Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 5 20001 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 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Connie Hoag Sam Crawford Absent: None Hoag stated that if committee members discuss an issue that the committee will act on, those comments need to be on the record. Two members of this committee cannot discuss an issue off the record. That is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. Any of those discussions should be put on the record now. McShane stated there was discussion regarding the availability of minutes regarding the City of Bellingham's position on the industrial land during the Birchwood hearings, versus the hearing on the Sandell rezone. Councilmember Crawford had asked for the minutes regarding that. Sylvia Goodwin wasn't able to find those minutes. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated Councilmember Crawford left a message for her to find the minutes, but she didn't get the message in time for this meeting. During the Gateway Industrial zoning hearings with the city for the urban fringe on the other end of Bakerview Road, the city made comments that there is a shortage of industrial land within the city's urban growth area, and that was the reason the Gateway Industrial zoning had to be maintained for light industrial use rather than commercial use. On this rezone hearing, the city testified that there was an adequate supply of light industrial land and they didn't need this light industrial land in the city. Councilmember Crawford asked for the minutes of the earlier meeting because it is pertinent to this case. She would find them. There was considerable discussion of the land supply of industrial land during that hearing. McShane questioned whether they discussed the overall amount of industrial land. Goodwin stated it was specifically in that area. The city's concern was that commercial zoning would bring more traffic to that area. They also had a concern that there was a shortage in the industrial land supply. That was one of the key issues that the Growth Management Hearings Board when it had overturned the County's zoning, because the County's urban growth areas sizes were based on the need for industrial land, although the Gateway area was never counted in the industrial land supply. It was always counted as commercial. Hoag stated she recalled some of the conversation and asked to see the minutes. The discussion of industrial land had come up a number of times. Her recollection from the Gateway discussions was that the issue was not whether or Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 48 not there was a shortage. The issue was that the plan called for light industrial, but the language the County was going to implement did nothing to guarantee that the land would end up being sufficiently light industrial. The focus of the discussion was whether they would end up with any light industrial land. The neighborhood concerns were about traffic and other things. When she overheard the conversation about this in the morning and said it needs to be on the record, the conversation did not stop. The law is very important, because they are legislators making law. If one of them inadvertently violates something, and it is brought to their attention, then it is very important that they immediately cease. COMMITTEE WORK SESSION 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CAPITAL FACILITIES CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER (AB2000- 347) McShane questioned whether approval of this plan would become biennial. Councilmember Brenner had mentioned having this issue in her Public Works Committee. Ms. Goodwin also suggested that the Finance Committee may want to look at it. Hoag stated the Comprehensive Plan amendments have to be done as a batch and then be done before the County's budget is adopted. She questioned whether sending items to the different committees would have an affect on that schedule. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it shouldn't have an effect as long as they can do it quickly. The Council, not the committees has to look at them concurrently. The amendment needs to be ready to adopt by the first meeting in November. They might want to try and approve the amendments during the last meeting of October, in case something gets carried over. Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated staff sent the amendments to the state in early September. On the front of the ordinance, it says they have to comment by either November 14 or 28. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they hope to adopt the budget on November 14. There is a work session on November 7. Aamot presented the staff report. The proposal has three parts. The first is the adoption of the six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This is required by the Growth Management Act and the County Charter. The second part is a proposal to update the six -year capital improvement program every other year instead of annually. The third part is incorporating state transportation planning into the local Comprehensive Plan, as required by a state law passed in 1998. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 The first issue is adoption of the six -year CIP. This program includes plans to improve parkland and trails, government buildings, and roads. Some of the parkland improvements include sites along the south fork of the Nooksack River, Lake Samish, and Cherry Point. The plans include office space for emergency services and the Sheriff. There are also plans for a new jail. The Law and Justice report recommended the need for a new 290 -bed jail. The County is projected to grow from about 163,000 people now to about 184,000 people in 2006. The intent of the plan is to keep pace with that growth. The second component of the proposal is the biennial review. The Comprehensive Plan currently requires that the six -year Capital Improvement Program be updated every year. They propose to change that to every other year. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) does not require review every year. It suggests that it be done at least every other year. To put together the plan is a relatively big job. A bienniel review might enable them to focus on other issues in the off years. The County administration may also have a plan to take a longer - term view of planning for capital facilities, which is probably a good idea to look further into the future than six years. The third component is the state highway planning. A law was passed in 1998 as House Bill (HB) 1487. The idea was to coordinate highway planning between state, regional, and local governments. The County had to incorporate several components into the Comprehensive Plan, including an inventory of state highways. The state devised a system that includes designating highways of statewide significance, which would have a higher priority for state funding. The state also wanted to make the level of service in the state and local plans consistent. The County has to amend its plan to reflect the state's level of service. The state also sent forth highway needs for the state's 20 -year plan. The County references those in the County Comprehensive Plan. The purpose is to coordinate transportation planning to make sure they are all on the same page. Crawford stated they've got the six -year plan in front of this committee. The committee also has four other issues it's looking at. He questioned whether they are working on the six -year plan at this meeting or on amending the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned whether the committee was being given the six -year plan to show what they would be amending in the Comprehensive Plan. Aamot stated page four of the ordinance is a synopsis. The County is to amend chapter four of the Comprehensive Plan, which is the Capital Facilities chapter, as shown as Exhibit One. Instead of an annual review, they would have a biennial review. They would also amend the level of service for state highways in the Comprehensive Plan. The committee would also amend chapter six of the Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit Two. The level of service requirements show up in that chapter. They are including other information to comply with HB #1487. They are referencing the state highway plan. The third item is the six -year CIP. That is actually included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The fourth element would be another appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, appendix G, which is a Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 traffic model study done by the Engineering Division to estimate impacts to state highways. That was also required by state law. Crawford questioned where it is written that they would do this review every other year. He questioned whether the added language, "on at least a biennial basis" does that. Aamot stated it does. Crawford questioned whether there are changes in the six year Capital Improvement Program from last year. Aamot stated there are. Crawford questioned whether this had gone through the Planning Commission. Aamot stated it had. Crawford questioned whether the Planning Commission recommended this. Aamot stated the Planning Commission made no changes to the staff's changes. They wanted each department to make a presentation to them, but it wasn't done. Staff sent the packet out to County departments. They are aware of it. Staff worked with the different departments. Hoag questioned whether this committee would send the plan to the Public Works Committee to discuss in detail. McShane stated that is for them to decide. Councilmember Brenner requested that. Hoag stated she supported sending it to the Public Works Committee. McShane stated there are benefits, but also pitfalls, regarding timing. Desler stated the administration appreciated Mr. Aamot's presentation. It is important to have a regular update to a Capital Improvement Plan. They tend to look at this as a broad view of where the County is going with its capital facilities. There is an interest in developing a much more deliberate and serious plan about where the County is going with its capital facilities. As a part of that effort, the administration would submit to the County Council some proposals that include budget issues, allowing them to carry on an appropriate master facilities planning process for all the County government operations, even potentially coordinated with the City of Bellingham. The County has 75 buildings. The administration decided to look well into the future to make sure that any decisions regarding any of the buildings be done within the context of an appropriate master plan. Furthermore, the administration would want to coordinate this through the Planning and Development Services Department. They anticipate that the master facilities planning process would involve the selection of a private consultant to assist the County with the work associated with a clear and professional plan. Out of that process would come the more detailed elements of planning for the jail or any other facilities the Council approves as they progress down the line. It has been about 25 years since the County has done anything like this. He believed some mistakes were made in the past because there wasn't any adequate planning around the Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 County's capital facilities and public buildings. They would like to correct that in the future with this effort. If they were able to carry on with that effort, the administration would bring forward future adjustments and refinements to the Capital Facilities Plan next year. Aamot stated the biennial review doesn't say that they can't do a review every year. Hoag questioned whether the Council would review it in terms of the budget or the entire plan if they switch to a biennial review. She questioned how budgeting would work for capital facilities. Aamot stated one idea is that they could do a summary every year. Section 6.30 of the budget requires the six -year CIP to go along with it. They could do a summary sheet like they've done in the past. If the budget become biennial, this proposal would fit with that pattern. Biennial review doesn't lock the County in to anything. It allows the County more flexibility. Desler stated they would probably bring the CIP back next year if the Council approves the master planning process. After that, it could be done in a biennial review, assuming they follow the schedule for planning for capital facilities. Crawford stated nothing precludes the Council from stepping in at any time if there is an issue with the plan. This language says that review would be done at least on a biennial basis. They could bring it up sooner. When he was on the Planning Commission, he was confused about the role played by the commission members. Planning and Development Services is for land use issues. Capital improvements affect land use, and he understood having someone from the Planning Department approve the plan. He questioned how facilities planning fits into land use planning, and whether that responsibility is appropriate at Planning and Development Services, as opposed to the Public Works Department or another area. Desler stated that the role, responsibilities, and functions of the Planning Department are around development activities and land use and their associated changes. However, that is a narrow view of the roles and responsibilities of the department. The administration is beginning to look at the Planning Department as being broader than focused on just those two elements. The administration would like to use the Planning Department and its assets, resources, and staff skills in other elements of how the County addresses the future of the county. That doesn't preclude other planning efforts being developed with other departments. The Planning Department has a broader role to play in planning where the County is going and why. The department has had that role in the past. Crawford questioned whether the Planning Commission would be required to hold discussions on possible capital improvements or changes. The Planning Commissioners question whether they are equipped to make these determinations. He also questioned how the Council would know what the changes are from last year unless they compare the two documents. Aamot stated there aren't dramatic changes. The total costs are more specific, especially for the jail. The East Acme farm site was added for parks. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 48 McShane stated he would support going to a biennial review, but the Council should look at it every year due to a high turnover rate on the Council. There should be annual review, either through this process or another process. He questioned whether the Public Works Department looked at this. Aamot stated he worked with the Public Works Department. Crawford asked how other counties handle capital improvements, regarding planning stages. Aamot stated the GMA requires that a plan be done. An amendment of the Comprehensive Plan has to go through the Planning Commission. The planning departments and public works departments in other counties probably work together. Desler stated that as they approach the issue of a master facilities planning process for this community and this county, they can make a choice about the extent to which the County involves the Planning Commission. It is a good idea to educate them and share with them and to get reactions and recommendations. It may well be that the efforts they are talking about would be more precise around master planning for the future and involve other people. When the material comes forward to the Council and other people, they can choose to build the recommendations from the master facilities planning process into a six -year Capital Facilities Plan. That could be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Council should look at the Planning Commission with the same degree of support for the recommendations as the Council does now for other recommendations of the commission. The things they will talk about would probably go beyond the traditional span that the Planning Commission looked at in the past. It would take some education of and communication with the Planning Commission members. Hoag asked if there is any reason that the Council couldn't have an annual review of the long -term vision for capital facilities. Desler stated they could do an annual review. It is still appropriate to do that. The County has the option of going to a biennial review. The time to do that is when things become a bit more stable. Aamot stated that doing an annual review wouldn't preclude a long -term vision review. They are two different issues. McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council, and also to refer to Public Works Committee for discussion prior to Council review. Hoag opposed the motion. Either this committee or the Public Works Committee needs to have detailed review of the plan. She was not comfortable approving the plan as it is. The suggestion of putting it in the Public Works Committee is appropriate. The third issue to comply with state law is something the Public Works Committee deals with. The Planning Committee, with its loaded schedule could refer this item to a different committee that is better suited to look at this information. She was not comfortable with some of the recommendations that are made regarding the Sheriff's Office. She wanted her questions answered prior to approval. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 McShane stated he visualized that, by doing this, they are assuring that this comes before the council, who is responsible for the timeframe of approving this. The Public Works Committee could fully explore the issues. There are no reasons why proposals for amendments couldn't come out of the Public Works Committee. Hoag asked why they could not put the item in the Public Works Committee as a regular agenda item with a deadline before the 14th. That would avoid the concern that it would get held up. Brenner stated that would be fine. Crawford stated he was okay with that suggestion since the Public Works Committee chair agreed. He had concerns with exhibits one, two, and four. They are minor technical changes to agree with the state. The Public Works Committee would not have much concern. The critical thing for him was the six -year capital improvement program. McShane withdrew his motion. It is appropriate that it be more fully discussed in the Public Works Committee. Brenner asked how this ended up in the Planning Committee. Crawford stated they discussed that earlier in the meeting. GMA required that capital facilities planning be a part of the Comprehensive Plan process. McShane stated this item is a Comprehensive Plan amendment that has to be done concurrently with the other amendments. There is a time consideration. Hoag moved to refer the item to the Public Works Committee to be completed by October 31, then schedule it in the Planning Committee and Council on November 14. Brenner stated she would schedule it for October 24 for the Public Works Committee. Hoag stated they need to schedule hearings for the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Goodwin stated they don't have to if the Council adopts the Planning Commission recommendation. Aamot stated they've been working with many departments. He will need to consult with the departments if the councilmembers have specific questions on a particular department. He would like any questions given to him ahead of time. Motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, Page 7 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 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY (AB2000 -323) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there were differences when the County Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan. When the city adopted its comprehensive plan, the two boundaries were supposed to be the same, but different maps were used and there were some differences. This change would make the two boundaries the same. A community meeting was held in Lynden and was well attended. All property owners involved were satisfied, as was the city. She recommended approval. It would not have any greater impact on agricultural land. Several agricultural areas were removed from the urban growth area. Flood plain areas were added. Currently, the flood plain boundaries don't follow property lines. It is difficult to have a boundary based on a flood plain when they aren't surveyed. The city does have flood plain regulations to address the flood plain areas. Hoag stated the title said they would change things from the urban growth area to agricultural and rural areas. However, when she looked at the maps, some of the changes were going from agricultural and rural areas to the UGA. She asked to go over the parcels. Goodwin stated some areas are coming in and some areas are going out. The ordinance's attachment A has a map. The fine dotted line cutting across the parcels was the County's Comprehensive Plan boundary before this amendment. They are moving the County boundary line up to the property line. In that case, they are moving land from a UGA to agricultural land. That is the same situation for area two west. On attachment B, there are a few areas that are being added. West of S.B.C. Avenue is a piece of land that is zoned agriculture and is being removed from the UGA. There is another parcel that is completely included in the UGA, when before the boundary angled through the parcel. The conservation easement land is being completely removed from the UGA. Hoag asked about the use of the parcel at the end of South B.C. Avenue. Goodwin stated most of it is in agricultural use right now. The zoning does allow development, but because it is flood plain, there is not likely to be a lot of development on this piece. The development could be clustered on the developable land outside of the flood plain. If there were an annexation, the entire piece could be treated as one piece. Hoag questioned whether the previous County boundary was based on the flood plain. Goodwin stated it was. Some people said it isn't correct anyway. Hoag questioned whether the County would violate the GMA or Comprehensive Plan if it puts flood plain areas in the UGA. Goodwin stated it would not. The city has flood plain regulations that say one can't develop in the flood Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 plain unless he or she elevates the development. The City has the same restrictions the County has on floodways. Hoag questioned whether the County would violate any policies of the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan if they put a flood plain in a UGA. Goodwin stated they wouldn't violate any policies. The Nooksack River goes through the City of Ferndale. Other cities have portions of the flood plain within both the city limits and the UGA's. The cities have to have regulations that follow shoreline setbacks and flood plain regulations. Those are the only two areas that add to the UGA. In attachment C, they are removing urban growth areas. There is one parcel where the citizen wanted to come into the UGA, and the city said it would put it on its docket to consider adding. Crawford restated his motion to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN GROWTH AREA AND SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA POLICIES OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2000 -344) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that when the staff began looking at the criteria for the Birch Bay /Drayton Harbor short term versus long -term planning area, they went through a lot of discussion about whether the area should or shouldn't be a short term planning area. The staff discovered that the Comprehensive Plan didn't give very good guidance on that issue. The Comprehensive Plan policy on short -term versus long -term urban growth areas were oriented toward city urban growth areas. Much of the wording was silent about the unincorporated urban growth areas. The staff looked at the issue and the Planning Commission had public hearings, then made a few changes. In the end, the Planning Commission recommended approval of these changes. The changes are included in exhibit one, attached to the staff report. It begins on page three of the ordinance. Some of them were very generic because at one point, this goal dealt only with all of the urban growth areas. They added clarification that the County would maintain jurisdiction until annexation. Hoag stated the ordinance's summary statement on the agenda bill references independent, non - industrial UGA's (Birch Bay and Columbia Valley). Goodwin stated those are the areas the changes would affect. The policy on short - term versus long -term UGA's has been generic until now. The staff split out and added a new section on the independent UGA's, and did minor changes to the policy that dealt with all UGA's so that it would be clear. Hoag stated that "independent, non - industrial UGA's" is unclear. Most UGA's are independent and non - industrial. Goodwin stated all the UGA's are associated with cities, except for Birch Bay and Columbia Valley. They are independent and not associated with a city. These policies apply to the rest of the UGA's. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 Brenner questioned whether they would go through each goal and policy. Goodwin stated they could. The items that are underlined in the document are the changes. The items that are in boldface type are the goals. Brenner stated she was bothered that goal 2N says Lynden would be encouraged to develop at a smaller density than Ferndale and Bellingham. Lynden and Ferndale are virtually the same size. Lynden has a high percentage of growth each year. It looks like they are dumping density into Bellingham and Ferndale, and not with the other areas. They should not dump densities anywhere. Bellingham hasn't met its development density. The County has tried to work with them. Much of the development going on in Bellingham is very nice development. She didn't know what is happening in Ferndale. She wanted to hear about this from Bellingham and Ferndale. Hoag stated this is an existing goal, but she agreed with Councilmember Brenner. She wasn't on the County Council when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. She questioned the rationale of making Lynden a different density than Ferndale and Bellingham, especially since Lynden is surrounded by farmland. Goodwin stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was proposed, the Ferndale population was estimated to be 19,000 in the year 2015. Lynden was estimated to have a population of 13,000 in the year 2015. In reality, Ferndale and Lynden were very close to the same size in 1995. They still are. Brenner stated she objected to those forecasts back then because they were not realistic. She still objected to them. Lynden is a very nice place and people want to live there. McShane stated he had the same concerns as Councilmembers Brenner and Hoag, but the concerns are not directed toward what they are dealing with right now, which is an amendment regarding the non - incorporated urban growth areas like Birch Bay. The committee couldn't make that change now because it would amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding Lynden and Ferndale, but that isn't what they are doing now. It would have to be docketed for the future. Goodwin agreed. McShane stated the Council could instigate a Comprehensive Plan amendment if it wanted and put it on the docket for next year. Brenner questioned whether the Council could legally make the change in this ordinance. Goodwin stated it was a question for the legal staff, but she would say no because this policy is on the density within an existing urban growth area and isn't affected by long term versus short term, which is what the docketed item was. They certainly could docket it for next year. Hoag stated that even if the committee could do it now, it isn't a good idea. If the committee decides that it should look at this, it should go through proper public review. Her initial reaction was that it should be a higher density because of Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 the surrounding property, but there are also other factors like traffic patterns. They don't have that issue in Bellingham and Ferndale because they are on Interstate 5. It would be appropriate to docket it and have a thorough review. Brenner stated she wanted the committee to docket it for discussion. She believed they were supposed to set up enough of an economic base that people don't need to travel as much to Bellingham. Hoag stated she wanted more information on how those density levels were determined before the Council schedules it for the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated she believed the thinking was that Bellingham and Ferndale together are considered an urban area. Hoag asked Goodwin to discuss each of the changes in this item. McShane questioned whether the independent, non - industrial areas would be encouraged to develop at a density of four units per acre, as the smaller cities are encouraged. Goodwin stated that was correct. If the Council thinks that Birch Bay and Columbia Valley need a higher density, then the Council could increase that. In order to have transit - friendly designs and decrease the dependence on automobiles, one theory is to allow 20 units per acre throughout the urban growth areas. The County wasn't ready for that yet. Brenner stated they are creating what they don't want to create, 1/4 -acre lots. It shouldn't be called an urban growth area. They should plan for higher density, not lower density. The 1/4 -acre density is suburban, not urban growth. If they are trying to identify what is what, they need to change that term or require higher density. Goodwin stated the zoning in all of those areas is Urban Residential 4 (UR -4), which is four units per acre. If they want to have a Comprehensive Plan policy that says they are going to encourage higher density, then they need to look at rezoning the Columbia Valley and Birch Bay. Columbia Valley is small lots and fully platted at that higher density. Birch Bay has the lower density. If they make Birch Bay a higher density, then they need to look at the capital facilities in Birch Bay and rezone it. Brenner stated Birch Bay is talking about eventually incorporating. It seems that the County would create a problem by encouraging density at four units per acre if it is going to end up becoming a city. It is a low density for a city. Hoag stated she attended the Smart Growth seminars. They talked about the importance of planning for the future when looking at these areas. It's been found that with intersections more than 1/4 miles apart, people wouldn't walk to the nearest bus stop. In current planning, they need to keep those things in mind. They are talking about urban growth areas, not platting cities. When the areas get annexed, cities can make the areas the density they feel best meets their planning objectives. Two of the main considerations the County should look at are the nature of the area currently and what the environment would support. She asked the rationale in coming up with the density of four units per acre for these areas. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 Goodwin stated they looked at the zoning density, which is four units per acre. If that is the density in which they are zoned, and the County is trying to encourage infill, the County can't encourage it at a higher density than what the zoning allows. In order to have efficient urban services later, four units per acre is adequate to have public water and sewer, and still be urban. The ones considered suburban and rural are the one -acre lots. The County doesn't want to encourage those. Four units per acre by everyone's standards is considered urban. There is a lot of demand for those bigger residential lots. Hoag asked if anything would preclude them from bringing forward the transportation issues when they are annexed into the cities. Goodwin stated that even in Birch Bay where some areas are up to eighteen units per acre, there would be infill in the core. Suburban areas are not likely to get a higher density once they are platted at four units per acre unless there are accessory housing units. Once platted, the patterns are pretty well set. Regarding whether they would create transit - friendly communities that would ultimately decrease the dependence on the automobile, they would probably not at four units per acre. Right now they can't even get transit in Birch Bay and Blaine because there is not enough density. As gas becomes more expensive and scarce, they will have to infill even more. Brenner stated one -acre and five -acre lots allow for patterns of density much higher in the future. The whole purpose of urban growth areas is to not allow platting to go on that might interfere with higher densities, and to limit platting to the one -acre or five -acre parcels that could be platted to a higher density or allow development to go in that is of a much higher density, rather than waiting until someone incorporates or until someone wants to increase their density. That was the reason the decisions were made. They are not going to get a second chance to increase the density. McShane stated this was something worth discussing in the future. The implications of making the change would be broad. Goodwin suggested docketing the issue of density in all the UGA's. McShane stated the infrastructure and transportation would have to go with that. Goodwin has been talking about the need to update the Birch Bay subarea plan soon, even though they don't have the budget to do that. That may be where they could look at this issue. Brenner asked if it would be better to take out the underlined part. Instead of upping the ante to four units per acre, just take it out. Be silent on the density until they do the review. They are encouraging something that won't work, especially for places that are going to incorporate. They ought to stay silent until the review happens. Hoag stated that might work. She would favor the staff recommendation for adoption. If they want to take a closer look at it, it might be appropriate. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 48 McShane asked where Crawford is on higher densities and if he wants to take a look at it as a Council. Crawford stated he was not compelled one way or another. Hoag stated it would be a good idea for the Cascadia conference people to present to the committee or Council. It would be nice to have a joint meeting of the Bellingham and County councils and Bellingham and County planning commissions. They don't have to all agree, but they would all have access to the same information. Goodwin stated the Council of Governments (COG) scheduled several seminars on smart growth. She and several cities attended one not long ago. That discussion is going on and she could make sure the councilmembers are invited. They could schedule one aimed at decision - makers. Hoag questioned policy 2M -4 and asked the definition of urban levels of water service. She wanted to make sure the section that "other service providers" does not include water associations that are simply trying to serve people. Goodwin stated it definitely would include water associations. That is the whole idea and intent. It is throughout the Comprehensive Plan that water providers do not extend urban levels of water outside of urban growth areas. That is from the Growth Management Act. The County has that same language throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Hoag questioned how they define urban levels of water service, so they can distinguish between a water association that is simply serving people in its area and a water association that shouldn't be doing something. Goodwin stated that issue was heavily debated throughout the Comprehensive Plan process. She believed the words "urban level of water service" is vague and shouldn't have been used, but it was. They talked about it as it relates to fire flow and urban density. The wording is also in several other chapters. If one has rural zoning and rural density, they can provide water service to those people, but urban levels of water service is to go to urban densities. By extending water to an area that wouldn't have it, and is outside of an urban growth area, they are promoting urban density, which this intends to prohibit. It is clearer in the other sections in the Utilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Hoag asked for a definition of the urban levels of water service. Goodwin stated there isn't one that she knew of. Hoag moved to create a definition of urban levels of water service. When they describe this, they are talking about densities and zoning. It should be specifically tied to zoning. There are many pockets of residential development that are at densities that would be considered urban but are not zoned urban. Should their water supply fail or they want to switch, a water association should be able to serve them. Adding this language without clearing up that definition opens up a Pandora's box. They should not promote urban levels of development, but the Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 language is clumsy. Goodwin stated that language is entrenched throughout the Comprehensive Plan. She would bring it forward or try to find a definition. (Clerk's Note: the motion was not voted on.) Goodwin discussed goal 21\11. Hoag questioned whether they are going to encourage or ensure. Goodwin stated that if a county UGA is not associated with a city, the County may have more control. Goodwin discussed policy 21\11 -1. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is working on road standards now. They are talking about urban and rural standards. When the TAC gets to a certain point, it would try to involve the cities on the urban standards, which should also apply to Birch Bay. If Birch Bay is going to be a city eventually, it should have the same standards. Hoag stated she wanted to look at service providers and urban levels of water service. Goodwin discussed policy 21\11 -3. This is particularly an issue in Birch Bay where they have the water and sewer district and the city both providing services in the same area. As the area either incorporates or development occurs, it is important to have interlocal agreements in place. Hoag asked about the funding issue in policy 21\11 -4. Goodwin stated they aren't talking about a funding issue. The County Council funded $50,000 to do subarea plan updates in Point Roberts and Birch Bay. The Point Roberts plan took $37,000 of that money. The staff worked with the Port of Bellingham and a Birch Bay Planning and Development Committee, which includes the Chamber and others. It meets monthly. They've hired a consultant through the Port of Bellingham to do the first phase of planning. They will need involvement of the County financially and the staff support to continue that planning. She hoped to put together a funding package using the remaining $12,000 and grants from the state, Trillium, the water district, and school district. The County needs a similar effort for Columbia Valley. The staff has been working on issues with the residents. Because it is a UGA and has urban issues, they will need a community plan. Hoag asked how much it would cost. Goodwin stated it would cost about $50,000 to do each of these plans. The staff can't do it in this year's budget. Hoag asked about independent non - industrial UGA's, Birch Bay and Columbia Valley. Goal 2N has different language in its goals and policies. It says Unincorporated Residential and Recreational Urban Growth Areas, not independent, non - industrial UGA's. Goodwin stated they are the same. If they are residential, they are non - industrial. Independent means unincorporated. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 48 Hoag asked if a UGA is not associated with a city, it is not considered unincorporated. Goodwin stated it is unincorporated land. They could change the word to say independent unincorporated. Hoag moved to add language to goal 2N, "...remaining smaller cities and independent unincorporated residential /recreational..." and goal 2N1 "Ensure that independent unincorporated...." Goodwin stated that change doesn't require a hearing. city. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Hoag stated the term "independent" refers to places not associated with a Motion to amend carried 2 -0 with Crawford absent from the room. (Clerk's Note: The committee moved to the next item due to a time constraint.) 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAP 20, AND CLARIFYING THAT AREAS DESIGNATED RURAL FORESTRY (RF) AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY (CF) ON MAP 20 ARE FOREST RESOURCE LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70A.170 (AB2000 -345) This item was not discussed. S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES IN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN FRINGE FROM UR4 TO LII ZONING (AB2000 -346) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the County has an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham that says that if the County Council is considering doing a recommendation that is not consistent with the City Council recommendation, there will be a joint meeting. Rules also say the County Council needs a public hearing if it doesn't adopt the Planning Commission recommendation. Either way, the best thing to do would be to schedule a joint meeting or public hearing first off. Hoag asked for a staff report first, and then public testimony. It would be appropriate to have a joint meeting and hearing. Goodwin stated the issue is whether or not to rezone a 24 acre parcel within the Bellingham UGA at the east end of Bakerview, in the Squalicum Creek Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 watershed. Wetland issues include a disagreement between the County and city estimate and the applicant's estimate of the amount of wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory says that the amount of wetlands is 80 percent. A wetland assessment by Aqua -Terr reports that the wetland amount is 20 percent. There needs to be wetland