HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council October 25 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
October 25, 2000
JOINT MEETING WITH THE BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by County Council Chair
Marlene Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Present:
Dan McShane
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
Also Present from the Bellinaham Citv Council: Absent:
John Watts Bob Ryan
Terry Bornemann Gene Knutson
Barbara Ryan Leslie Richardson
Louise Bjornson
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY URBAN FRINGE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES IN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN
GROWTH FRINGE FROM UR4 TO LII ZONING (AB2000 -346)
Dawson stated she would give the City of Bellingham, the County staff, and
then the members of the public each a chance to speak. Next, they would alternate
comments between the City and County Councils. Hopefully, they would come to
some kind of resolution by the end of the meeting.
Imhof stated the County Council would not vote until the next Council
meeting.
McShane stated that the Council has to vote on all the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments concurrently.
Crawford questioned the process. In voting concurrently, the Planning
Commission voted on a preliminary approval of most things, and then took a vote
to review concurrency issues. It had a final hearing just to make sure that there
was concurrency on all the issues. The County Council's process is different, as the
members would actually vote on all the amendments at one time. If a
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
councilmember disagrees with one amendment, he or she would have to vote down
all the amendments.
Sylvia Goodwin, Whatcom County Planning Division Manager, stated there
are five Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinances. The Council could adopt this
ordinance today if it wanted, as long as they've considered the effect of the others,
which there really wouldn't be because they are all on different topics. As long as
the Council has considered the effect on the others, there is no reason why the
Council couldn't adopt this ordinance today, and the others during the next
meeting.
Crawford stated that, as a matter of process, the Council should do that. The
ordinances should not be in effect until the Council holds its hearing on
concurrency. That seems to make more sense than holding the vote on an item.
Dawson stated they could vote on each of them individually. They can vote
on them all at the end. It is important that people know where the Council is going
with this issue, and hoped for a motion at the end of the meeting.
Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planning and Community Development
Department Director, stated she would ask Senior Planner Greg Aucutt to
summarize the comments that her staff made at the meeting during the previous
evening. The comments are contained in the memo that the councilmembers
received in their packets. The memo summarizes the Council discussion of this
issue.
Greg Aucutt, City of Bellingham Senior Planner, stated his memo dated
September 29, 2000 summarized the City Planning Commission and City Council
recommendations for this rezone. There has been no real compelling evidence
submitted that suggests they need to do this rezone now. There has been no
evidence submitted that suggests there is a shortage of industrial land supply in the
city or countywide. They just set the urban growth boundary and county 20 -year
supply three years ago. This property is near Squalicum Creek and has wetlands.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag arrived.)
Aucutt continued to state that they are still working on a Squalicum Creek
Management Plan, which won't be complete until the next year. They won't have
census information until 2002, when they can check the Comprehensive Plan and
the assumptions made therein against what has actually occurred with respect to
population growth and land development. The city's recommendation was that this
rezone be considered in the context of the update of the urban growth area in
2002.
Decker stated the question about this property has been heard differently by
the different councils, on whether the change is significant. Both the City Planning
Commission and City Council thought that changing this property made a significant
difference in Dewey Valley and on what might happen in the future in the rest of
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, Page 2
1 the valley. The conversation she heard at the County Planning Commission and
2 County Council did see the significance in the same way.
3
4 Hoag asked why the City thinks it is significant. Decker stated the city
5 councilmembers should talk about that. This property was seen as another effort to
6 move industrial development into Dewey Valley, and that what has happened with
7 Ludtke Trucking and the school district's development has already had impacts on
8 residential development in the valley. People testified at the City Council about
9 how the barn door had been left open too long, and the shift had already begun.
10 This is a move down the path toward industrialization of the Dewey Valley, both at
11 the Planning Commission level and City Council level.
12
13 Goodwin stated they summarized the County staff issue at the County
14 Council and City Council meetings, so she would be brief. The issues the County
15 sees is that the rezone is in an urban growth area. They have a limited supply in
16 the urban growth area and it needs to be developed at an urban density. If it is not
17 industrial land, then it should be an urban residential area. Leaving it rural and
18 preserving the rural character of the Dewey Valley is not the purpose of an urban
19 growth area. It seems a lot of this discussion is whether this land should remain
20 vacant or not. Vacant land within an urban growth area, unless it is purchased for
21 public benefit, is not a desirable option. They want to infill urban growth areas to
22 keep the pressure off the rural areas of the county. That is where the urban
23 development should be.
24
25 Looking at the site, the question is whether it is more suitable for urban
26 density residential, allowing 96 houses, or for industrial use. County staff believes
27 that the presence of the pipelines on that property make it unsuitable for that level
28 of residential development. It could be a wetland mitigation site, as city staff
29 suggested. Or, it could be left as a cow pasture. Really, they don't want cow
30 pastures taking up all the urban land and land supply within the urban growth
31 areas. The Squalicum Creek issues and the wetland issues are unresolved issues
32 on the site. She recognized the importance of the Squalicum Creek watershed.
