HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 23 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 23, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY
(AB2001 -310C)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this consists of two
applications amending the Lynden urban growth area (UGA). One site is 24 acres
and is on the southern boundary. The other site is also on the southern boundary,
and is 1.58 acres. The Blankers- Sanders site is mostly in the floodplain. It is
agricultural land now. Most of the property is in open space agriculture. There are
several parcels together. Staff originally recommended denial because of flood
plain issues and it is in agriculture. There was not a demonstrated need for
additional urban growth land in Lynden, which currently has a water moratorium.
Staff was also concerned about the boundary, which is not a logical boundary. It is
angled across four parcels. The old ditch line has been plowed and may not be in
the exact location.
The Planning Commission approved a modified site. Staff recommends the
Planning Commission recommendation to take the existing line and extend it in a
straight line to the west at the same angle. Most of the land is out of the flood
plain. It would leave some developable land for the Blankers- Sanders property.
Deleted is the Timmers location. The Timmers testified that they were not in favor
of the application. Staff felt this would still allow the Blankers- Sanders use of their
land and would exclude the land belonging to the Timmers, who do not want to be
included, and create a more logical boundary.
The County began working with the City over a year ago to get the two urban
growth areas consistent. The Blankers- Sanders property couldn't be adjusted that
time because it wasn't in the City's Comprehensive Plan or the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The City approved the addition to the urban growth area
already.
Hoag asked the current use of the property. Goodwin stated there is one
house on .9 acres of the parcel. Half of it is in the city now, and half of it is out of
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 1
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
the city. The rest of it is in agriculture. The parcel size is 24 acres total, and is
divided in to several pieces. Five acres are in Open Space /Agriculture, which are
owned by the Timmers. Eight acres are in Open Space /Agriculture, which are
owned by the Blanker Trust. Eleven acres are in Open Space /Agriculture, which are
owned by Arnold Blankers. That is the original proposal.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, stated one - fourth of an acre
is residential now. The balance, 8.25 acres, is agriculture.
Hoag asked if any is in the flood plain. Goodwin stated a small portion is in
the flood plain. There is developable land outside of the flood plain. Approximately
two - thirds of the property is outside of the flood plain.
Campbell stated the City of Lynden would argue that none of it is in the flood
plain. Whatcom County would argue that there are two to two and a half acres in
the flood plain. The total is eight acres.
Goodwin stated Whatcom County uses the official Federal Emergency
Management (FEMA) flood plain map. The City of Lynden uses an imaginary flood
plain.
Hoag questioned whether that property has flooded in recent years.
Goodwin stated one of the Timmers reported that it has. She didn't know which
location has flooded. If the Council is going to modify the Planning Commission
recommendation, there will have to be a public hearing. She will make sure the
Flood Division staff are present. Staff is comfortable that, as modified, there is
enough developable land outside of the flood plain that the flood issue is not a
concern.
Arlene Blankers- Sanders, applicant, stated the revised proposal is for eight
and a half acres. None of that has been flooded. The portion of the property
removed from the proposal had been involved in flooding before.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned whether the applicant has to prove that the application has
to meet a special threshold because it is not in the regular Comprehensive Plan
year. Goodwin stated anyone can come forward and ask for an amendment on any
year. The County Council must decide whether or not to docket those items. This
is one item the Council decided to docket. There are firm criteria in the
Comprehensive Plan that the Council uses to judge the applications. The changed
condition is always an issue. The applicant provided a changed condition, and the
Planning Commission made a finding. There has to be a finding if there is a
changed condition.
Crawford read finding of fact number seven into the record.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 2
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
Goodwin stated there has been development in the surrounding area. The
City of Lynden amended its Comprehensive Plan to include this piece of property.
It may or may not be a changed condition, but it is a condition that was different
from when the County Council originally approved it. '
McShane stated there is a first go- around of what the southern UGA
boundary for Lynden would be. The Council made quite a few small changes along
that boundary. They are still putting the pieces together along there because it is
complicated. There is a flood plain and lot lines that don't follow the flood plain.
The County Council believes the County has a significant interest in making sure
that urban development doesn't begin to encroach upon the flood plain. That would
impact the entire county.
Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. It is a good compromise. He
didn't hear much feedback from the applicant on the amended proposal, which
draws the line straight. He assumes they are in favor of it.
Hoag stated she is opposed to the motion. The Lynden UGA already has
plenty of room for growth. The changed condition doesn't merit more growth in the
Lynden UGA. The Van Dragt amendment straightens out a line and makes more
sense. The Blankers- Sanders change takes more land out of agriculture. There is
not a basis for it. The smaller cities should concentrate on infilling the UGA they
already have.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated that, for unanimity, he wanted to approve the applications
separately. He moved approval of site one, the Blankers- Sanders site.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
McShane moved approval of the Van Dragt property.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS
SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a five - minute break.)
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Crawford stated the proposal was flawless.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 3
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
Hoag questioned whether the third option for transitional zoning is included
in the motion.
McShane stated it is in the proposal now.
Rick Seplar, consultant, stated there was concern by staff regarding the
functional utility of transitional zoning, which was amended by the Planning
Commission. The original plan called for two designations, one when services are
not provided, and the second when services and design objectives were met. The
concern raised was that the Planning Commission recommendation suggested that
one could choose between the existing density, the new proposed density, and
what could be accommodated by transitional zoning. That would be confusing, and
very difficult to administer. People of the community who attended voiced a
number of property- specific concerns. In terms of the plans operative issue, that
issue was the one that merited most discussion.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a one - minute break.)
