similar to the first sentence of the policy, which the Planning Commission recommends 30 removing. Leaving the sentence in the policy won't hurt and adds context to the rezoning 31 policy. 32 33 Grea Aucutt, Citv of Bellinaham, stated include the South Caitac nronerty in the IJGA 34 reserve. The area is suitable for future urban development. 35 36 Brenner stated she hears that people want to live in Bellingham, but can't afford it. 37 She asked how the City decides to expand. There is not much available affordable housing 38 in Bellingham. Aucutt stated it's too expensive for the City to extend services to the Caitac 39 area. 40 41 Brenner stated she thought Caitac agreed to pay for a lot of the infrastructure. She 42 asked if the City could negotiate for Caitac to pay some of the City's infrastructure costs. 43 Aucutt stated they didn't discuss it. He doesn't know if the City would fast -track a 44 development if the developer offered to pay for the infrastructure. 45 46 Browne stated he likes the direction of Councilmember Brenner's question. He asked 47 the cost per unit to install the infrastructure for Caitac. Aucutt stated the estimate may be 48 $30 million to $40 million. 49 50 Browne asked if the City would be amenable to incorporating the Caitac area if Caitac 51 were to offer to pay all or a significant portion of the City's infrastructure cost. Aucutt 52 stated he doesn't know what the City Council would approve. The population growth 53 forecast must support additional land. The County Comprehensive Plan requires criteria for Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 2 an area to meet to go from reserve to UGA. If there is a plan to provide the services and financing, and all the criteria are met, they can talk about converting the land to UGA and eventual annexation. Browne stated the lack of affordable housing impacts the ability of business to attract talented and qualified employees to the community. He would like to have a discussion on how to make a meaningful difference to the vacancy rate, which is unreasonably low, and the housing inventory. That may include a proposal for the developer to absorb the cost of infrastructure now in exchange for bringing forward their right to develop a project sooner. Aucutt stated the infrastructure requirements at Caitac and at Yew Street are significant. There is a question about how affordable that housing would be, especially if the developer were to pay for all the improvements. Browne stated that's driven by the allowed density and the original land acquisition cost. Aucutt stated a benefit of putting a property in a reserve is that it designates the area for a future urban growth area. Donovan asked Councilmember Browne how the original land acquisition cost would affect housing affordability. Browne stated that when the land was originally purchased by the developer, it could have been priced based on whether it was rural or urban land. On top of the purchase price, there may be impact fees. Several different expenses contribute to the cost of the raw land before anything is built on it. If that amount is acceptable, the developer will build on the property. Brenner stated the City could loosen its development rules to allow a developer to help the City pay for its infrastructure costs. Aucutt stated the City would consider it. Browne stated that to pay for infrastructure in an urban growth area, the City would finance the work with a bond and pay off the bond with impact fees. Aucutt stated impact fees pay a portion of the cost, in the amount of 15 or 20 percent. The rest of the cost is paid from street funds, grants, or other sources. Stormwater fees would pay for operating costs and to pay down the bond. Browne stated the developer should have the opportunity to take care of the cost of the bond, since they have to pay the impact fees anyway. Donovan asked if the County Council voted to approve something other than the Planning Commission recommendation. Aucutt stated the County Council voted in favor of the staff's recommendation of a growth allocation of approximately 31,000. Donovan asked if the Caitac areas was previously a UGA reserve. Aucutt stated it was not. Donovan asked what being a UGA reserve area allows, in practice. He asked if it's easier to be annexed. Aamot stated reserves cannot be annexed. Only UGAs can be annexed. Being a UGA reserve area means that the area will be first to be considered for expansion of the UGA in the future. There is no guarantee. Weimer asked what the development regulations in UGA reserve areas are and if the County precludes development in a reserve so it's not broken up into small chunks. Aamot stated that is correct. There is a ten -acre minimum. Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 3 1 2 Weimer asked if the area can be divided up according to the underlying zoning if it's 3 left out of the UGA reserve area. Aamot stated it can. 4 5 Darcy Jones, Jones Engineers and Caitac USA Representative, stated the City Council 6 recommends that Caitac be in the UGA reserve area. The Planning Commission 7 recommends that the Caitac area be in the UGA. Caitac was told that it would not be 8 brought in to the UGA because of population allocation and land capacity. The land capacity 9 of the city is significantly less than the City's estimate. The FEIS alternative allocation is 10 3,000 people less than the multi - jurisdictional resolution, which would allow Caitac to be in 11 the UGA, based on land capacity and population. He understands there is an overriding 12 budget issue. The GMA math has to do with population and land capacity. The city needs 13 Caitac to meet these population and capacity levels. 14 15 He's looked into the City's existing deficiencies. Of the $32 million assigned to 16 Caitac, over $10 million was actually for the King Mountain project. It was mis- allocated to 17 the Caitac project in the fiscal model. There are similar inconsistencies attributed to South 18 Yew Street that should be shared with other areas. The real cost is closer to $20 million. 19 The City's cost to build a water tank for $4.5 million would be much less for the private 20 sector. There is a significant difference between what the private sector can deliver and the 21 amount the City assigns to the project. Caitac is open to any discussion the City and 22 County would like to have. 23 24 Browne asked if it would make sense financially if the Caitac developer paid for the 25 City's existing deficiencies in exchange for developing now instead of in ten years. Jones 26 stated their fiscal impact analysis considers some contribution to the City's costs at a certain 27 level. There are many mechanisms to promote housing at the north end of the city. He will 28 look into this option and talk to his client. 29 30 Clayton Petree stated his clients in the South Yew Street UGA reserve area have had 31 discussions with the City and County about the infrastructure that would be paid for. The 32 development was eventually stopped and the area was removed from the UGA and put in 33 the UGA reserve. It's a very different situation. He encouraa_es councilmembers to look 34 through that situation. 35 36 Aucutt stated he disagrees with Mr. Jones' comments. He will provide a response in 37 writing. 38 39 Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the cost of 40 financing public improvements to urbanize these areas is a big issue. They are considering 41 cost sharing, financing, and alternative options for financing capital improvements in the 42 future. It's not something they can solve today, but they are aware of the issue. He will 43 work with the City to develop language that designates the South Caitac area as a UGA 44 reserve. He will bring forward that language at a future meeting. 45 46 Weimer asked if there was public outreach and involvement about the 47 Comprehensive Plan language in the Birch Bay and Columbia Valley UGAs. Aamot stated no 48 formal committees were involved. They had discussion with some folks in the area, but 49 nothing formal. There was an extensive process with the Foothills Subarea Plan on the 50 urban growth area boundary, which isn't changing. 51 52 53 Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 4 1 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DIRECTION 2 3 1. DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DIRECTION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4 CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS (AB2016 -047A) 5 6 Forrest Longman, Council Office, referenced the councilmembers' proposed 7 amendments on Council packet page 263. 8 9 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 1 -5, lines 43 -45, 10 "Approximately 73% of the population growth between 1980 and 2013 was due to in- 11 migration of people from outside the area seeking jobs, life styles, and /or amenities found 12 in Whatcom County." The motion was seconded. 13 14 The motion carried by the following vote: 15 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6) 16 Nays: None (0) 17 Absent: Sidhu (1) 18 19 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 1 -15, lines 16 -17, "Areas most 20 influenced by seasonal residency include Point Roberts, Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and the 21 Foothills Subarea." The motion was seconded. 22 23 Weimer asked if there are seasonal residents in Sudden Valley. The Sudden Valley 24 representative indicates that there aren't. 25 26 Brenner stated she assumes that the community is influenced by seasonal residency. 27 28 Mann asked if there is data instead of anecdotes. 29 30 Brenner asked if there is data that shows most people live in the Foothills area all 31 yearlong. 32 33 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, stated data was 34 gathered during the Foothills Subarea Plan process. There is a higher percentage of 35 seasonal residency than the countywide percentage. 