HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1994-075I
W,; '.A7�t OM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 94 313.
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Dalte Received in Council Office:
Agenda date
Assigned to:
Originator Carl Batchelor
Hal L� I� J 1� i°
!''`1 0 ! 1994.
HA COM COUN
COUNCIL
�L16/7/94
Council 10 / 25 / 94 : He ld
Division Head: Dan Taylor
S E1
6/14/94
P & D Committee &/8/9
Ounc l
Dept Head: Nate Brown
6/28/94
P & D / Council 12/6/94:
Prosecutor, .
7/12/94
P &D / Council e
Purchasin ud et:
9/6/94
Council Hearin
Executive:
9/13/94
P &D / Council
ounci
SUBJECT. A request to amend the Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map and the Official Whatcom County
Zoning Map from Tourist Commercial (TC) to General Commercial (GC) for approximately 29 acres and from Urban
Residential Medium Density 18 Dwelling Units Per Acre (URM 18) to General Co cial for aoximately six acres.
�ECTIV U
ATTACHMENTS. Agency Report with attached Staff Report AL Z 9 1994
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
WHATCOMyCOUNTY
SUMMARY STATEMENT.• Please complete sections of box as appropriate &� pTa9Nhe item below.
Related County contract #: n/a
Should Clerk schedule a hearing? NO W YES / / Requested date:
Amount budgeted for this item/ project: $ n/a
Is it or will it be within budget? YES / / NO / / lease explain below n/a
Bud et line item number(s): n/a
The subject property is in the Urban Fringe Subarea, which is near completion of a Comprehensive Plan and zoning update.
Ierefore, Staff originally recommended tabling the request to allow consideration of the request as part of that process.
ibe Planning Commission made a motion to approve part of the request and the motion failed to pass by a vote of 3 to 4
in favor. Council's alternatives are to 1. take no action. 2. remand the request back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration, or 3. conduct their own public hearing on the matter. If option 1. is chosen, the matter dies and the property
will continue to be evaluated within the context of the overall Subarea Plan. If option 2. is chosen, the request will retain
its status as a quasi-judicial matter and the Planning Commission would be best advised to avoid discussing the subject
property or its immediate surrounding area as it continues with work sessions on the Subarea Plan. If the Council wishes
to take some action other than that recommended by the Planning Commission, it must choose option 3. and conduct its
own hearing.
ORIGINATOR'S RECOMMENDED ACTION. • The Director of Planning and Development Services recommends Council
take no action.
COMMITTEE ACTION TAKEN.
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN.•
5/7/94: Held until 6/14/94
6/14/94: Held until 6/28/94
Related File Numbers: 09 -93: CZM
11/8/94: Council scheduled
hearing 12 -6 -94
12/6/94: Adopted 6 -1
Amended Ord. #94 -075
6/28/94: Held in Committee until 7/12/4
7/12 94: RegI�eqt preparation of n or finance
9/6/4: Heid in coinmit e nti /13/94
Ordnance or Resolution umier (t�is item only):
SF/f.3'/9W: Held until 9/27/94
9/27/94: Held in committee
10/25/94: Hid in committee
GARP=.ord 12/15/94 SPONSORED BY: CONSENT
PROPOSED BY: CONSENT
INTRODUCTION DATE:
1 ORDINANCE NO. 94 -075
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA
3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
4 ZONING MAP FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL
5 FOR APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES
6 WHEREAS, Paul Garrett et al., represented by Mark Lee and Bob Tull,
7 attorneys have requested that the Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map and
8 the Official Whatcom County Zoning Map be amended from Tourist Commercial (TC)
9 to General Commercial - (GC) for approximately 23 acres and
10 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36. ' 70.590 legal notice was published in the
11 Bellingham Herald on Thursday, Februa 24, 1994; and
12 WHEREAS, the Deputy SEPA Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance
13 on December 9, 1993; and
14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
15 amendments on March 9, 1994 and considered all testimony; and
16 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a work session on May 4, 1994; and
17 WHEREAS, at the special meeting on May 4, 1994, a motion was made to
18 approve the proposed rezone for the Tourist Commercial area only and the Planning
19 Commission voted against the motion, therefore not recommending the rezone; and
20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's Agency Report on the proposed
21 amendments, dated May 4, 1994 was considered at the County Council's June 28, 1994
22 meeting; and
23 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the
24 Bellingham Herald on Saturday August 6, 1994; and
25 WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on September 6, 1994 to consider
26 this matter and has received extensive testimony.
27 WHEREAS, the Council found the amendments in the best interest of the public
28 health, safety, and welfare; and
Page 1
1 WHEREAS, the Council has adopted the following Findings and Conclusions:
2 FINDINGS:
3 1. Bellingham And Whatcom County are presently nearing completion of a periodic
4 update of the Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan.
5 2. The site is relatively flat; soils are mostly Urbanland Whatcom Labounty
6 complex, 0 -8% slopes; and, with the exception of the former drive -in site and the
7 immediate frontage along Maplewood, the site is forested.
8 3. � There is a likelihood of some wetlands on the site.
9 4. Sewer and water service are available from the City of Bellingham.
10 5. The Tourist Commercial zone is too restrictive and precludes economic
11 development of the subjected property.
12 6. City & County staffs have recommended Gateway Industrial zoning and have
13 emphasized design concerns.
14 CONCLUSIONS:
15 After holding a public hearing, the County Council concluded that the modification of
16 proposed rezone is appropriate because of changed conditions in the area, the
17 inappropriateness of the Tourist Commercial.
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that:
19 Section 1. The Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map and the Official
20 Whatcom County Zoning Map are hereby amended from Tourist Commercial to
21 Gateway Industrial for approximately 23 acres ( Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 380214
22 287420, 380214 418409, 380214 318452, 380214 354437, 380214 335449, 380214 360422,
23 380214 358407, 380214 288406, 380214 285357, 380214 450403, 380214 380388, and
24 380214 315357); subject to the following conditions:
25 a. a project utilizing the Planned Unit Development procedures will be used to
26 determine individual shop size limitations;
27 b. hotels and motels are permitted uses.
Page 2
1 Section 2. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this
2 Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part
3 thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid.
4 Section 3. This ordinance shall not take effect until a concomitant rezone agreement, in
5 a form approved by the Prosecuting Attorney, haO&ecuted by the property owner and
6 recorded by the Whatcom County Auditor.
7 ADOPTED this 6 day of Dec._, 1994.
8
9 ATTEST:
10 , . +�
11 ' ona ves cil Clerk
12 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
13
14 Civil Deputy Prosecutor
15
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
( ) Approved ( ) Denied
Shirley Van Zanten, Executive
Date:
*Clerk's Note: The Executive declined to sign this ordinance on 12/22/94 because she
disagrees with it, according to an informal, handwritten note initialed SZ,which
states, "I decline to sign this ordinance." According to Whatcom County Home Rule
Charter Section 2.30 states, in part: "If the Executive does not either sign or veto an
ordinance within ten (10) days, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, after
presentation of th ordinance by the Council, it shall become law without the Executive's
signature." This ordinance was adopted 12/06/94; therefore it takes effect 12/16/94.
Acting Council Clerk dated 12/22/94
Page 3
i.
WHATCOM COUNTY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
5280 Northwest Road, Suite B iScarr
Bellingham, Washington 98226 -9094 X20.6/67
b
M E M O R A N D U M n'C-TRIBLITE® TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO: Whatcom County Council Members [PIE C E u V E D
FROM: Carl F. Batchelor, Senior Planner
NOW 9 3 1994
DATE: November 23, 1994 WHATCOM COUNTY
RE: Urban Fringe Subarea Land Use Plan COUNCIL
This is to bring you up to date on the Urban Fringe Subarea Land Use Plan and
zoning update (File No. 21- 90:CZMT). As you well know, this has been a long and
detailed process with an overwhelming amount of public involvement and numerous
City and County Planning Commission meetings and extensive deliberation. You
received the first draft of the Subarea Plan in January of this year prior to the first
Planning Commission hearings. For your interest, I have attached a summary of the
process and a log of my files to date plus a log of public input.
The Planning Commissions have completed their deliberations and recommendations
for the subarea. Due to a backlog in cartography for producing the Proposed
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, the maps showing the commissions' final
recommendations are not yet revised in a reproducible format. The map revisions
are due to be completed for staff review by December 8. Given this schedule, you
will receive the entire package, including the proposed plan, maps, Agenda Bill,
Ordinance, Staff Report and copies of the Planning Commission minutes by
Wednesday, December 21.