McShane stated the committee came up with two options for transitional -
zoned areas. The Planning Commission added a third option.
Seplar stated transitional zoning came out of a realization that Point Roberts
has legal platted lots to suffice for 50 years of growth. However, there were many
comments about the undivided land and the reason these lots were not likely to
sell. The committee considered how to allow additional lots to be created when
they have more than enough of a supply, and still be consistent with Growth
Management in terms of population, allocation, and capacity.
Crawford questioned whether the third option from the Planning Commission
would prevent people with already - platted lots from developing those lots. Seplar
stated it would apply to future subdivision.
Crawford stated that someone with urban residential three units per acre
(UR -3) zoning now in the transitional area can still develop those three houses in
the future. This would only apply to someone with lots that are not currently
subdivided and would prevent subdividing to any density higher than one unit per
five acres, or one unit per acre if sewer is available. Seplar stated platted lots of
record remain. This does not extinguish a preexisting platted lot. The owner of an
un- platted tract who wishes to divide it would have to do so consistent with the
requirement of transitional zoning. A platted lot remains viable.
Hoag questioned whether the third option applies to places that aren't
platted. Seplar stated that is correct. It also applies to places that are under -
platted compared to what the density would allow.
McShane questioned whether the Planning Commission's third option is to
allow subdividing to the lower density and building the houses now. In the future,
one may want to subdivide further. Seplar stated the Planning Commission said
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that transitional zoning makes sense as a way of getting better lots. They didn't
want to extinguish someone's expectation for an unplatted piece of property now.
They tried to preserve a higher yield, regardless of whether they provide higher
design standards or a better design. The third option circumvents the objectives of
transitional zoning, to get better quality lots. If scrutinized, one could argue that is
why they allow additional density. They are not getting more lots, but they are
getting better lots that preserve the character and all the other things supported by
the plan. If one can divide property as is allowed today, it is not likely that people
will voluntarily provide open space or do clustering. People may do that, but the
County could not be assured.
Brenner questioned whether a person can be forced lot consolidation.
Goodwin stated the County Council adopted a liberal lot consolidation policy a few
years ago. If a person is not in the flood plain, zoned forestry, in the shoreline, and
has at least 4,000 square feet, he or she is not consolidated. Many of the small lots
in Point Roberts are 40 feet by 100 feet, so they are 4,000 square feet.
Brenner questioned whether it is possible to have three lots in an acre.
Crawford stated it is. A 4,000 square foot lot is about one -tenth of an acre.
Property zoned UR -3 or UR -4 will have lots that are bigger than 4,000 square feet.
Goodwin stated most of the platted lots are a higher density than four lots per acre.
Most are six or eight lots per acre. Even the smallest lots in Point Roberts are at
least 4,000 square feet.
Hoag questioned whether the committee commented on the Planning
Commission recommendation. Seplar stated he did not meet with the committee in
total after the Planning Commission made its recommendation. However, he has
had conversations with committee members. One member expressed a concern
with the recommendation.
Seplar stated it would be more compelling, if the plan is challenged, to
suggest that the existing lots, although legal and valid, have sat vacant for a
variety of reasons. They are not desirable by their location. New lots are being
platted because it is a better way to preserve the special character, open spaces,
and other characters identified in the body of the plan. It meets the expectations of
many of the long- standing property owners who have held acreage with the hope of
dividing in the future. It is a committee - generated compromise.
Michael Rosser, Point Roberts Subarea Plan Steering Committee, stated he
represents the Taxpayers' Association on the committee. They were faced with the
problem of having too many lots that aren't selling, and other people still might
want to subdivide in the future. There is a strong contingency of people who have
always said that much of the area that is transitionally zoned ought to be parkland.
Many studies agree with that point. The previous plan and the economic
development strategy agree. The committee had to figure out how to
accommodate the desires of many different people. It looked at successful
developments throughout North America. They offered the transitional zoning that
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 5
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
lets people subdivide, and allows open space to remain. Transitional zoning allows
subdivision if it allows for open space to remain to maintain the qualities that have
made Point Roberts attractive to the people who live there now. Property with UR-
3 zoning that is platted would be grandfathered. If it is not platted, it would be
affected by the transitional zoning. The commission's third option doesn't really
make any change at all. It effectively says there is no change. With UR zoning,
one can't develop at that density until there is sewer. They are involved in
developing a sewer plan now. It is unlikely they will have sewers in Point Roberts
within the ten year scope of this plan. The practical effect of the Planning
Commission's option is to hold back beneficial development in Point Roberts. The
community would benefit from open space planning because of the added benefits
of stability in the environment. Transitional zoning preserves the development
possibilities and the environment. They also wanted to make it as inexpensive as
possible for those sewer systems to be put in. That is why they require things such
as a community septic field.
Brenner asked if any objected to transitional zoning. Rosser stated he
couldn't speak for everyone. One of the property owners at one of the meetings
has platted property with water service. That property owner thought the goals of
the transitional plan were laudable. He didn't recall any comment from other large
property owners.
Goodwin stated there are quite a few property owners in Point Roberts who
prefer to be zoned at a density of three units per acre instead of one unit per acre.