evaluation. Another issue is that several pipelines go in and around the site. That makes it not a desirable place for a residential development. The land is currently zoned UR -4. There are high pressure gas pipelines from TransMountain and Olympic. Cascade Natural Gas goes through the middle. Both the city and County at this time, based their estimate on the National Wetland Inventory until they have better information. The applicant hired a consultant to do an assessment. The consultant came up with 20 percent wetlands. It did not do soil borings and surveying. Onsite testing is more likely to be accurate. Hoag stated she dealt with Aqua -Terr over the Judson Lake issue. It ended up that the Aqua -Terr report was very different than reality. It is important that people understand if they are looking to that consultant for information. Goodwin stated the consultant might want to come to the meeting. He is a reputable consultant that does good work and favors the environment. He doesn't normally cut corners or shade something to the developer's advantage. This is not something they can conclude either way. Goodwin continued to state that the issues are the wetlands and pipelines on the site. There is some state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land in forest surrounding the property. The grade raises to Mt. Baker Highway and the hill is forested. It is zoned UR -4, so DNR could sell their property for development. Ludtke Trucking is zoned industrial and is within the city limits. There is other County -zoned light industrial land across the Mt. Baker Highway. The rest of the land adjacent to the property is zoned UR -4, but is still fairly rural. Parcel sizes are around five acres and there are still farms and pastureland. The soils aren't suitable for commercial agriculture. When the staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Fringe Plan, policies say that it should be urban residential or urban industrial. The neighborhood wants the property to remain rural as a low density area. That is not appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan. Neighbors want to remove the area from the UGA. The City Planning Commission and City Council recommended denial and consideration later in the five -year review process. At that time, they could have better census data available. Also, the city watershed plan would more likely be finished at that time. The County Planning Commission and staff recommend rezoning at this time. Even though there is an urban land supply issue, the fact remains that the pipelines make it unsuitable for residential development. Regarding the wetland issue, impacts from urban residential development on wetlands are not much more than impacts from industrial development on wetlands. They would still need to protect the wetlands that are there. They would still need to have an Army Corps of Engineers permits if the amount of wetlands is greater than 1/10 of an acre. If there are wetlands, they will deal with the wetlands and the stormwater. It may be that there wouldn't be much development if there were 80 percent wetlands. It is not a good place to encourage residential development because of the pipelines. The Council decision is whether to go along with the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt and schedule a Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 meeting with City to discuss it, or have a hearing to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation. McShane questioned whether the Cascade pipeline was a feeder pipe for a large amount of service to Bellingham. Goodwin stated it is not a distribution line. Donovan Kehrer, 748 Marine Drive, stated two lines cross the property. One is a Cascade Natural Gas line that goes to the Georgia- Pacific co- generation facility. One line is a ten or twelve -inch feeder line for that. The other line is a distribution line that is about eight or ten inches. They are both high - pressure lines and are quite substantial. They are in the same right -of -way, and one may even be in on top of the other. Hoag questioned what makes it so important that the property should be rezoned right now rather than allow the request to go through the normal five -year review. Goodwin stated the normal review is that if someone comes in and submits an application, the applicant is entitled to a decision on the annual process. That is the County's process. This is the normal review. Staff didn't see what more is going to change in two years. They know how many people there are. Regarding the demand for industrial land, there is not much vacant, fully serviced industrial land in the city. The question was what are they going to know in two years that they don't know now and that would make a difference in this decision. Had they encouraged the applicant to not spend his time and money putting in an application, they would need a County policy that says the County wouldn't even consider rezones within the urban growth area, other than every five years. That is not the County's policy. Hoag stated it is and it isn't the County's policy. The County has been caught in that. The County does have an agreement with the City that, if the County takes in an application, the County would jointly review the application with the city. However, the City review process is the five -year review. The whole point of a five -year review is to look at what types of land are available, traffic impacts, and where the best locations are for rezoning to meet land shortages. The idea of people coming forward with proposals that involve County and city staff, short of five -year review, should only be done on an emergency basis. That is not what the County is currently doing. Page five of the staff report talks about criteria for light industrial designation. It says that wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas are not appropriate for light impact industrial activities. She questioned how they justify recommending approval with a policy that says wetland areas are not appropriate for light impact industrial development. Goodwin stated that goes back to the issue of whether there are 20 percent or 80 percent wetlands on the site. The site doesn't look like a wetland to her. Hoag asked why they would recommend approval before knowing the amount. Goodwin stated they never do an onsite wetlands delineation until there is a project. It is an expensive process. Most land in Whatcom County has not been surveyed and delineated, and isn't at the time of zoning. It is delineated at the time of the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the project. They are never Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 going to have that information. The County doesn't have the staff or funding to do an onsite detailed delineation of every site. Hoag asked if they are approving a project, even though it may have wetlands on it that wouldn't be appropriate. Goodwin stated they would approve a zoning designation, and the applicant has to prove to the Hearing Examiner that the lands are developable. In the lowest use scenario, there is a large paved apron now and a very large building on that site that could be used for industrial use now, with no further wetland disturbance. It may not be a good portion of the land that would be useable, but some land is paved to be used. Crawford stated that with the diagonal nature of Mt. Baker Highway, the pattern of platting and lot development, and the natural growth direction of the City of Bellingham, they have a rather disputed boundary area they've been discussing over the last couple of years, in terms of what should be included in the urban growth area and the zoning. He understood why these properties tend to be in dispute. This property is adjacent to the city limits and similar zoning of Planned Industrial. He questioned whether there is a direct connection to the stream, as was discussed during the Planning Commission. In the Ludtke property, it appears as if the Squalicum Creek was diverted eastward. The bottom of the Ludtke property boundary line borders on Squalicum Creek. The southwest corner of the Sandell property is about 100 yards away. He questioned whether this property has wetlands that connect to the stream quicker than the Ludtke property, when the Ludtke property appears to be touching Squalicum Creek. Kehrer stated he felt that, as they put in the application, the railroad track is a barrier between the Sandell and Ludtke properties. Any water flowing