There are several important features of the Commissions' recommendations that I can
briefly summarize in this letter:
• Bellingham's Urban Growth Area to the north is proposed to be enlarged by
approximately 590 acres from its present boundaries. This expansion is
reflected in the Proposed Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
• Approximately 365 acres of the enlarged area are proposed for residential use.
• Approximately 225 acres of the enlarged area are proposed for industrial use.
cfb 1c: I wpwin601 wpdocs l urbfringl council. mom
• Approximately 200 acres in the present UGA are proposed to be rezoned from
residential to industrial.
• Approximately 116 acres are proposed to be changed from commercial to
Gateway Industrial.
• Approximately 2,000 acres are proposed to be designated URMX, Urban
Residential -Mixed Use Zone. This is a new zone initiated by the Whatcom
County Planning Commission specifically for the Urban Fringe Subarea to
replace large areas of single family urban zoning presently 1 to 4 units per
acre. The URMX zone is primarily a single family zone that allows for
development of new, pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods at 7 to 14 units per
acre. The zone allows centers up to two acres for limited commercial and
industrial development with opportunities for walking between residential areas
and shopping and employment. The centers may be no closer than one half
mile from each other or other commercial areas. The zone also allows the
integration of higher density multi - family with single family development
provided the total number of multi - family dwelling units does not exceed 25%
of the total number of units in a designated neighborhood.
• Over 1,800 acres are designated as 5 -year Plan Review and Update Priority
Areas. These areas will receive first consideration for inclusion in Bellingham's
Urban Growth Area at such time that a need for more land is justified by
updated land supply and demand studies, anticipated to be done at least every
five years.
• An Action Plan, with recommendations to address such matters as an
interlocal agreement with Bellingham, design standards, the Guide Meridian
Improvement Plan, and creative development techniques.
It is customary for the County Council to hold at least one additional hearing on
a proposed subarea plan. Hearings for previous subareas have sometimes been
limited to specific topics or geographic areas where there is ongoing concern. I
anticipate that for this subarea, you will want to hold at least one joint Bellingham
and Whatcom County hearing of unlimited scope. I urge you to give substantial
weight to the recommendations of the Planning Commissions, as these are the
results of considerable deliberation and public participation.
cc: Shirley Van Zanten, Whatcom County Executive
Nate Brown, Whatcom County Director of Planning and Development Services
Tim Douglas, Mayor, City of Bellingham
Patricia Decker, Bellingham Director of Planning and Community Development
cfb 1 c. I wpwin601 wpdocs l urbfringl council. mem
SUMMARY OF URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLANNING PROCESS
November 23, 1994
STAFF WORK
In mid 1989 the County planning Department began to work on the Urban Fringe Subarea
Comprehensive Plan update by drafting an outline for a new Background Document. In
November, 1989, Dan Taylor and Carl Batchelor, County Planning staff began meeting
with Bill Geyer and Bill Hager of the Bellingham Planning Department to develop an
approach to the update. In February, 1990 the Whatcom County Council and the
Bellingham City Council adopted a Joint Resolution giving direction to the respective
planning departments to officially begin work on the update. Staff continued to meet two
or three times a month through 1990 with Bellingham planner Joann Smith being assigned
to work on the project. City and County staff continued to meet regularly for a total of over
50 meetings.
ADVISORY CONINIITTEE
Work continued through 1991, although at a slowed pace because both city and county
planners were required to work on intervening projects including the West Bakerview
Annexation, Cordata North Rezone request, .and various requirements of the State Growth
Management Act. In 1991, City Planner Pat Anderson was assigned to the project. A
citizen /technical advisory committee was selected in August of 1991. The committee
included interest parties and technical resource people such as water districts, fire
districts, school districts, property owners, realtors, and land use consultants. The mailing
list for the Advisory Committee has over 90 entries, but about 30 individuals participated
on a regular basis. The Advisory Committee met as a group nine times between
December, 1991 and November, 1993. Also, Advisory Committee members attended the
"town hall" or public information meetings that were held and attended the Planning
Commission work sessions.
PUBLIC INPUT
In January, 1992 a series of four "town hall" public information meetings was conducted.
Meetings were held at Sunnyland Elementary School on January 21, Alderwood School
on January 23, Shuksan Middle School on January 27 and at Silver Beach Elementary
School on January 29. Attendance varied from as few as fifteen people to as many as
200. Many issues were raised at the public meetings and were summarized in the staff
report to the Planning Commissions in February, 1994.
In 1990, a file was begun for collecting the written input that was beginning to come in.
This file, combined with the Advisory Committee mailing list and the signup sheets from
the public meetings has been used to compile the mailing list used for publicizing public
meetings. This is in addition to the usual press releases to all newspaper, television and
radio media and legal notices for Planning Commission meetings. Staff also accepted
invitations to present project information to a meeting of the Birchwood Neighborhood
Association on March 17, 1992 and to a Muljat Realty staff meeting.
After the initial public meetings, staff focused primarily on putting together a Draft
Background Document detailing features of the physical environment, existing public
facilities and utilities, land use and development patterns and trends, population
projections, existing comprehensive plan and zoning designations, and findings and
1
issues. The Draft Background Document and the Findings and Issues section were
distributed to the Bellingham and Whatcom County Planning Commissions and to the
Advisory Committee in October, 1992.
On October 7, 1992 the first Joint Bellingham/Whatcom County Planning Commission work
session on the Urban Fringe update was held. On December 2, 1992 a special joint
meeting was held for the purpose of allowing Jean Gorton of Trillium Corporation and
Roger Almskaar to make a presentation on behalf of Caitac Corporation in support of
Caitac's request for rezoning approximately 600 acres known as the Wilder Ranch or
Cordata North. In the interest of fairness, this meeting was open for comment from the
public in general. A total of seven Planning Commission work sessions were held through
the end of 1993.
One of the primary issues arising out of these proceedings is the need for an accurate
evaluation of the amount of land available to meet the residential needs of the projected
increases in urban population for the next 20 years. In February and March of 1993 a
special purpose committee was formed for the purpose of reviewing the planning staffs
urban residential supply estimates. The Urban Residential Land Supply Panel was
composed of nine panelists including one County and one City Planning Commissioner,
(one of whom is also a realtor) three other realtors, one residential developer, one
professor From the Geography and Regional Planning Department at Western Washington
University, and two "ordinary citizens." Staff included Bellingham Planning Director
Patricia Decker, County Planner Carl Batchelor, City Planners Joann Smith and Rob Ney,
and Planning Interns Steve Scherma, and Cathy Beattie. In addition, wetlands and critical
areas specialists Chris Spens and Chris Pires and surveyor /development engineer Ron
Jepson were invited to lend their expertise. The panel met eight times between March 10,
1993 and April 21, 1993. The result was an Urban Residential Land Supply Report,
released May, 1993, representing the consensus of the Committee's deliberations. Three
of the realtors and the residential developer on the panel released a minority report titled
"Business Community Commentary" in July, 1993.
In May and June, 1993, another series of three "town hall" public information meetings was
conducted. Meetings were held at Shuksan Middle School on May 20, Sunnyland
Elementary School on June 1, and Shuksan Middle School on June 9.
On November 1, 1993 the Advisory Committee met for the last time to review and discuss
the "Preliminary Draft" Comprehensive Plan, an "in- house" draft written for committee,
staff, and Planning Commission review and refinement. Another Joint Planning
Commission work session was held on November 10, 1993.
The SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review of the plan update was initiated in
January, 1992 with a Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice from the Whatcom
County SEPA Official. Subsequently, in March and May, 1993, the City of Bellingham re-
issued the Determination of Significance and June, 1993 repeated the Scoping process.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published November 1, 1993. The
DEIS incorporated environmental review of 20 -Year Growth Alternatives for the City of
Bellingham including Bellingham's proposed Urban Growth Areas and the Urban Fringe
Subarea. On November 18, 1993, the Bellingham Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the DEIS. The deadline for written comments was December 20, 1993. The
O
Final Environmental Impact Statement, which includes the comments received and
responses to those comments, was published October 31, 1994.