Brenner asked if anyone on the committee was in that situation. Find a way
to share the burden so certain people are not overburdened, while those who make
the decisions have no burden. Goodwin stated that not many of the committee
members have large tracts of vacant land. All of the UR -4 and UR -3 zoned land in
Point Roberts is now held at one unit per five acres because there isn't public
sewer. There may never be sewer. This would allow an owner greater use of his or
her land by allowing the owner to develop at one unit per acre.
Hoag stated many of the parcels that would be transitioned from UR -3 are
very large parcels. Goodwin stated Lily Point will not change much. Half of it was
already zoned R10A or UR -4. When they add it up and divide it under the one unit
per acre, it ended up having the about same number of lots, which is approximately
150.
Crawford questioned whether the letters from Point Roberts residents
opposed to zoning changes were received after the committee met. Seplar stated
he believed so.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Seplar continued to state that any changes to the zoning map that permits
greater density in the face of having a more than adequate density already has to
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, 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
be justified. If transitional zoning is not appropriate, then they could modify the
subdivision code to make it a requirement, and keep existing density.
Goodwin stated many of those people spoke to the committee. Those views
were known. Those particular letters might not have been received.
McShane stated people can't subdivide, no matter what the density is,
because there is no sewer. At some point in the future in portions of the Point,
there probably will be sewer. He questioned whether this transition zoning and
clustering make it easier to obtain much higher densities in the event that a sewer
line went in, in terms of cost to the property owner in the vicinity. He questioned
whether that makes sense. Seplar stated it might allow some fringe properties to
further divide into a higher density if one has sewer. This goes back to the long-
term vision. If they wish it to be more urban, then don't allow any development at
lower densities to force the sewer. If the zone was one dwelling unit per ten acres
until there is sewer, there would be the motivation for a local improvement district
(LID) to create the sewer. The economics are not there to sustain something like
that.
McShane stated reducing density as much as possible would be a good idea if
they want higher densities in the future that are efficiently served. This is a
compromise. It may create some opportunity. Seplar stated the committee felt it
would allow for reasonable development to occur to a better design than what can
currently occur.
Brenner asked why so many people are opposed to this if this is a
compromise which would allow people who are affected to have more options.
Seplar stated the entire plan, including the zoning map, is subject to scrutiny of and
potential appeal to the Hearings Board. The Hearings Board has held that creating
more lots outside of urban growth areas is inconsistent with the growth
management act, especially if there is a 20 to 50 year supply of existing lots.
There is a legal constraint that says there are enough lots, and to downzone
everything. The community is active in saying they bought their lots with an eye
towards getting a return on their investments. The County must amend a plan that
is subject to scrutiny. The committee, acting on advice, seemed like this was the
best deal. They are creating more lots. There is the potential that more lots could
be created the day after this is done, but to a higher standard. If there is scrutiny,
one could make a compelling case that the existing lots, although legal, are not
desirable. The new lots would be desirable, and they preserve the special
community character that everyone noted. That is the compromise. The people
who wrote the letters of opposition prefer to have the yield without having to
provide open space or clustering.
Brenner stated she was concerned about landowners not being able to
develop at their zoning level. She recalled that another county tested the theory
that they don't have to downzone something if it is not in the UGA, but is already
platted. Goodwin stated Whatcom County tested that in court. In Point Roberts,
the areas that areas considered isolated areas of more intense rural development
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 7
1 can remain so if the County doesn't make any changes. In this plan, they've taken
2 a lot of the rural areas of Point Roberts and created transitional zoning. They are
3 taking rural areas and converting them to a higher density. She asked how to
4 justify doing that without decreasing the density in some of the areas they earlier
5 identified. Under the growth management act, the areas of more intense rural
6 development can infill, but cannot expand. That is the test.
7
8 Rosser stated the committee looked at how to make the lots desirable. They
9 looked at lot consolidation and incentives. The committee hoped to make the other
10 lots desirable by doing this, if the transitional development occurs at the higher
11 quality levels. The problem is that the environment that exists is not a known
12 quantity because much of it is undeveloped and rural. People like it there for that
13 reason, but if it is going to change into a subdivision, the appeal to people will go
14 away. They have to consider whether Point Roberts is suitable to be a subdivision.
15 The committee considered what is the highest and best conclusion for Point
16 Roberts. The area is not booming because of the border.
17
18 Brenner asked if there is a plan for schools on Point Roberts. Seplar stated
19 there is not enough population for schools.
20
21 Hoag moved to delete the language recommended by the Planning
22 Commission regarding the third option. Staff's concerns and the public's concerns
23 don't match with the language in the Planning Commission version.
24
25 Crawford stated this is a subarea plan. He asked if there is an assumption
26 that a rezone is necessary to develop a good subarea plan. He asked how critical
27 the rezone is to the plan. Seplar stated it is central to the plan. They would have
28 nice goals, but no change in how people do business. Development would be
29 piecemeal.
30
31 Crawford asked about the community's desire to retain the character. Seplar
32 stated the character is due to the undeveloped land. There is no mechanism to
33 preserve the land in an undeveloped state. The committee and community have to
34 look forward to where lots will be developed over time. If development happens
35 quickly, these areas that are considered community assets will not be there
36 anymore. They are trying to create a placeholder so that, as land develops, some
37 aspects of the assets are retained. When things fully develop in a ten, fifteen, or
38 twenty year horizon, they can say that not all of the amenities have been wiped
39 away.