in that direction is going to collect at the bottom of the site. The drainage runs from the southeast corner in the direction of the creek. There is some surface water flow to that area. There was no reason why the Sandell property has any greater likelihood of draining to the creek than any other industrial properties that the creek goes through now. The surface water flow leaves the site in the direction of Squalicum Creek in one location only, so it would be easy to control. McShane stated the question was more about base flow. Treating on site is manageable, but the base flow impacts of industrial site is the amount of impervious surfaces and could be pretty substantial to deal with. Kehrer stated that if there is impervious surfaces, they would collect water. McShane stated one couldn't mimic base flow through engineering. Kehrer stated base flow is a groundwater recharge type of a thing. McShane stated they could control the stormwater runoff into the streams so there isn't flooding or erosion, but holding the water back in a detention facility or doing infiltration at a sole spot tends to get to the creek more quickly. Kehrer stated both sides of the stream channel are industrially zoned and could presumably be covered in blacktop right up to the edge of the steam. In the future, there isn't a difference between his site and the other sites. The issue is Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 48 development in general and its impact on the stream. He agreed with the base flow situation. Hoag stated it looked like an old railroad was on the property. Kehrer stated a railroad line went through there. There is a raised railroad bed above the properties on either side. Hoag questioned whether there is a break where the railroad berm drops and is level with the properties on either side. Kehrer stated the property drains to the southwest, toward the creek. It is not a break in the berm, but the grade is probably fairly close to the grade at the southwest corner of the site. There is still somewhat of a grade down through there. It is higher than the creek. Hoag stated she agreed with the fact that there is industrial land all along the creek. When an applicant comes forward with something new, they have to plug in new information that comes along. Most of the lots in Light Impact Industrial areas in both the city and the County have streams running through them. That isn't the issue. The issue is that there are programmatic mitigation regulations that deal with the issues. There is nothing about this site that makes it any different than any other site along the stream channel. The same safeguards that worked to protect the stream on those sites would work to protect the development on this property. Hoag stated a lot of that development was approved along streambeds before they realized what that does to the streambeds. The safeguards to mitigate that effect are because the use was already approved and they are existing situations. The idea that they should continue to allow it, even if they know better, is not the same as using common sense. McShane stated that isn't something that the committee should debate with someone bringing a project forward. The committee did get a letter from Stan and Kay Campbell (on file). They are located about 500 feet from the Sandell property. They did not oppose the rezone, and recognized the value of the rezone. Pat Anderson - Carmen, City of Bellingham Planning Department, stated the City Council met to consider the rezone. They struggled with the rezone. Their summary comments are in the packet she submitted. On the second page, the City Council summarized why they could not support the rezone. There was no compelling evidence that the rezone is needed at this time. The rest of the packet describes their rationale. They indicated that there is no evidence of a lack of industrial land. They all agree that industrial land is not serviced like they would like it to be to accommodate future economic growth. There are areas in the city that do have the roads and infrastructure. There are some areas adjacent to the city limits, west of Interstate 5 that provide good industrial land for development. There are many reasons why the City Council would like to see this rezone request considered during the 2002 five -year review update, which is a joint effort with the County. Ms. Goodwin mentioned several of those reasons. The city would have more information. The city is leading on a Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 Squalicum Creek Management Plan. It is an interjurisdictional plan. Several agencies are participating in that review of the Squalicum Creek watershed. What happens in this area does affect what happens outside that magical boundary called the urban growth area boundary. In the past, they discovered that wetlands, when they are significantly impacted by industrial development or intensive mixed use development, are severely impacted. The city has had to purchase properties that were originally zoned for industrial development along the Squalicum Creek within the city limits. They don't want to do that again. The General Manufacturing zone of the Ludtke property and the University's property were zoned in the early 1980's. During the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan update, there was consideration of rezoning this property, prior to the Ludtke's development, for residential use. There was also the possibility of removing part of this property from the urban service boundary. This was the early discussion following the adoption of the GMA. Both planning commissions felt that it was appropriate to retain that industrial zoning, because it had the industrial zoning for that length of time. The city is very concerned about how this area will develop. The summary statements from the City Council say that there are some unknowns, which Ms. Goodwin alluded to. The city would like to have the Squalicum Creek Management Plan finalized before the five -year review. If the residents request to be removed from Bellingham's urban growth area, Bellingham will have data for that. Transportation is an important issue in the urban growth area. The question is how they are going to connect city and County roads. There is some discussion about continuing Bakerview Road to the Mt. Baker Highway. The city does not want to go forward and determine where that alignment should be as a part of this rezone process. There are many unknowns. The City Council would like to look at this proposal as part of a larger discussion for transportation and utilities. The city agrees that the roads are adequate to meet both the residential and industrial zoning. The County Council should look carefully at the letter from Dr. Landiss, the director of the Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, which talks about how this rezone may provide an impetus for neighbors rezoning their properties. There would be significant impacts on what the university is attempting to do. That is exhibit F of the packet. There are other letters that address concerns. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Anderson - Carmen continued to discuss other letters that were received (on file). She represents the City Council and City Planning Commission. Their recommendation is to consider a discussion with the City Council, if the County Council is considering the rezone. This issue needs to be opened up to another public hearing. There are many unknowns that need to be addressed. One way of addressing these unknowns would be during the five -year review. Crawford questioned how Ludtke Trucking got its zoning. Anderson - Carmen stated the zoning was General Manufacturing when they petitioned to come into the city. It was rezoned because the city doesn't have a General Manufacturing designation. The city used the Planned Industrial zone. The Planned Industrial Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, 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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 zone provides for significant commercial development. Through the city's Planned Industrial designation, there is another public process to review the proposals that come in. In this particular area, the areas that were annexed came in as a Planned Industrial designation. The city excluded the commercial uses from those areas. Ludtke's does not have an opportunity to develop commercial use in that zone. Crawford asked why the Sandell property