In January of 1994, the first draft of the Subarea Plan update was distributed and the
Planning Commissions held their first hearing on February 9, 1994. Hearing notices were
mailed to more than 700 property owners and over 200 people attended the hearing. After
the hearing, a total of 19 City, County, and joint Planning Commission work sessions were
held. As the new UR -Mixed zone evolved, it was deemed necessary to hold two more
hearings. Notices were mailed to over 1,000 property owners and hearings were held on
September 8 and September 14, 1994. Subsequently, six more work session were held
through November 9, 1994 to finalize the recommendations of the two commissions.
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 10
Hamilton moved, McRory seconded to delete d) "Best Management Practices" definitions.
Motion Carried.
No changes on page 4.
14.06.030 Disclosure
Moved by Urso, seconded by Landcastle to leave A.1 as written. Motion carried.
Moved by Landcastle and seconded by Fogelsong to accept staff proposal to amend Title 14,
Chapter 6, Use of Natural Resources, as written and amended ... motion carried, with Ernst
nay, and McRory abstaining.
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, David Simpson, at
7:05 P.M. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers, 1000 North
Forest, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Elaine McRory, Dave Ernst, Leslie Hamilton, Clare Fogelsong,
Jerry Landcastle, Phil Urso, Rod Erickson, and Dave Simpson
STAFF PRESENT Dan Taylor, Carl Batchelor, and Carole Magner
File # 9- 93:CZM Rezone Tourist Commercial & URM18 to General Commercial
No conflict of interest was revealed by Commissioners. Carl Batchelor presented staff report,
explaining that the request is to amend the Urban Fringe Subarea Comp Plan map and the
Official Whatcom County Zoning Map from Tourist Commercial to General Commercial for
approximately 29 acres and from Urban Residential Medium Density 18 Units Per Acre to
General Commercial for approximately two acres.
This area is under review for the Urban Fringe Subarea update. The application was received
in 1992, but for various reasons the hearing was delayed. A proposed comp plan does not
have any legal validity. In 1983 sewer and water service extension to the property was
approved by the City, with the stipulation that the uses remain the same on the property, but
the service was never hooked up. Staff conclusion is that there is no factual basis to support
designating additional General Commercial land in this area and the proposed Light Industrial
zoning is probably right for the area. The major difference between the two designations is
that GC would remove all size limitations, which means development could be on the scale
of Costco. Staff recommendation is to table this rezone request and allow it to be considered
along with the Urban Fringe Subarea update that is now nearing completion. He would not
want to take this out of the overall study.
Ernst asked Batchelor for his best assessment of the timeline for the Urban Fringe Subarea
and Batchelor explained that the goal is to prepare it for Council review in June /July.
The hearing was opened for public testimony.
Bob Tull, 1616 Cornwall, Bellingham. Tull is the Attorney representing the applicant, Mr. Paul
Garrett, who is the Trustee for the applicants and is here tonight from California to answer
questions. He referenced colored map (exhibit 2) that shows the property and the Tate Report
as included in (Exhibit 1). Copies were distributed to the Commissioners. Tull explained that
Batchelor misunderstood the Tate Report which Tull had given him for review. Although some
Commissioners might think him stupid enough to hand Carl the sword with which to "lop off
Tull's head" ... The City did the Tate Report very carefully in the summer of 1993 on the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 11
West Bakerview area. This is not the main issue, but Tull wanted to explain it in order to clear
the record. The Tate Report is poorly written and easily misread; however, Tull believes it
indicates a dramatic need for additional GC property in the county. Tull and Batchelor agree
that the difference between GC and TC is the limitation on store size and this is the issue in
today's retailing climate. Drainage and access are things that will be addressed when a
project comes forward ... not by rezoning the property. Does it make sense to leave a zoning
designation that hasn't been working very well. There is no meaningful policy distinction
between Tourist Commercial and General Commercial. In terms of visibility, this property if
properly developed could be an asset to the County. People with commercial property in the
area do not want to be downzoned to LII. Garrett has never been approached by anyone to
develop his property for Tourist Commercial, Light Impact Industrial, or Residential uses. On
the other hand, he has been approached on numerous occasions by others interested in
developing the property for GC uses, but in sizes larger that 2500 sq ft stores. Finally, the
staff's concern with a rezone of the urban residential parcels is based solely on a desire to
avoid removal of property from the residential land supply. Such a removal will not technically
occur, however, since multi - family development not to exceed 18 units per acre is a permitted
use in the GC zone.
Since 1984 the County's Urban Fringe Subarea Plan made it pretty difficult for Whatcom
County to have much say in development. Bellingham was given the right to decide if and
when the City would provide utility services. Would it not make more sense for the County
to decide what is best for the property. Current utility availability is for hotel /motel and
anything more will have to have the City's permission.
Attachment C: Jack Lynch, Property Counselors's letter, dated June 12, 1992 was
referenced.
Downzoning to LII would not be acceptable by the applicant ... the applicant recently received
property tax statement with an assessed valuation which looks like approximately a 400%
increase.
Mr. Garrett's trust (which has been around for several decades) is in the habit of acquiring,
developing, holding, and maintaining property. With the proper zoning, it could help the
overall community.
Mark Packer, 129 North Commercial, Bellingham. He is an Attorney representing Dr. Wilbur
Kukes who owns the property of the southwest corner of Airport Drive and Bennett Road.
As to the rezone request itself, they would say "good luck to anyone trying to make a living
in commercial land development these days." He is here because staff is proposing to
downzone his GC to LII. It is important for Commissioners to understand what is going on
here ... Packer quoted page 3 of staff report, last paragraph. Packer questioned the validity
of using existing zoning to analyze commercial development potential in the area when the
draft Urban Fringe Plan proposes to change some of that zoning. He requests his client's
property remain in GC and give these people what they want too because before anyone ever
gets a building permit will be a long way down the road.
George Wisbey, 3207 West Maplewood, Bellingham. He is one of the little, tiny potatoes in
the middle of this situation. He lives in what he thought was a residential area for 18 years
and now he is being squeezed out. As long as the Commission is rezoning property, he and
his neighbors want GC zoning too. His residential home is stuck in area no longer suitable for
residential use. They are getting pushed out. Traffic impacts are unbearable. There are 20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 12
apartment units at the back of his property and 20 more going in on the side. His property
is zoned now for apartments. It is an undesirable neighborhood. Mr. Garrett's property is
being trashed. Two vacant houses on it are not being kept up. Transients are moving in and
out.
Bob Anderson, 203 West Holly, Suite 319, Bellingham. He is a Land Use Consultant and just
met the Wisbey's; so he has only had one day to prepare. He explained that the Wisbeys'
property got changed to URM18. It had been zoned TC. It is hard to see area as residential
housing area. The Wisbey's are having difficulty finding a neighborhood to move to and the
kind of financial compensation they can get for their property with its present zoning is not
enough. Anderson requested the Commissioners have compassion for their ability to relocate.
He suggests Commission do this by sending forward to the Council with recommendation to
change to GC and include the Wisbey's and their neighbors to the north and south. The
changing environment is difficult for these elderly people to cope with.
Baijot asked if this abuts the city limits, shouldn't it include little islands of residential zoning?
(Immediately south is City limits with residential zoning, 20,000 square feet, two houses to
the acre).
Margaret Dahl, 1600 West Bakerview, Bellingham. She thinks it is a crime that she and her
neighbors continue to have to come to these meetings and look at lines on maps. She would
invite the Commissioners to come to their neighborhood. Come and see where this property
is located and you will know it is Commercial property. It is not liveable any more. She
suggested Commissioners hire a bus and visit the area and see what is going on.
Hal Arneson, Jr. Real Estate Broker. One of his clients is Beatrice Stark. They have property
across from the Garrett property that was zoned GC many years ago. The Stark family
supports zone change for the Garrett trust. GC is more in tune with what is likely to happen
in the Bakerview interchange neighborhood. They are concerned about the downzoning to
LII. There is a substantial difference in value on a square foot basis between tourist
commercial and general commercial.
Baijot asked how big is the parcel he is talking about. Arneson explained that Beatrice Stark
owns six acres of GC on the south side of Airport Drive. The Stark Family Trust owns an
additional three acres of GC that fronts on Bennett Drive. They also own six acres of LII and
five acres zoned URM18. They are not asking for any changes, but that current zoning be
maintained during the Urban Fringe update. They do not want their GC holdings to be
downzoned.