40
41 Brenner stated the issue of protecting character is different than protecting
42 water quality, for example. It seems that some people are unduly burdened while
43 others are not. She asked if there is a way to use the transfer of development
44 rights plan. They are moving density around instead of increasing or decreasing
45 density. Seplar stated transfers of development rights require lots of folks who
46 desire to do something in an area, and need a sending area and a receiving area.
47 If the market is not red hot, they are not worth anything.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 8
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 stated they need to balance the people who are losing their ability to
develop and the people who are not being burdened. There has to be a shared
financial burden. Seplar stated many people are looking at up -zones and
complaining about zoning they didn't get 25 years ago. Also, the zoning is worded
"up to" a certain amount of density. That density is not guaranteed. One of the
key determinants of where the transitional zoning went was an assessment of what
the carrying capacity of the land would be. That is to say that they couldn't have
made the existing zoning density because of drawbacks to the land itself. Staff
tried to balance the folks who had a paper expectation, but the physical
characteristics of groundwater, location, and soils limited the zoning.
Another option to consider in lieu of transitional zoning is to say that all
subdivisions must have open space and do clustering. For those who don't want to
do that, they would be allowed simpler, larger parcels. Folks can choose not to
cluster.
Hoag questioned whether they could include something about areas that
have been up -zoned functioning as receiving areas. Goodwin stated that would
require an amendment to transfer of development rights (TDR) section of the code,
and they would have to go through a process of identifying sending and receiving
areas. Delay this plan and get all the mechanics figured out first. Otherwise, there
will be mass confusion when they amend the zoning code. There may be more
sending areas than receiving areas.
Seplar stated that if they are going to do that, do it as soon as possible so as
not to depreciate the effectiveness. The challenge with TDR's is with someone who
gets dwelling units taken away. There is a certain degree of exposure. However,
there is a good policy base in the plan regarding the character and the area.
Everyone agreed on the community vision for the future. There was no dissention
about having a community that was treed with open space, and preserved the
natural features. The divergence of opinion is how to get there and what it will be
like.
Hoag stated there wasn't any dissention about the vision for the future. The
committee recommendation is a compromise between those who want to see the
land left as open spaces and those who want to see more development allowed on
Point Roberts. The third option loses the compromise. It is important to respect
the committee and the compromise that the community reached.
Nelson questioned whether dwelling units are allowed in commercial zones.
Goodwin stated small town commercial zones allow dwelling units above
commercial space. People envisioned businesses on the ground floor with
apartments above. One sees that a lot in other parts of the country, but not in
Point Roberts. One sees that configuration some in the City of Bellingham. Those
types of mixed uses are not allowed in the county in any zone other than small
town commercial. It is not common right now. When they try to get more people
living within walking distance from work, it is a technique that works. In many of
the new innovative planning designs, there are mixed use zones.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 9
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
Nelson questioned whether 129 dwelling units would be the full capacity.
Goodwin stated that is the estimated top build out, which probably won't happen
for a while due to market factors. Many of those are going to be owned by
Canadian visitors or out -of- the -area visitors as second homes, or rental homes.
Nelson asked about a capacity of 271 for resort commercial. Goodwin stated
she expected to see full build out on those. A lot of the people who wanted resort
commercial were originally proposed for small town commercial. They are along
the waterfront. They envision something like condominiums.
Nelson asked about three dwelling units allowed in the general commercial
zone. Goodwin stated there can be one unit per parcel in the general commercial
zone for a caretaker or an onsite living unit.
Nelson asked how realistic getting sewer is. Goodwin stated it depends on
who one talks to. Sewer is unlikely for all of Point Roberts, but may be possible for
the village center and a few of the higher density areas, possibly around the
marina, within five or ten years.
Nelson stated scenario B is the more realistic potential over the next twenty
years. Goodwin stated that is fair. They are working on a feasibility study, but she
believed it would be fairly expensive.
Nelson asked how much of the resort commercial can currently be built
without sewer. Goodwin stated not a lot. Density, over a couple of units per acre,
is unlikely without sewer. The marina has built a community drain field to serve its
development. There is a middle ground. There would have to be enough people to
support the system.
Nelson asked the history of the population increase on Point Roberts.
Goodwin stated it is about 35 people per year, lately.
Nelson stated that from 1990 to 2000, the increase has been about 800
people. At 2.2 people per household, there is less than a 30 year build out for
scenario B. That assumes everything is built out. In the last 20 years, the
population has doubled, from 2,000 to 4,000. The increase is about 1,000 per
decade. Goodwin stated scenario B, at the current rate, would supply housing for
20 years if public sewer isn't available.
Crawford stated that if they did nothing, they would have less available with
no sewer. He questioned whether scenario B included the Planning Commission's
third option of staying with UR -3. Goodwin stated it did include the Planning
Commission's option.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the lowest possible yield for the no -sewer
option would be one unit per five for some of the transitional properties, so that is
what was assumed.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 10
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
Crawford asked why scenarios A and B would not be the same, if someone
can develop to today's densities. Goodwin stated they changed some of the
commercial zoning and zoning in rural areas from R10A to R5A.
Nelson stated it was a balancing act between the two. They are looking at
approximately the same densities and build out potentials, but a shift of the land
used. Goodwin stated the shift would result in a slight increase.