is zoned Urban Residential four units per acre when there is a natural delineation with the hill to the east of it. It seems incompatible that anyone would want to develop UR -4 types of developments in that location, adjacent to large trucking operations and gravel operations. He was not surprised that they have not chosen to put in residences. It seems likely that anyone would. He didn't understand why they wouldn't want compatible types of zoning, which this Light Industrial designation is close to the Planned Industrial designation. Anderson - Carmen stated the city has industrial land adjacent to residential land. The city has commercial land adjacent to residential land. This property has had a history from the early 1970's as being residential. It was zoned residential in the county. It was used as farmland at one point. The properties were sold off and it was rezoned to industrial in the early 1980's. This is the last piece of the property. It is surrounded by residential on three sides. The valley is residential. The property to the north, which is the Campbell's, is residential. They developed a business on the property. They requested industrial zoning. The City Council recommended that the entire property remain residential to retain the character of the properties to the north and the east in the valley. In 1997, that area was rezoned to light impact industrial. They see that there may be additional impetus on the part of other property owners who want their land rezoned to industrial. They can see that effect happening to this valley. The city wants to look at the valley comprehensively to determine whether industrial, residential, mixed uses, or wetland mitigation areas are appropriate for this property as well as the properties adjacent to it. Hoag stated they have heard questions about whether or not the rezone would be appropriate, but they haven't heard of anyone being opposed. There have been very compelling arguments to postpone the decision for additional information, to review the valley as a whole, to have a completed Squalicum Creek Management Plan, and to have it be a part of the 2002 five -year review. The letters that the city submitted in the packet recommend that the rezone not occur until there has been more review. She recommended postponing the rezone until the 2002 review and setting a public hearing to go contrary the Planning Commission recommendation, and instead postpone the rezone until the 2002 review is done by the city. She wanted to work with the city on this. There are very good points that have been made about the incompleteness of the factors that would have to be considered in deciding this. It isn't a "no" to the rezone. She moved to set a public hearing and recommend postponing the rezone to the five - year review. Crawford stated he would rather hash it out with the city. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, Page 21 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 Goodwin stated that if the Council might approve it, they want to have a joint public hearing with the City Council. McShane agreed with having a joint public hearing with the City Council. He went to the City Council meeting. They didn't struggle with it as much as the County Council has. They are strictly staying with the five -year review and the philosophy of looking at the larger picture of the entire valley. The County is focused more on this property, and doesn't have to look at the bigger picture, although it probably should. McShane asked for a friendly amendment to have a joint hearing with the City Council. Hoag stated that even if they feel the rezone has merit, hashing it out wouldn't provide the missing answers to the questions. That is why it should be postponed. She did not accept the friendly amendment. McShane stated it might be beneficial to meet with the City Council. Hoag restated her motion to defer the rezone until the five -year review by the City of Bellingham, until the Squalicum Creek Management Plan is complete, and the transportation issues have been looked at. The motion is also to set a public hearing so the County Council may take a decision that may be different than the Planning Commission recommendation. Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed. McShane stated they have to have a public hearing because the recommendation is different than the Planning Commission recommendation. Goodwin stated that the committee should recommend that the full Council hold a public hearing. McShane stated he preferred to have a public hearing on October 24 and invite the City Council. Hoag wanted the County Council to hear from the City Council before the County Council has a public hearing and takes a vote. They still have to have a public hearing. There is a question about whether the County Council will go with the Planning Commission recommendation. This is part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She questioned how that enters into this situation of scheduling. Goodwin stated they could schedule the public hearing on one date and then consider the ordinance concurrently with the other amendments at a subsequent meeting. Or, the County Council could meet with the City Council first, then schedule a public hearing. They don't have to consider them all on the same night, and they could have a public hearing on a different night. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, Page 22 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 stated the other councilmembers need to get the information on why the city and the city staff has taken the position that they have. An informed vote is much better than an uninformed vote. Goodwin questioned whether the County Council would want to have a joint public hearing with the City Council or simply have a joint work session, with no public input. Hoag stated these Comprehensive Plan amendments are the only items that have a deadline. Crawford stated he had to leave the meeting. They've had a vote. The issue of the public hearing should be before the full Council, who could decide what it wants to do. For all the committee knows, the majority of the Council will agree with the Planning Commission and there would not be a need for any public hearing. This discussion doesn't need to continue. The County has done its best to work with the city. Although the County may ultimately disagree with the city, the County has laid the groundwork and done the appropriate things to get the interlocal agreements working. It is unlikely that this particular situation would come up to this degree because the interlocal agreement says that they aren't going to do this anymore for parcels more than ten acres. Under the new interlocal agreement, this parcel wouldn't have even come up anyway. Goodwin stated it would have come up. This is not an expansion of the urban growth area. This is in a rezone within an existing urban growth area. Crawford stated one scenario that could happen is that the county Council would ultimately disagree with the city. The city's recourse at that point would possibly be to go to the Growth Management Hearings Board. They've been down that road before. He would be the last person to intimate that the County wants to have an adversarial relationship with the City Council. However, there has been enough testimony on this that the Prosecutor's Office would be happy to defend this decision. Take this before the full Council and see what they want to do. (Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 2 :50 p.m.) Hoag stated the chair of the committee has the decision on whether or not to bring a joint session into the committee. The decision of whether or not there is a public hearing has historically been set by the chair of the Planning and Development Committee. She recommended that they get the additional information to the County councilmembers. Her concern was that the councilmembers are not reading the information that is in the packet or the letters that are being sent by the City of Bellingham. If they want to have an informed decision, it would be important to have live testimony in front of the committee. McShane stated he would schedule a public hearing before the full Council on October 24. The County Council has enough information from the city. The City Council can show up and give their input during the public hearing. That is up to the city. Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Special Planning and Development Committee, 10/5/2000, Page 24