Simpson asked what is the approximate difference in sq footage value between GC and LII
and Arneson explained that the difference is $2 a sq ft as you move from LII to TC to GC.
You are talking substantial dollars.
Tracy Ham, 3620 Bennett Drive, Bellingham. Her property is adjacent to the Garrett property
but inside the City limits. She favors changing the zoning to commercial. She has 4 1/2
acres and with all the development going on in the area (they have apartments in the front and
behind and on the opposite side of the street). It has become a busy street and not someplace
they want to live any longer. They need their zoning upgraded too.
Carol Scott, 3211 West Maplewood, Bellingham. They have had their property longer than
the Bisbey's have had theirs. It was originally residential zoning and although they voted for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 13
it to become TC, unbeknownst to them it became URM18. Now, they too are in the same
little triangle that they would like to see go GC. The area and the school system can't stand
another apartment building. There's getting to be a lot of crime in the area.
Juleah Price, 3121 Cherrywood, Bellingham. While she is sympathetic to the frustrations of
the property owners living adjacent to a rapidly changing and unstable area. All the way
across north Bellingham, you can hear the same frustrations. She asked for clarification on
how much residential -multi land is being considered as part of this rezone? The paper
advertised it as approximately two acres. Now tonight they are saying the figure isn't exact.
The map looks like it might be fifteen acres. This is a huge area. Do you as County Planning
Commissioners feel comfortable making decisions about the City's Urban Fringe. She is the
representative for the Birchwood Neighborhood Association. They have been involved in the
City's Urban Fringe process and Comp Plan process. The neighborhood is 'surrounded on
three sides by the County's urban fringe and it is therefore very important to the residents
how that area is developed. The residents do not want anything of any size there. The area
cannot bear a super sized store like Walmart or K -Mart that will bring traffic from all over the
city to this location. While she doesn't know what the best use of the land is, she is certain
that adding in residential multi property will change the outcome. What the Commissioners
don't see on their county maps tonight lies just inside the City limits. It is a well established
single family neighborhood fighting on all fronts to maintain residentially friendly road. The
City has been ensuring residents that the road is not planned for commercial. Residential
multi was built in the head waters of Squalicum Creek which was disturbed terribly several
years ago by the development. The Birchwood area already has neighborhood commercial
with the Albertsons mall. When the City did the Bakerview annexation /rezone, it promised
to keep its regional commercial in Guide Meridian area. Price believes the area should serve
the motoring public going east and west off the freeway, but not serve the city for super large
stores. "fhe property that is being wedged out is at least zoned URM18 and there should be
value in that. There is more to the area than just what is seen in terms of the freeway.
Jeff Baglio, 3108 McLeod, Bellingham. His property comes close to abutting applicant's
property. He has been active and involved in the meetings on the Urban Fringe. He has found
the process to be unique, collaborative, and comprehensive effort of community members,
staff, and Council members working together to plan. This is an exciting process. He
understands the frustrations of the residents in the area, but we need to make a decision
about what is going to come of this area otherwise rezone all to commercial down to Shuksan
Middle School. To rezone now would be saying to the community that your efforts are not
really important. Instead need to let the plan work and develop in a most respectful way for
the City and County together. He disagrees with Tull's statement that the area is obviously
Commercial. He lives in the area, it is his home, and he isn't commercial. He is asking
tonight to let the plan allow for proper development.
Robert Ryan, 2723 Cedarwood Avenue, Bellingham. He is also a representative of the
Birchwood Neighborhood Association. He has attended a number of the City Planning
Commission's meetings. They are working in the dark. We need to wait on the City's
neighborhood plans and the County's industrial land supply study. He urged Commissioners
to wait for the completion of these studies and plans in order to make intelligent decisions.
Nelson Winter, 2701 1/2 West Maplewood, Bellingham. He lives in the Birchwood
neighborhood and has four children in the schools in the area. He talked to a couple of people
in the Sheriff's Dept because he was concerned about traffic problems in the area. The least
amount of tickets handed out in the area has been 36 -- the most is 44 -- in a month for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 14
speeding. There's already problems with congestion and concerns for children's safety. He
agrees with Mr. Baglio: if going to make it Commercial, bring it all the way down to Shuksan.
If GC, the only ones that can afford it is retail. The only thing that could afford it is a Walmart
and the Birchwood Neighborhood isn't ready for that. The reason they are in the terrible shape
they are in now is because of the poor planning that has been done and if it continues, it will
boggle us under.
Stuart Plotnik, 901 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham. It is a strange and almost tragic irony that
this application makes strange bedfellows between the interests of perhaps large scale
developments and people who have been good neighbors living quietly and in peace for many,
many years. He hopes that ultimately, whatever is done, gives these people some relief. He
noted that his observation of the process is that regardless of whether the application has
merit or not, the applicant should have made the case that the rezone is in the public interest.
It is his opinion that the applicant' has not done this. He urged the Commissioners to let the
process continue.
Joann Smith, Planning Manager for City of Bellingham. She urged Commissioners to table this
issue and deal with it in the context of Urban Fringe Plan that they have been working on.
There are a lot of issues here, not just this particular property. Planning Commission needs
to ask themselves about the context here. Is it really relevant what the county -wide need for
Commercial sq ft really is? What does this area serve given its location and proximity to the
airport? The City Planning staff has less concern about issues of use, than about issues of
scale (Walmart versus smaller commercial use ). Whether the use is Commercial or Light
Industrial, the issue of buffering for the neighborhood must be considered. City Planning
Commission has discussed the issue and supports the staff recommendation. She encourages
Commission to accept staff recommendation and table this.
Paul Garrett, who represents the owners of the property. They have owned the property for
four /five years. He has been in the real estate business most of his life. How much
Commercial is needed is determined by the buyer. If entire area is zoned commercial, it still
depends on a buyer ... this is a natural commercial location, other areas are not. The owners
are frustrated by their inability to get anything to happen. The County continues to say,
"wait, wait, wait." They requested the rezone at the end of 1992 and it is now 1994. While
he is in favor of a proper development process, waiting by itself won't get us anywhere. The
principle problem his trust has is that the current TC zoning allows for only 2500 sq ft
development and they can't get any interest in it. There is no advantage in terms of location
to it being an industrial site. It is, however, a natural commercial location. While the trust
wants to work with the Commission as best they can, they are frustrated by the slowness
of the process. They think it is a reasonable request and they would like to go forward with
it.
Fogelsong asked if neighborhood commercial which allows 6,000 sq ft had been considered
and Garrett explained that because GC is across the street from their property, he thinks it
is natural commercial. No one from Walmart has ever contacted the trust.
Tull added that he thinks this land is way more valuable than what Walmart will pay. His
understanding of their strategy is to buy low cost land. Tull is not unaware of the problem
of how to stop this swirl, this merry -go- round. Thanks to the Garrett application, the
Commission can focus on this area of the subarea. It is important, however, to recognize that
the applicant had the right in 1992 to submit an application and have a hearing in 1993. The
County Planning Commission has a statutory responsibility to deal with the application today.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 15
Some of Ms. Price's concerns about traffic and buffering and open space will have to be
addressed. If the Commission wants this area to be handled comprehensively and not nibbled
away, then there needs to be a strong opportunity for development and this requires GC
zoning. Upon rezoning, the owners will go into a development phase. One of the first
decisions will be to decide if Maplewood as it reaches Bakerview should work in its present
fashion. The Commission needs to let a responsible development move forward in order to
make those kinds of decisions. Tull referred to loose colored map and explained that if we
keep saying no to general commercial along Bakerview which is a natural area for logical /major
transportation corridors, where will it go. Tull thinks it will go on Guide Meridian and people
don't want it to continue marching north up the Guide. This area is naturally suited for
regional marketplace because it is suited for servicing and major freeway connection. If
commercial zoning is compressed, then it will cause major leap frogging. Tull would like this
to go forward to the County Council immediately. The immediate neighbors weren't solicited
but they too recognized the need for comprehensive planning.