Nelson asked if there is a limitation on water capacity. Goodwin stated there
is. Right now, they only have enough water to serve a couple of hundred more
houses. They buy water from Vancouver. If the demand is there, they could
possibly renegotiate the contract and purchase additional water.
Nelson questioned the number of single - family wells in the area. Goodwin
stated there are not many. There is not a lot of groundwater in the area.
McShane restated the motion to remove the third option as presented by the
Planning Commission.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
McShane stated the Planning Commission added language to policy 1.5.1 on
the plan. He asked if the idea is that nonconforming commercial properties become
commercial now. Goodwin stated two existing businesses and one vacant lot would
be zoned commercial.
Hoag stated there were a number of letters from the Mr. Nielsen. Goodwin
stated the Planning Commission approved what Mr. Nielsen requested.
McShane stated he would not suggest any changes from what the Planning
Commission did.
Goodwin stated Ruby White also wrote several letters. She owns the other
business. Her issue was addressed.
McShane stated he got one letter in the other direction of not wanting that to
be allowed, but he is okay with it. The third area is the end of Georgia Way. Under
the current zoning, the individual is out of compliance. If the zoning is changed,
the person will be in compliance. The person has storage units. Goodwin stated
the resort commercial zoning that is on that property now allows a number of
commercial uses including garages. This individual built a garage, and now rents it
out as a mini - storage and has turned it into a commercial use that isn't allowed.
The owner has been out of compliance for a long time, and is required to comply
with the code. If this area was rezoned, the owner would be allowed to maintain the
mini - storage. Some of the other issues with the property would probably still be
addressed.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 11
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
Hoag questioned whether the neighbor's concerns would be addressed.
Goodwin stated the neighbor is Mr. Dean Enbo. The proposal aggravates Mr.
Enbo's concerns. Mr. Enbo prefers that that, which is residential, be removed from
the small town commercial designation. Just include the areas that front onto Gulf
Road. She can't think of a reason to not do that. There is no reason that the area,
other than that one parcel, would be likely to convert to commercial.
Hoag asked if any other businesses would be impacted. Goodwin stated
there are no businesses in that area other than the ones that front onto Gulf Road.
If the Council keeps the row of lots along Gulf Road commercial zoning and puts the
rest of the residential areas into residential zoning, it would address Mr. Enbo's
concerns.
Hoag moved to revise the map to make those lots fronting on Georgia Way
rural residential, two dwelling units per acre, and leave those lots fronting on Gulf
Road as resort commercial.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin stated that before, they were resort commercial.
Hoag questioned whether any development potential is taken away if they
zone them RR -2. Goodwin stated it takes development potential, but most of them
are currently developed as single family homes, and are unlikely to redevelop as a
commercial use.
Brenner stated they may want to do a home occupation or cottage industry.
The way it is developed now is about all they can ever do. Goodwin stated a home
occupation can still be done in the rural residential zone.
Brenner agreed. Their potential really wouldn't be taken away.
Hoag asked what happens to the guy who has the illegal units that are
causing problems to the neighbors. Goodwin stated the neighbor would still be
illegal under the rural residential zone. Goodwin stated the owner was advised
from the very beginning, when he requested a permit, that a garage is not a mini -
storage and all that could ever be stored there were vehicles. The owner chose to
do what he did. There is no residence there.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated they need a public hearing about the one change they made
from the Planning Commission recommendation.
Nelson asked about two parcels that are in the agricultural protection overlay
(APO). Goodwin stated the APO applied to every parcel that has agriculture soils or
that are in agriculture open space. The Council could change it by amending the
APO or, as part of the subarea plan, exclude Point Roberts from the APO. One
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 12
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
parcel is being used as an airstrip. The owner wants to plat it for an air park with
parcels that include a hanger. They can't do that without clustering and keeping it
open. If they cluster the parcels small enough to comply, they are going to have a
hard time fitting airplane hangers with airplanes. The area is not currently being
farmed. The most that is being done is hay mowing surrounding the airstrip.
Nelson stated the other APO area is owned by Knutsen, who owns the Reef
Tavern. He hasn't done any agricultural practice.
Hoag moved to amend the zoning text so that it removes Point Robert from
the APO. She fights hard for agricultural land, but they can't farm these areas.
Goodwin stated that staff would write up that language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to recommend the plan as amended carried 2 -1 with Crawford
opposed.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
NORTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR FERNDALE AND THE COUNTY
(AB2001 -310D)
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a 15- minute break at 3:15 p.m.)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the proposal is to amend
the Ferndale urban growth area (UGA) boundary to add a ten -acre parcel on the
east side of the freeway, north of Grandview, and to rezone that ten -acre piece to
light impact industrial. Currently the UGA splits the parcel. It was a mapping error
done when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. In this case, the UGA boundary
followed a section line, which someone thought was a property boundary. Ferndale
had public hearing and made a recommendation to add the ten acres to the UGA.
The Planning Commission also recommended adding it to the UGA. The applicant
proposes a light industrial park in that area. Access is off the Grandview Road area
or the frontage area near the freeway, not around the residential neighborhood.
The surrounding rural neighbors would like the area to remain rural. Most of the
area is already in the UGA and zoned commercial. Staff recommends approval.