36 37 Donovan stated the information on the locations of the vacation rentals by owner 38 (VRBOs) may provide some data on seasonal residency in Sudden Valley. 39 40 Browne asked why the private gated communities at Black Mountain Ranch and Cain 41 Lake aren't included. 42 43 Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated Black 44 Mountain Ranch and Lakewood at South Lake Whatcom are self- contained recreational 45 vehicle (RV) parks. 46 47 Brenner withdrew her motion. 48 49 Weimer moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page p. 1 -17, lines 44 -45, "Resource 50 land uses, which include agriculture, forestry, aquatic and minerals, are the largest category 51 of land use in Whatcom County." The motion was seconded. 52 Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 5 1 Brenner stated the definition of aquatic means anything in water, but the list is for 2 productive resource lands. She prefers they use the term "fishing." Aamot stated the 3 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.020 is the industrial policy, which includes 4 fisheries. However the RCW list of resource lands doesn't include fisheries resources. 5 6 Weimer stated it's not required to designate it, but there are many community 7 members who would like it recognized. It's the term the Department of Natural Resources 8 (DNR) uses when it talks about aquatic resource lands. He likes the term "aquatic" better 9 than "fishing" because it fits the vision. Chapter 8 addresses the use of aquatic resource 10 lands being better than fishing areas. 11 12 The motion carried by the following vote: 13 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6) 14 Nays: None (0) 15 Absent: Sidhu (1) 16 17 Aamot submitted a substitute for Table 4 in Chapter 1 (on file). 18 19 Brenner moved to include the new Table 4. The motion was seconded. 20 21 The motion carried by the following vote: 22 Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6) 23 Nays: None (0) 24 Absent: Sidhu (1) 25 26 2. DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DIRECTION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 27 CHAPTER 4, CAPITAL FACILITIES (AB2016 -047D) 28 29 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 4 -6, Goal 4F, "Achieve level of 30 service standard for parks and trails identified in this chapter. &Ltppart objectives an r'ities identified in the GempFehensive — Park5; Rees , in the 32 NatU_al rit Plan— and —in —this ply Support objectives and priorities identified in 33 relevant Dlans.. including this Plan." The motion was seconded. 34 35 Weimer asked if they have to identify specific plans. Aamot stated it provides some 36 specificity and detail. It's discretionary. 37 38 Browne stated be specific about the external documents they are referring to. 39 40 Brenner stated there are other relevant plans. 41 42 Browne stated they must be specifically identified. 43 44 Brenner stated relevant plans may come forward in the future. Keep it broad. 45 46 Browne stated he doesn't have a problem with future plans. He is concerned about 47 an open -ended statement that allows anyone to say they found a plan that should be 48 included. It's the Council's job to define the governing documents. 49 50 The motion failed by the following vote: 51 Ayes: Brenner (1) 52 Nays: Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (5) 53 Absent: Sidhu (1) Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, 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 Brenner moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 4 -7, Policy 4F -4, "Place a high priority on improvements to existing county recreational sites and facilities and using them to their full potential, ineluding these u4i -ned4n the 'nr".,tear., County Geer- ehensive Park--, Reereation--aftd-9pe a, before investing capital in the acquisition and development of new facilities." Don't include the Parks Plan in case the Council doesn't vote for it. The motion was not seconded. Donovan moved to amend Comprehensive Plan page 4 -9, Goal 4H, " Coordinate with non - county facility providers such as cities, school districts, and other special purpose districts to support the future land use pattern promoted by this plan." It adds greater clarity. There are references to the capital facility plans for the school districts. Those purchases drive development. The motion was seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Donovan (6) Nays: None (0) Absent: Sidhu (1) Aamot stated the Lynden School District and Fire District 7 approved capital plans, which will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m. ��if<'t bw Nun )A approved these minutes on April ♦ . r" o "" A ©and >13Ycfw.r��[7avi, Cot;!iicil Clerk !, �+ 1111114 4 5 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 5, 2016. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Special Committee of the Whole, 2/23/2016, Page 7