Ernst asked Tull if his client is proposing a PUD for this property and Tull explained that no
PUD is planned at this time, but that the interest of the owner is to develop the entire site to
maximize freeway access. He thinks it can be done without a PUD, but maybe not without
a major development permit. The city's concept is a planned commercial approach. The
county's process could probably use PUD although the County's PUD is to provide a
mechanism for combining uses that aren't compatible. The City's receptiveness depends on
treating the property in a comprehensive manner. Ernst is also worried about fragmented
development. Tull explained that the Maplewood access to Bakerview is immediate problem
for any type of business proposal other than an espresso stand or something like that. This
will have to be dealt with in a way that addresses circulation. Tull's client recognizes that
circulation issues will require that some sort of proposal will have to be done. There's no
demand for TC. In fact, the trust acquired the URM18 in order to shift uses and to deal with
access and circulation.
Baijot tried to get a perspective on size. This proposal is about 30 acres ... Bellis Faire is 70
acres ... Sunset Square is a comparable 30 acre site. Would Walmart and apartments
generate the same kind of traffic? Smith says scale and magnitude of commercial use is the
issue.
Tull: Peak hour high density residential is same as commercial ... police and fire is drastically
lower for commercial ... the more serious the problems, the more assurance there is that they
will be dealt with. The process is a self- actuating kind of thing. Protecting the residential
area in the coming decades from hodge -podge development should be a concern. Client asked
to proceed in a business like manner. Tull thinks it is a real avoidance of the issue to delay
... Need to break the log jam some time.
Fogelsong noted however that he is not reassured that existing environmental regulations will
protect some of the issues in the area because some of those regulations are presently under
attack by some of the interests represented in this room. The Critical Areas Ordinance for
instance is in limbo right now. Fogelsong is not assured there's protection in place right now.
Tull suspects that to get utility service for anything more than a motel /hotel /restaurant will
require getting the enthusiastic support of the City Council.
With no further testimony, the public hearing closed to oral and written testimony.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 16
Moved by Ernst, seconded by McRory to accept staff recommendation to consider this as part
of the regular urban fringe update process.
Landcastle asked for Ernst's thoughts and he explained that in general he prefers looking at
larger area when making this kind of decision. This general area has been discussed once
already and the Commission is coming back to it ... Marine Drive to Bennett is industrial ...
this will set anchor ... he is concerned about scale ... needs to be looked at in terms of the
county south as well as north. Sooner or later the City and County lines must come together.
Hamilton explained that her sense is that this is a fluid process and they are still working on
this. Her sense is that the Commission could derail the work the citizens have done if we
don't allow the process to be completed. The County must still meet with City of Bellingham.
While she recognizes that it is very awkward to make the-applicant wait for two years, her
sense is that the Commission benefits the public process by waiting a little longer.
McRory agrees with Hamilton. We should validate the public process by waiting until the
County and City meet.
Fogelsong does not think there is any question that this Bellingham neighborhood will be
impacted. His inclination is that it should be GC, but the County's responsibility is to the
other process. The County has been strung out to dry for not paying attention to public
process. He wants to review public testimony from the Urban Fringe hearings. This rezone
is at the top of birchwood neighborhood and it is a little presumptuous not to consider the
City's needs since it is the city uses that will drive this area. He is not opposed to GC but he
wants to honor this other process.
Simpson disagrees. This is a rezone process which should not be confused with the Urban
Fringe request per se. The Commission has responsibility to deal with it and make a
recommendation on it one way or the other.
Hamilton thinks it is not possible to look at without considering all the work that has been
done this past year. It does not stand alone.
Landcastle and Fogelsong added that no one other than the Planners think this should be LII.
Public testimony from the Birchwood neighborhood did not want LII.
Ernst noted however that LII has been asked for although it has yet to be resolved whether
this is the area that should get the designation.
Simpson noted that testimony in past as indicated that TC zone doesn't work. Even Gateway
Industrial had to be upgraded to 35,000 sq ft.
Hamilton added that no one is endorsing not to change, but need a fuller analysis.
Call for question.
Batchelor explained that staff recommendation is to table this and to consider as part of the
overall urban fringe subarea package.
Roll Call Vote: AYES: Fogelsong, Hamilton, McRory, Ernst; NAYS: Landcastle, Baijot,
Simpson; ABSTAINED: Urso, Erickson. Need five votes for a rezone.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting April 13, 1994 Page 17
Baijot asked new commissioners to study urban fringe and they agreed to do so.
Moved by Fogelsong, seconded by Baijot for reconsideration of the motion. Motion carried.
Moved by Simpson, seconded by Baijot to make work session on this item on May 4 at 7 p.m.
Taylor will discuss with Prosecutor if Commissioners can talk about this in light of the Urban
Fringe.
Ernst won't support motion because this needs to be considered in light of the urban fringe.
Motion Carried.
With no further business to come before the Commissioners, the meeting adjourned at 10:00
p.m.
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST:
David Simpson, Chairperson
Daniel W. Taylor, Secretary
ATTACAAENTO
Table 8 summarizes the relationship between the size of four regional and super -
regional malls in King County and the amount of surrounding retail development.
The four malls are comparable to each other and to Bellis Fair in the sense that they
serve local or regional trade areas with enough population and income to support
them and the surrounding retail development. The extent of the surrounding
development is determined by land availability and the nature of existing land uses.
Northgate has relatively little spin -off develpment due largely to the fact that the
�r area was already constrained by surrounding residential development at the time it
was built. South Center retail development is somewhat constrained by the
warehouse/industrial development prevalent in the area, while Bellevue Square is
somewhat limited by the developing office core. Sea Tac Mall was developed in an
area with a large amount of retail development along Highway 99. If sufficient
land is available in the area around Bellis Fair, the market would support spin -off
= development at the higher end of the range.
Table 8
Regional Retail Spin -Off Development
Total GLA
Super - Regional Including Total GLA
Center 11 Mall Area GLA Surrounding I /Mall GLA
South Center
1,298,000 SF
3,063,000
SF
2.4
Sea -Tac
745,000 SF
2,650,000
SF
3.6
Northgate
1,175,000 SF
1,668,000
SF
1.4
Bellevue Square
1,059;000 SF
2,605,000
SF
2.5
!,)ource: King County Assessor's Records
4. Office Market
Table 9 summarizes office inventory and vacancy conditions in Bellingham Census
tracts. The overall vacancy rate is less than 10 percent, a healthy rate in comparison
to many metropolitan areas. The northern Census tracts have relatively little office
development at this time.
M
'.. Table 12 summarizes average monthly apartment rents by area. Rents in the
northern Census tracts are at the top of the market. Much of the development there
is relatively new.
,.,.,F Table 12
City of Bellingham
Average Monthly Apartment Rents
Neighborhood 11 One- Bedroom 11 Two - Bedroom 11 Three- Bedroom
--
Mt. Baker
$585
$611
$795
?.
Bellingham Airport
$575
--
`' " _
Birchwood
$458
.$660-
$520
$500
Columbia /Cornwall Park
$414
$433
--
" '.
Lettered Streets/
Sunnyland Park
$386
$495
--
` "`�
CBD
$475
$473
--
Roosevelt
$361
$470
$606
Alabama Hill /Silver Beach
$421
$475
$790
Samish Lakeway
$441
$530
$600
Sehome/WWU
$392
$534
$820
Fairhaven /South Hill
$489
$658
$691
Happy Valley /South
5368
$466
$557
TOTAL
$447
$527
$670
Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, 1993
6. Development Potential
The development potential of the study area represents the amount of develpoment
which the market could support there, assuming that City policy would allow it and
that there are no regulatory obstacles or incentives for development in competing
sites. For purposes of a land use study, the potential represents the amount up to
which the City could designate for development. To designate an area for more
development will likely result in sprawling lower denisity development. However,
the City may choose to designate the area for a leaser amount of development,
either to encourage certain types or form of development there, or to channel
development in other areas.
Table 14 summarizes the maximum amount of development that the market could
support in the study area over the next 20 years. The estimate of the potential for
regional retail is based on applying a retail development factor of 3.5 times the
Bellis Fair mall area (at the high end of the likely range), indicating total maximum
development of 1.7 million square feet. Assuming that 300,000 square feet of that
86
b,
development occurs on the 30 acres in the Guide Meridian area, maximum study
r -: area development is estimated to be 800,000 square feet. This estimate reflects the
finding that the market area will support this level of spin -off development, and that
such development is drawn to sites around regional malls.