There are questions about buffering. There is a 50 -foot buffer requirement for all
light industrial land bordering on rural land. At least 25 feet has to be landscaped
in a solid screen of buffer. The adjacent residents would be adequately protected.
There is also a concern about a creek going through the area. Those issues could
be adequately addressed by environmental regulations.
Crawford asked why the northern -most boundary doesn't extend across the
freeway. Goodwin stated the adjacent owners didn't request to be added. There is
some farming and other rural uses in the area.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 13
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
Hoag asked why Mr. Jansen's 72.1 acres is highlighted on the map. Goodwin
stated that acreage is already in the UGA. They are talking about a rezone of the
property. At this time, they are going to the Hearing Examiner for the site - specific
rezone of that piece to go along with the binding site plan proposal. The ten acres
is part of the same parcel. They are in one ownership. It is all one parcel.
Hoag questioned whether the stream is a salmonid stream. Goodwin stated
it is the headwaters of California Creek. She didn't know if salmon went that far
up.
Hoag asked if there are any policies that talk about light industrial activities
in relation to threatened or endangered species. Goodwin stated not specifically.
Throughout the Comprehensive Plan, it says that salmon should be protected. If
they can protect the salmon adequately with buffers, the area can be left an
industrial area and still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Crawford questioned whether the Public Utility District's (PUD) response
satisfies any concerns about water provision. Goodwin stated it does. It will
probably be expensive, but will be at the developer's expense. The district has said
that water is available.
Crawford questioned what type of sewer system would be used. Goodwin
stated it would have a septic system. Right now, the Grandview Business Park and
other business parks in the Grandview area are all on septic systems. If they are
going to do something that requires heavy processing, such as food processing,
they would need a sewer system. Many light industrial uses are not very sewer -
intensive or water - intensive.
Crawford questioned whether there are regulations about how light industrial
uses can be constructed, given the area's proximity to California Creek. Goodwin
stated the critical area ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer along all anadromous
rivers. All of the wetlands in that area would also be protected by the critical area
ordinance or could be altered if there was mitigation for compensation. The
development would have to have an improved stormwater plan for all the hard
surfaces. There would be some treatment and retention of the stormwater before it
is discharged into any of the rivers.
Crawford asked about the soils in the area. Goodwin stated agricultural soils
are not an issue. There is some agriculture in the surrounding area. The problem
with soils is the high water table. The surrounding area is being farmed with cattle
grazing.
Hoag asked if it is in the agricultural protection overlay (APO). Goodwin
stated it is. It is part of a 72 -acre piece. The entire parcel is 72 acres. If it was
rezoned, it wouldn't be in the APO.
Hoag questioned whether a strip mall fits in a light impact industrial (LII)
zone. Goodwin stated this parcel is not in LII, but the front half is zoned general
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 14
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
commercial, which allows a commercial strip mall. It couldn't be on the proposed
ten acres. If it was rezoned to LII, it couldn't be a commercial strip mall.
Hoag asked what happens to the rest of the parcel to the east. Goodwin
stated there is not a request before the Council today to zone it light industrial.
The applicant intends to take the parcel to the Hearing Examiner as a site - specific
rezone associated with a binding site plan that would approve the development. It
doesn't require a Comprehensive Plan amendment because it is already in the
urban growth area. Under the current zoning codes, one can do a rezone
concurrent with a development if it is part of the UGA and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's intent is to do a light industrial development
in the entire parcel.
Dawson asked the zoning north of the ten acres. Goodwin stated that zoning
is rural, one dwelling unit per five acres (R5A).
Brenner stated they are supposed to try and make UGA boundaries linear.
This property sticks out. She asked the reasoning. Goodwin stated the thinking at
the time it was done was that it is in one piece owned by one owner, and that since
half of it is zoned commercial already, the entire piece should be included.
Brenner stated this puts the pressure on to infill the UGA with that rural
triangle area. Goodwin stated the boundary is unusual because the Grandview
Business Park and the other industrial uses were already there. They already had
commercial zoning at the I -5 interchange. The thinking is that eventually
Grandview will continue over the Nooksack River to the Pole Road several years into
the future. It will continue to be a major intersection of the county, and the
commercial zoning will go all the way around the intersection.
Brenner questioned whether the general commercial zoning happened after
the area was designated for the UGA. Goodwin stated no. It has been there for a
very long time.
Brenner stated she couldn't recall why they decided to enlarge the area.
Goodwin stated she would have to research the history.
Hoag stated she agreed that the parcel should not be divided, but was
concerned about zoning it LII because of the compatibility to the surrounding
property.
Heather Whalen, spokesperson for the Al Jansen, showed a map of the
property. Theoretically, the UGA boundary should have followed the property
boundary. When something is included in the UGA boundary, it is given a
designation for when it is developed.
Goodwin stated the zoning remains rural, but the City of Ferndale designated
when the areas in the UGA would develop. The County tries to defer to what the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 15
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
City proposed for their UGA. The City designated it light industrial, but it is still
zoned rural by the County.
McShane stated that is when the applicant goes to the Hearing Examiner for
a specific site plan. Goodwin stated the County has not done any site - specific
rezones yet. This will be the test case.
Brenner stated the purpose is to make regular UGA boundary. It would have
been better to not include this property. Whalen stated she researched the history
of this. When this was done, most people thought the I -5 corridor would be a
developed area. The owners who wanted to participate in that tried to. The ones
who are established otherwise didn't try. The City of Ferndale is working to try and
square off their UGA. They have preliminary maps drawn up.
Whalen continued to state that she wanted to discuss the UGA designation
and why it is designated light industrial. The rezone is separate from
Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Council will get to review the rezone
application later. The applicant has drawn up plans and has done soil, habitat, and
creek studies. They have had officials look at the area. They get all the water from
the culverts around the AM /PM mini -mart and under Grandview. That is where the
creek starts. It is a ditch along a county frontage road. It seems more creek -like
in the ten acres, and it goes under I -5 and along Portal Way. It is hard to tell if it is
a creek. No one agrees what it is. The applicant has done a lot of work on it, and
agrees to put in 100 -foot buffers. It feeds into California Creek as the southeastern
headwater. They are doing a landscape buffering design for the development and
for the creek. They are going to enhance the creek on the property.
Dawson asked about the industrial build -out west of the freeway. Goodwin
stated there are a few vacant buildings in the industrial area. East of the freeway,
many of the parcels are developed.
Brenner stated this is a UGA, which means the intent is to not be rural any
more. She asked what other use the area could have if they don't approve this
use. Goodwin stated a UGA is expected to be converted to urban over the next 20
years. Another option would be to leave it rural for another five or ten years until
there is a demand, or put it in a high density residential use.
Brenner asked if the County can designated the use if the City of Ferndale
wants to rezone it. Goodwin stated the County could, but would need to talk to the
applicant and the city because there might not be an interest in putting in a higher
density residential area. The proposal now is not to rezone the rest of the 50 acres.
The only proposal is to add the ten acres to the UGA and rezone them.
Whalen stated the proposal is to be rezoned with the rest of the property, not
now. This is only an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Goodwin stated the proposal and recommendation is to add it to the urban
growth area and rezone to industrial. Ten acres would be rezoned. The rest of the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 16
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
parcel would be rezoned at the time of the site - specific rezone development
application. The Council could add it to the urban growth area and leave it rural.
Hoag stated that is what she wanted to do.
Whalen stated the original application did not request to rezone this ten
acres.
Goodwin stated the Council could modify the Planning Commission
recommendation. Add it to the urban growth area, and leave the zoning rural.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Goodwin continued to state that the peninsula of light industrial would only
be temporary. The proposal is to make the rest of it industrial also, unless it is
denied.
Brenner stated that if the Council considers making it a higher density
residential, it needs to talk to the City of Ferndale. Goodwin stated she would
recommend against zoning it for a higher density residential area. If they are going
to add it to the urban growth area and not make it light industrial, than leave it
rural until there is a better plan. She suspected there is not water and sewer
capacity to make it higher density residential right now.
Whalen stated the applicant's plan was to incorporate the ten acres into the
design if it is included in the UGA. It would be better if the entire parcel is
inclusive, and have a substantial buffer along the side.
McShane questioned whether the ten acres would work if it is left zoned R5A,
but is included in the UGA. Whalen stated it works. The water goes from the
AM /PM, under Grandview, across Banner Business Park, through a culvert under I-
5, and then in a ditch along Atwood Road. Then, the water curves into the
property. As it goes into the parcel, it begins to look like a creek. The applicant
proposed to Fisheries to move it further into the ten acres and fully buffer and
landscape the creek. It is a benefit to the applicant because the parcel would be
undivided, a mostly buffered area, and keep the creek away from the industrial
area. The applicant's goal is to have the zoning and utilities established so that, as
the market is available, the land is available. Each buyer would have to apply for a
site - specific rezone and design buffers on each of the parcels. It would all go
through the review process.
Hoag questioned whether it matters if the zoning remains rural if it is
included in the UGA. Whalen stated it would make a difference in that it is a better
incentive to want to do this. Each of the industrial buyers will have buffers and
designated open spaces. There will be severe buffers to the creek area.
Brenner stated she wanted to get some history on why this boundary was
done the way it was. There are some areas of the boundary in the Ferndale area
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 17
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
that were allowed to be more irregular they didn't want to divide the property. She
didn't know if this was one of those parcels. She asked if the ten acres was a
different parcel. Whalen stated Al Jansen purchased the 72.1 acre parcel in 1970.
Brenner stated there was an irregular boundary for the Ferndale UGA
because someone didn't want to split a parcel. She asked why the ten acres was
left out. Whalen stated it was a mistake. The boundary follows a section line
instead of the property boundary line.
Goodwin stated the current boundary that leaves the ten acres out of the
UGA was a mapping error. They followed the section line rather than the property
line. There was no conscience decision to divide the property. On the map, the
section line looked like the property line.
Brenner stated they need to do better identifying what they want for
boundaries, even if it means cutting through a property.
David McVittie, 7086 Atwood Road stated there are a number of industrial
buildings on west side of freeway. Many have been vacant for several years. Two
industrial parks, and one is owned by Al Jansen. He questions why another
industrial area would be put in this area when there doesn't seem to be a need for
it. It directly affects the water table.
Hoag stated the Hearing Examiner process would change the balance of the
72 acres to light impact industrial. Mr. McVittie's concerns would be addressed at
that time.
Pete Gustafson, 7092 Atwood Road stated he's owned his land sine 1979.