The highway commercial estimate is typical of the amount of food -gas- lodging
development around a typical interstate highway interchange. The neighborhood
commercial development identified assumes service to a trade area of 5,000 to
15,00 households, a area greater than the study area itself. The projected office
development is comparable to existing concentrations of non -CBD office space. The
residential projection is consistent with a 50 -70 percent capture of projected
population growth in the three north -end Census tracts.
:3
Table 13
Summary of Potential Demand
f Land Area Comment
Commercial
Regional Retail 80 acres 800,000 SF
Highway/Tourist Commercial 20 acres Food, Gas, Lodging
Neighborhood Commercial 5 acres Serving Lrgr. Neighborhood
Village Commercial 2 acres Two 10,000 - 15,000 SF
Office 20 acres 200,000- 300,000 SF
Regional
Multifamily 2,000 -3,000 units
C. Economic Feasibility Analysis
1. Introduction
The purpose of the economic feasibility evaluation is (a) to determine whether land
use concepts meet the economic requirements of public and private interested
parties and (b) to identify important economic relationships that will affect the
applicability of various implementation tools. A concept is economically feasible
from the public sector's perspective if it creates sufficient value to fund necessary
public services and facilities. A concept is economically feasible from the private
sector's perspective if it provides for development that will compensate land owners
and developers for their contributions. This section addresses these issues in the
following subsections:
I W I 410ALL I
Ab 7,.cx SEE
.. . .. ..
ex
9 0
c,4
A., 15�9E A fx oK
�0+ x
........ .... .
..........
... ..... .
.... ......
...........
ILEA
........ ...
.9 .....
. . .......... .. .
..............
L47
..........
..........
......... 4.�E
tal-b A
.9 L-b 4A
V 71 s3m %Iwo
V
0
VHoN 1 -1-1313
- ---------
.............
. ............... +
------ -- -----
e«, X
bb�x
-,ktAH UONn 'S-L'd'NrW
ou JJ
2.
21
iull
Cot
a•I,[• .y�•a.- -•iLr+ ���1{{ . IL•.,wtr. :I.p � -. _ _ . wM� t, \ y L ./
/ a . OR" ".+� la ax, i • 1IK
/ r:.J[w, — rr•wsrl •• v CRC �R••C!J rD1
I ..�.� ••VIII OPOPt� BA T EW
/ ;+ • _ rJ0•rlL:. { X /n10M 11 •rt Jr•LL' I •! .�_ � - � __� -_ �f�P•J ��� a bG
•YIY LMm CC •rl1 w•{•
l\ 1 a rlor.:LCn ro r r J . .jIELI� rrW
LJ—sow
/ ,1 •[� •tR 1[70
if r• •'+ I ' y
IJ PLFn ,11!° Ifla{ 1a1
/ 11 • I ! • rAUUf a Ma••• ••ULII I1
1 I• Ili
1 � • I♦ U I 10 r I!7
1 J .,..Y.I a r- c•.raL + • V • r %c i rfr• `� •••c1a J •.•Laa r I v� ■
ro n It is 11
\ •wr+LLK[ r•o.V+Ir• rIICLL4 aM r•Lr.,O(L ____ , /CLAIM 1 �•Id •'�• ( r 11( .LrLLJL
I ♦ J / I I
•O•I latM• � �'• Ilrrrr
/� i raL au+rrr• c •r „•.•K i •L: r� L 1°+• It Too �,I�f1 i • • ( K+
/ \ \ + • IaN01Kw•• •,,Mnit•r:w A wrro:ln Y� t!{
R( Ir(a[ °ARCRYI[ • - y y °a
a Iwrx rrw • +tact re ' I•r •yrrrt - 1, fJ 1• 10 K ( AD M 1 1 J I Y{OI
.� I .
/ . •) • 1 , [ ••r•rw ,I • 1 r ;I y a r • 'l I/ r+ 7 • i ,7+ i .a, X( R I.
\ R �. A .o • tar Ia•A rR1 n
\ i o
••+a .•U t(al 1111
t•+w IO loo• lo•I, la°
I \ I \ra 1 el r•tf 1►� I120 ,rr •b rW IYI U
III-- �� tr« � 1r••
F ..•�.•L� -r -- : I 1 Ar I J .+ � ,l i r.r a r.arr• I ,o ,t ,L •II ., I , , ,I
• I roar o•• 1: .I I;`.'• ^•1...I � . -..- u r � L(� •r• � I I !
.� •. —
rn v84w
1 �s • a I a • / r s r1• •n,•
n
i
r: I
1A KER
n . l• i I
re. ur r••TLOr• .'\'I . J r�1 _ . J �_ �/ •I 0 .. •..
.1 � ... I� • I
..................... ................... .... J '+o ' '.: ~ `'a' r• ,. . . It'
10
:�: OL� a�( •..y.rw.•. ra- 3�r.. '• }r it
r:•ir .o.ra jj£l��.a,.co C, le .I f CITY .
�I [ ,y t• • •rr.v +• J J T LIM r
I
EF
Il { �6,/+�.�I r•tw •. a.w rn0.f
1 rJ IOA 11 r11 �J u
• � IT, .I• •w-L ,l�• I •w. f I I 1• • II 'L i { jj
Yr __ 1 ••� +n ilk. - _- - - -..' . L • 1. _ _ - I
:
r
iu?/ •`�� I — I 100, ”! If1 "1 /' '
_`L`��'(_ �• w �S. I I�1 rI I I I "I•I'• Dc� o
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 1
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, David Simpson, at
7:10 P.M. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers, Courthouse,
Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dave Ernst, Leslie Hamilton, Elaine McRory, Clare Fogelsong,
Phil Urso, and Dave Simpson, Jerry Landcastle (arrived at 7:12)
STAFF PRESENT Dan Taylor, Carl Batchelor, Carole Magner
Joann Smith (City of Bellingham, Planning Manager)
Taylor discussed scheduling and explained that Storteboom can not be processed as a
contract rezone. He is taking it to Council and request that they hold a hearing and consider
it as out right permitted or remand it to Commission for further consideration. Taylor
explained that while Frakes didn't really like it, she would have been willing to let it go;
however, Gibson was definitely against the contract.
Work Session on Garrett Rezone
Batchelor explained that staff recommendation is to wait until Urban Fringe update process
is complete to consider this rezone. Mark Lee, Attorney for the applicant, consulted with Mr.
Garrett who confirmed that his investment group would not be interested in Gateway
Industrial. Staff position is that it does not want it to be a full blown commercial area.
Simpson asked for Mark Lee's position and he expressed that no one testified that commercial
is not appropriate; however, McRory explained that there are people who do not think GC is
appropriate. Lee explained that the developer has never wanted anything but commercial.
Landcastle asked where the quarter mile radius would be measured from. Batchelor measured
it from the edge of the right -of -way.
Taylor commented that both City and County Planning staff wanted Light Industrial ... staff
met with the Starks who saw long -range picture for Tourist Commercial, but with airport right
there, staff envisions LII, but on a limited basis; thus, Gateway Industrial was decided as
being the best of all worlds.
Simpson moved that portion zoned Tourist Commercial (a, b, e) become General Commercial
and portions (c, d) retain URM18 designation, seconded by Landcastle.
Simpson explained that when zoned Tourist Commercial the area wasn't as built up and was
considered a designation that would serve the motoring public. Its 2500 sq ft restriction is
too small given requirements by ADA. In order to be developed as general commercial, the
City will have to approve services and if the City doesn't want it, then it can stop it.
Exposure to the freeway makes it suitable for LII or GC.
McRory asked Simpson what zone would be appropriate for computer business like right off
freeway in Bellevue. McRory explained that she envisions area being designated for
businesses like computer and insurance companies ... big "clean industries" are missing in
Bellingham. These would employ at wages higher than retail provides with its standard
minimum wages.
Simpson agrees there is a need for more LII, but at a major freeway interchange, there should
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 2
be services ... why funnel more traffic to the Guide retail? GC would give more flexibility than
LII would.
Taylor agrees with McRory although philosophy can go either way. LII or Gateway Industrial
... at every other interchange in Bellingham there's a mall ... Meridian /Sunset /Southside -- Lll
would bring higher paying jobs than the commercial minimum wage jobs.
Simpson sees commercial as more flexible zone ... for larger sq footage retail.
McRory: Retail and grocery service is already available in the Alderwood neighborhood ...
people don't need another place to shop.
Urso asked why if Woburn Industrial Park is so spectacularly empty, we would want to zone
more of the same ... "we can't drive buffalo if there's no buffalo to drive."