The distance to the rezone area was a comfortable distance, but now they are
making it closer to his property. He is concerned about the aquifer under all this
area, including the light industrial area on the other side of the freeway. It is a
shallow aquifer. The wells are no deeper than 30 feet. There is sand from the
topsoil to 30 feet, and below that is clay. Any contaminants from the development
are already on the west side. They will potentially go into their wells. Regarding
the creek, it is not concrete lined. It is all sand. The west side of the freeway is
not a good example of buffering and interior landscaping. Some of the land is now
used for potatoes, corn, and peas. It is not just marginal land.
Frank Eventoff, 7086 Atwood Road, stated the industrial areas on the west
side of the freeway has only been there a few years. The Grandview industrial area
is well done, but Mr. Jansen's development is not. Mr. Jansen said he would be
very gentle with the land and not disrupt the natural beauty. Within two days of his
meeting with Mr. Jansen, the trees were removed. There are 14 families in the
Atwood Road area. They have had a couple of neighborhood meetings about this
development. Every neighbor except one is concerned about their property values
and their taxes. He didn't know how gentle Mr. Jansen would be in the creek. He's
seen salmon in the creek years ago. There used to be much wildlife in the area,
but it is all gone now. He is concerned about how the stormwater will be handled
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 18
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
and monitored. That area has never drained. The Army Corps of Engineers tested
the property years ago, and it could not perk. That is why no one built there. Mr.
Ebey came in to re- contour the land and change the environmental conditions.
When Mr. Jansen has his environmental test, the evidence will be buried. This used
to be marshy land. He is concerned about the environmental impact. He doesn't
trust the way it is being done.
Hoag asked about the large ponds that were filled in. Goodwin stated they
could have been artificially created ponds, even if they were there a long time. If
they were wetlands, they could not have been filled.
Whalen stated the ponds that Mr. Eventoff referred to are on Mr. Ebey's 20
acres. Regarding the drainage ditch and wetland study, the I -5 ponds have had
geographic information system (GIS) aerial photographs taken. They are adjacent
to this parcel. There are photographs from the 1960's showing excavation of two
triangular ponds.
Mayla McVittie, 7086 Atwood Road, stated they are concerned because the
ten acres, once approved, is an absurd place to put an industrial park. It is very
pastoral. It will impact the neighbors emotionally and financially. There is no need
for any light industrial park or mall. Putting in an industrial park would be
devastating to the neighborhood.
Brenner asked if there could be a strip mall. Goodwin stated the bottom half
of the parcel is zoned commercial now, and could be a mall or commercial
development. The industrial zone can't have retail. It would have to be
warehouse, light manufacturing, or storage.
Brenner asked if the idea is to put in a strip mall.
Whalen stated the applicant has no plans for a strip mall. Preparing this
property for how it is designated and zoned is a huge investment. The point of
doing it is for the property value. Al Jansen owns half of the Grandview Industrial
Park. They are down to ten or fifteen acres remaining out of an original 150 acres.
It is almost sold out. When a buyer comes along for the new development, he or
she will have to submit an individual site plan. That is the only plan. They have a
general plan for utilities.
Crawford stated the rezone is nothing to be concerned about because the
zoning code says what the owner can do or cannot do in the light impact industrial
zone.
Hoag moved to include the ten acres in the UGA, because it appears to be an
error. Don't do the rezone. Keep the zone at R5A.
McShane stated they would need to schedule a public hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 19
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
Crawford stated this is a classic opportunity for LII zoning in Whatcom
County. There are few of those opportunities because of the land base they have
and the types of uses that are there. This is located near the freeway, power lines,
a major freeway exit, and it makes sense. If this motion fails, he would make a
counter motion to accept the Planning Commission recommendation.
Brenner stated they could consider not putting it in the UGA at all. It is
moving closer to impacting the neighbors. There is quite a bit of light industrial
area in the county. If a mistake was made, don't compound it. Adding ten more
acres isn't the answer. She liked the buffering plan, and they will have to do
buffers anyway. The residential area was already there, and they need to respect
it.
Hoag stated she agreed with Councilmember Brenner. If there was a
shortage of LII land, the other sites across the freeway would be selling fast. They
are not, because there is not a shortage. Fourteen neighbors are in the area, and
are opposed. That should mean something. She amended her motion to only have
a public hearing.
Motion to schedule a public hearing to consider all three options carried 2 -1
with Crawford opposed.
Hoag moved to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. BACKGROUND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE UTILITY
PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING TRANSMISSION
PIPELINES (AB2001 -338)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda and will be rescheduled for the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee meeting of November 27, 2001.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they need to begin
scheduling the Comprehensive Plan public hearings soon so they can let the
applicants know when they will be. There are three more to schedule. There is no
deadline. The zoning code says they should be adopted on or about November 30,
which is not likely to happen. They still have to get through the Endangered
Special Act (ESA) amendment. The Executive and Finance Division Manager have
requested that they don't schedule Comprehensive Plan hearings for the same night
as the budget hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 20
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
McShane stated he may schedule this item and the Point Roberts item for the
second meeting in November.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Goodwin stated she is not aware of any other public hearings that will be
scheduled on that night.
McShane stated he would talk to the Clerk of the Council about scheduling.
The Point Roberts and Ferndale UGA items should be scheduled for the second
meeting in November.
Goodwin stated that leaves the December 13 meeting to schedule the ESA
public hearing.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2001, Page 21