Ernst asked Joann Smith, City of Bellingham, why the Woburn Business Park is so slow to
develop and Smith explained that because owner is being selective and is charging high rent
... the County has Cordata Business Park that is also slow to develop. City would prefer
Gateway Industrial for area around the airport.
Ernst is concerned that we are only considering the area in terms of the freeway and not in
terms of the residential.
Ernst moved to table the rezone request and deal with after we deal with the Urban Fringe
subarea ...
After discussion, Ernst expressed that he would not want to be in a position not to deal with
this in the Urban Fringe; therefore, he withdrew his motion.
Urso explained that since the City will have ability to constrain use and GC is better use, he
would support GC which will allow property to be used with greater flexibility.
Fogelsong asked that Commissioners keep in mind that GC could limit the property to one use
... which would be something like Walmart.
Hamilton expressed that there needs to be something mutually beneficial for the entire area
not just in terms of the freeway.
Smith explained that the City is concerned about image of this area as a gateway into the
city. Reduced scale and mixed uses are much more preferable. The City doesn't want huge
warehouse kind of development. The City has more flexibility with its zoning and can write
intent statements into the plan. The City would like to see mutual agreement with the County
on how this area should develop and not just leave it up to the City to bring down the hammer
on it.
Simpson repeated that the 2500 sq ft limitation isn't realistic in today's marketplace. There
needs to be more flexibility .. the City will have the ability to decide.
Batchelor explained that Tourist Commercial allows greater lot coverage than GC zone does.
There is no 2500 sq ft limit on motels and restaurants in TC.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 3
Landcastle would not support Gateway Industrial. He thinks large, ugly buildings is not the
image that should be created as the gateway to the city. He would rather see LII or GC with
its greater flexibility.
Ernst reiterated that while the Commission continues to discuss the property in terms of the
freeway, the entire area must be considered. No contract appears to be possible. He will not
support the motion.
Urso will vote for the motion. He is comfortable with the City having the ability to deal with
it.
Call for the question. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Landcastle, Urso, Simpson; NAYS: Ernst,
Fogelsong, Hamilton, McRory; and thereupon the motion failed.
With no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at
8:30 p.m.
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST:
David Simpson, Chairperson Daniel Taylor, Secretary
STAFF REPORT March 2, 1994
cfb [c: \f1\6] FILE REF: 09- 93CZM.SR Page 1
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT: Paul Garrett et al., represented by Mark Lee and Bob Tull, attorneys.
REQUEST
The request is to amend the Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map and the Official Whatcom
County Zoning Map from Tourist Commercial (TC) to General Commercial (GC) for approximately 29
acres and from Urban Residential Medium Density 18 Dwelling Units Per Acre (URM 18) to General
Commercial for approximately two acres.
LOCATION
The subject property is south of the Interstate -5 and West Bakerview interchange and on the east and
west sides of West Maplewood Avenue. The property also fronts on Bennett Drive to the west and
borders the Bellingham City Limits to the south (See map, attachment "A ").
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on Thursday, February
24, 1994 and a public hearing will be held on March 9, 1994. The Deputy SEPA Official issued a
Determination on Nonsignificance on December 9, 1994.
REGULATORY EFFECTS OF THE REQUEST
The proposal would change permitted, accessory and conditional uses as follows:
FROM: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (WCC 20.63): PERMITTED USES: restaurants; retail shops no
greater than 2,500 square feet per shop; tourist information centers; barber and beauty shops; post
offices; professional offices no greater than 2,500 square feet per shop; service stations and towing
services based at a service station; laundromats; banks; churches; indoor commercial recreation; and
hotels and motels. ACCESSORY USES: One residential unit for owner manager or caretaker of
primary use; and onsite treatment and storage facilities for hazardous wastes associated with outright
permitted uses or approved conditional uses. CONDITIONAL USES: Automobile repair garages; dry
cleaners; recreational vehicle parks; public uses; and outdoor commercial recreation facilities.
FROM: URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (WCC 20.22): PERMITTED USES: Single
family, duplex and multi - family dwellings; neighborhood parks and public recreation facilities; private,
non - commercial boat docks. ACCESSORY USES: Home occupations; boat docks and ramps;
temporary dwelling units for use by owners during construction of a permanent dwelling, not to
exceed 2 years. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL USES: Temporary second dwelling unit for a
caregiver or family member needing care. CONDITIONAL USES: Public and community facilities;
schools; churches, educational and religious training institutions, and summer camps; retirement,
boarding and convalescent homes, children and adult care centers, and other health related services;
rooming houses or bed and breakfast lodgings; mobile home parks; professional offices; golf courses;
and private docks.
TO: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (WCC 20.62): PERMITTED USES: Automobile, motorcycle, marine
and farm implement sales, repair and service; automobile service stations, car washes and public
garages; mobile home and recreational vehicle sales; eating and drinking establishments; rental
agencies; indoor commercial recreation; passenger terminals; service establishments; retail; printing
and publishing; public facilities and utilities; rental storage; public and community facilities; hotels and
motels; and multi - family dwellings at a density not to exceed eighteen (18) units per acre.
STAFF REPORT March 2, 1994
cfb [c: \f1 \6] FILE REF: 09- 93CZM.SR Page 2
ACCESSORY USES: One residential unit for owner manager or caretaker of primary use; and onsite
treatment and storage facilities for hazardous wastes associated with outright permitted uses or
approved conditional uses. CONDITIONAL USES: Wholesaling; churches and cemeteries; outdoor
commercial recreation; recreational vehicle parks; kennels; commercial truck service; golf courses;
and residences on premises in a commercial structure other than taverns, restaurants and
recreational facilities.
Although the uses in the Tourist Commercial and General Commercial zones are similar, the primary
difference is the 2,500 square feet per shop limitation on retail uses and professional offices in the
TC zone. The GC zone has no such limit. Also, the GC zone allows such things as automobile,
mobile home and Recreational vehicle sales; rental storage; multi - family residential; and recreational
vehicle parks that are not permitted in the TC zone. The change from URM 18 to TC is substantially
more significant because of the shift from predominantly residential uses in the URM zone to an
emphasis on commercial uses in the GC zone.
BACKGROUND
The property lies within the Urban Fringe Subarea of Whatcom County and is subject to the 1984
Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan and attendant zoning. This Subarea Plan is presently
the in the process of a periodic update being undertaken jointly by the City of Bellingham and
Whatcom County Planning Departments and Planning Commissions. The update was initiated more
than two years ago and progress so far includes an advisory committee; seven town hall meetings;
five joint Planning Commission work sessions; a Draft Environmental Impact Statement released in
November, 1993; a Draft Plan released in January, 1994; a joint Planning Commission public hearing
held on February 9, 1994; and separate Bellingham and Whatcom County Planning Commission
work sessions. There has been a substantial public involvement process and it is anticipated that
final approval of the update will be granted by the Bellingham and Whatcom County Councils before
the end of June, 1994.
The Draft Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan, which was the subject of the February 9
Planning Commission hearing, recommends changing the subject Tourist Commercial designation to
Light Impact Industrial. This recommendation is based on more than adequate commercially zoned
land in the area to meet projected needs; the desirability of generating industrial (usually better
paying) jobs in contrast to retail jobs; and the suitability of this site for industrial development in terms
of minimal constraints from wetlands, proximity to the airport, and access to major roads. The Draft
Plan also recommends retaining the URM 18 zoning for the remainder of the subject property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Topography /SoilsNegetation: The site is relatively flat with some localized depressions and
intermittent drainages. Soils are mostly Urbanland Whatcom Labounty complex, 0 -8% slopes, with a
small area of Whatcom Labounty silt loam, 0 -8% slopes in the northwest corner of the property.
Approximately ten acres in the southwest portion of the property, along Bennett Drive is a former
drive -in theater and has been subjected to considerable alteration of native soils and drainage.
Alterations have also occurred on the along the north boundary of the property in association with
construction of 1 -5 many years ago. With the exception of the former drive -in site and the immediate
frontage along Maplewood, the site is forested.
Critical Areas: A review of County critical areas maps indicates some wetlands likely in two specific
spots: (1) a small area in the southwest corner of the property and (2) along the property boundary
adjacent to 1 -5. Additional wetlands may be obscured by the forest cover.
Land Use: The subject property is predominantly vacant with the exception of three single - family
residences. Surrounding uses include a repair service on the west side of Bennett Drive, two gas
stations across Bennett/Airport Drive to the north, the freeway and interchange to the north and east,
and single family and apartment dwellings to the south.
STAFF REPORT
cfb [c:\fl \6] FILE REF: 09- 93CZM.SR
March 2, 1994
Page 3
Water and Sewer Service: The subject property is in Bellingham's sewer and water service area.
Services presently exist to the Bradley Place apartment complex to the south and to the apartments
on the east side of Maplewood to the south. A sewer and water service zone extension from the city
of Bellingham would be required for future development of the subject property.
ANALYSIS.
The proposed rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendment must meet two categories of criteria: (1)
the Comprehensive Plan amendment Criteria found at Section VII of the Urban Fringe Subarea
Comprehensive Plan; and (2) normal rezone criteria. In addition, the purpose statements of the
zoning districts should be considered as well as the Comprehensive Plan's locational criteria for the
land use designations.
The single most pertinent criterion for amending the Subarea Plan is number 4, which states "The
amendment request shall demonstrate a land usage need which is consistent with the environmental
and economic policies of this plan ". The purpose statement of the General Commercial zone (WCC
20.62.010) asserts that the district "is to provide land areas, commensurate with the anticipated
demand, for the siting of commercial uses which serve the surrounding community with a broad
range of retail goods and services. Since general commercial uses are such that they attract clientele
from a relatively large trade area, the application of this district shall only be utilized where
transportation access can be maximized and incompatible impacts to surrounding land uses
minimized. Property within this district may also serve to meet the multi- family needs of the
community in accordance with the demands of the market place ". Therefore, consideration must be
given to the need and projected demand for commercially zoned land in this area.
In comparison, the purpose of the Tourist Commercial District ( WCC 20.63.010) is to supply
sufficient areas arranged in a concentrated form that would allow land use activities which serve the
traveling public. The District should be located near major transportation corridors in such a fashion
as to provide safe and convenient access that would not impact adjacent noncommercial activities.
Further, the District should be in areas where adequate public services such as roads, sewer, water
and drainage are available. The District should provide for uses which normally serve the traveling
public and encourage a type of development which occurs in a well- designed pattern considering
aesthetics and safety.
The locational criteria for the Commercial designations (Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan
Section V.B.) states that "they are intended to recognize the market needs and opportunities for the
Urban Fringe Subarea in relationship to those opportunities available within the City of Bellingham ".
Therefore, consideration must be given to the need and projected demand for commercially zoned
land in this area. A 1993 consultant's report for the West Bakerview Neighborhood Plan (Attachment
3) indicates a projected 20 -year demand for a maximum of 80 acres of commercially zoned land
(regional retail) beyond the 30 acres of vacant commercial land in the Guide Meridian area, based on
the highest of three population projection scenarios and the highest ratio of spin -off development
around regional malls. The study also projects a need for 20 acres of highway /commercial land, 5
acres of Neighborhood commercial, 2 acres of village commercial, and 20 acres for office
development.
In the West Bakerview Plan, the City of Bellingham approved another 60 acres of land for future
commercial development. Presently, in addition to the existing 29 acres of Tourist Commercial land
on the subject property, there is another 15 acres of undeveloped General Commercial land at the
northwest and southwest corner of Bennett and Airport Drive; another 10 acres of undeveloped
Tourist Commercial land north of the Bennett/Airport intersection; and another 60 acres of
undeveloped Tourist Commercial land east of 1 -5, north and south of West Bakerview. In the
surrounding area there is another 25 acres of undeveloped General Commercial land along Pacific
Highway, adjacent to the east side of the interstate; another 5 acres of General Commercial at
STAFF REPORT March 2, 1994
cfb [c: \f1 \6] FILE REF: 09- 93CZM.SR Page 4
Telegraph and Deemer Road; and approximately 25 acres of undeveloped General Commercial land
in the Guide Meridian /Kellogg Road area.
In contrast to the projected need for 80 acres of regional retail land plus 20 acres for office
development and 2 acres for village commercial, there is approximately 130 acres of undeveloped
commercially zoned land. In contrast to the projected need for 20 acres of highway /tourist
commercial land there is approximately 100 acres available for such use. Therefore, it is apparent
that there is more than enough commercially zoned land in this area to meet even the highest
projected demand for retail space to serve population growth for the next 20 years.
Normal rezone criteria require that there be changed conditions or further studies that indicate a need
for some other type of zoning. Research and analysis done for the Subarea update and for the West
Bakerview project do not indicate a need for more General Commercial zoning.
FINDINGS
Bellingham and Whatcom County are presently nearing completion of a periodic update of
the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan.
2. The Draft Urban Fringe Subarea Plan recommends Light Impact Industrial for the subject
property based on more than adequate commercially zoned land in the area for projected
needs; the desirability of industrial jobs; and the suitability of the site for industrial
development. The Draft Plan recommends retaining the URM 18 zoning for the remainder of
the subject property.
The site is relatively flat; soils are mostly Urbanland Whatcom Labounty complex, 0 -8%
slopes; and, with the exception of the former drive -in site and the immediate frontage along
Maplewood, the site is forested.
4. There is a likelihood of some wetlands on the site.
Sewer and water service are potentially available from the City of Bellingham upon request.
6. There is more than enough commercially zoned land in the area to meet even the highest
projected demand for retail space to serve population growth for the next 20 years.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Light Industrial zoning proposed in the Draft Urban Fringe Plan
is probably correct. Given the property rights inherent with the existing Tourist Commercial zoning
which has been in place for the past 10 years, staff would not oppose retaining the Tourist
Commercial zone. Another possibility would be to change the zoning to Neighborhood Commercial
which is intended to meet more localized commercial needs. There is no factual basis of support for
designating additional General Commercial land in this area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling this rezone request and allowing it to be considered along with the Urban
Fringe Subarea update that is now nearing completion.
Prepared by: Carl F. Batchelor, Senior Planner
Attachments: "A" Map
"B" Excerpt from Property Counselors report
AGENCY REPORT May 4, 1994
cfb\ File Ref:09- 93:CZM Page 1
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENCY REPORT
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM ) FINDINGS, REASONS
COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) TO ) AND MOTIONS
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) FOR APPROXIMATELY 29 ACRES AND )
FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY 18 DWELLINGS PER )
ACRE (URM 18) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR APPROXIMATELY )
6 ACRES )
WHEREAS, Paul Garrett et al., represented by Mark Lee and Bob Tull, attorneys; have requested that the
Urban Fringe Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map and the Official Whatcom County Zoning Map be amended from
Tourist Commercial (TC) to General Commercial (GC) for approximately 29 acres and from Urban Residential
Medium Density 18 Dwelling Units Per Acre (URM 18) to General Commercial for approximately six acres and;
WHEREAS, pursuantto RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on Thursday,
February 24 , 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Deputy SEPA Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on December 9,1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on March 9, 1994
and considered all testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a work session on May 4, 1994.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION
A quorum of Commission members was present during the hearing and subsequent work session.
2. The statutory requirement was met regarding legal notice.
3. The Planning Commission did not arrive at a consensus regarding the staff FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS
as presented in the Staff Report dated March 2, 1994.
4. At the special meeting on May 4, 1994, a motion was made to approve the proposed rezone for the
Tourist Commercial area only. -rhe Planning Commission voted against the motion, and therefore
did not recommend the rezone.
AGENCY REPORT May 4, 1994
cfb\ File Ref:09- 93:CZM Page 2
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
\.
Simpson, Chairman
Date:
W
Daniel W. Taylor, Secr t ry
Commissioners present at April 13, 1994 hearing: Elaine McRory, Dave Ernst, Leslie Hamilton, Clare Fogelsong,
Jerry Landcastle, Phil Urso, and David Simpson.
Commissioners present at May 4, 1994 work session: Elaine McRory, Dave Ernst, Leslie Hamilton, Clare
Fogelsong, Jerry Landcastle, Phil Urso, and David Simpson.
Vote: Ayes: David Simpson, Jerry Landcastle, and Phil Urso; Nays: Elaine McRory, Leslie Hamilton, Dave Ernst,
and Clare Fogelsong (3 -4). Motion failed.
Attachment: Staff Report
Prepared by: Carl Batchelor