33 Having the land either residential or industrial isn't going to prevent the completion
34 of the watershed plan. Meanwhile, they still have good wetland policies and
35 stormwater policies. All of that planning and environmental review could be done
36 before it develops, be it residential or industrial. The option of having it as a
37 wetland mitigation site would be allowed whether it is rezoned industrial or retained
38 as residential.
39
40 Regarding waiting for the census data and land supply data, it isn't going to
41 change the fact that there are high - pressure pipelines through the site and
42 surrounding the site. It will not make the land any more suitable for residential
43 development. It will not make the decision any easier. It is just going to postpone
44 development of the site for up to two years. It doesn't seem that, if it is left as
45 residential zoning, a property owner would be wise to subdivide and plat the land
46 for 96 houses. The city has made it clear that it won't give the owner water
47 anyway. That is denying the person use of their property, by not rezoning it to
48 industrial and not providing water to develop it residentially. That is why she
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
recommended that the decision be made at this time. The applicant has paid for
his rezone fee. The staff processed the rezone jointly with the city. They've had
the public hearing. The decision won't be any easier two years from now.
Deane Sandell, project applicant, stated both the City Planning Commission
and County Planning Commission have agreed that this property is not suitable for
residential development. There is no argument on that. He could see nothing that
would happen over the next two to three years that would change that fact. It will
be no more suitable for residential development in three years than it is now. Any
of the wetland problems, if there are problems, and any other issues will come up
again during any binding site plan or approval of a use for that property. That
discussion will have to happen again anyway. He was having a hard time
understanding why there is any benefit to delaying this process.
Chris Spens, City of Bellingham Senior Environmental Planner, stated they
prefer a larger context to consider land use. This scenario seems to present an
either /or situation; either what it is zoned now or zone it industrial. There are a
variety of other possible uses. If they happen to agree that everyone would like to
minimize public risk, if they perceive the pipelines as risk, then they might want to
consider uses that minimize the occupancy of the site. The range of industrial uses
includes low occupancy such as warehouses or a higher occupancy industry. If
public risk is an issue, there are more choices than the existing zone or industrial
zone. If they subscribe to the notion that the land should be industrial land, then
they should consider limitations that would minimize the occupancy.
Watts stated they've had two meetings on this. Both of the meetings
presented the same information. There doesn't seem to be much change from the
first time they saw this issue. He had to ask himself when looking at the criteria,
how it could be that the two councils would come up with such dissimilar results.
He can only say that they may not be as objective about looking at the criteria as
they should be. For example, there seems to be a wide disparity between the
amount of wetlands. It may be useful to have more information to make a
decision.
Recently they've considered a possible rezone within the city limits. Wherein
it seemed reasonable to enumerate those uses that might be acceptable to the
neighborhood, which would be different than a rezone for every possible use.
There might be some uses within an industrial category, similar to what Mr. Spens
just mentioned, that might be acceptable to the neighborhood, the owner, and the
watershed. This watershed is one of the most ignored watersheds around, but is a
salmon stream and is affected by density. Unless there is some change, it's hard to
come to a different conclusion than before. He disagreed that this should not affect
the value of the land. He doubted that the value of the land would decrease by
waiting for more data for census reasons and wetland reasons, or for the Squalicum
Creek Management Plan. It's hard to see how, absent an immediate project, there
would be a significant loss of property value. To the point that there is a scarcity of
industrial land, it's hard to comment because they do have industrial land that has
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
not been taken. In fact, some of it has been proposed for rezoning to commercial.
He wondered if there is a scarcity of industrial property if they want to do that.
Because the area is in the urban growth area and adjacent to existing
dwellings, it has been the city's custom to hear from the residents about things that
are likely to affect their quality of life. This is not just a one shot deal. It could be
the beginning of a trend that would poison that area for becoming a desirable
residential place to live in the future. Rather than rush a decision based on the
information they have, he would prefer not to make a decision until they have the
information they need to do it.
Crawford stated he saw in the residents' testimony that there was only one
letter against the rezone. He questioned what other information is in the record
about what the neighbors want. He wanted to see that information.
Bjornson stated that when they reviewed the area earlier, there was a lot of
testimony from the people in that area.
Bornemann stated that before this came to the County Council, this came to
the City Council as a request for annexation and rezone. They took testimony at
that time regarding that request. It was decided unanimously by the City Council,
because of all the testimony from the neighbors in the area, to deny the annexation
and rezone at that time and instead review it during the five -year review process.
After it failed, it came to the County for a rezone request.
Crawford questioned whether the County Council had missed something in
the public process that didn't allow it to be exposed to and influenced by that
testimony.
Decker stated that attachment two of the packet is the City Planning
Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions. In item number five on page five
regarding background information and prior hearings, it describes the fact that Mr.
Sandell asked the city that this property be annexed and rezoned to industrial land.
Normally, when they annex property, they zone it to the nearest zoning inside the
city, which would have been Residential Single 10,000 square feet per unit
(RS10,000), which is the same as the County's Urban Residential Four units per
acre (UR -4) zone designation. The applicants wanted to rezone to industrial at the
time of application. The City Council couldn't do that unless they consider it as part
of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. She asked the City Council if it
wanted to initiate that request as an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
City Council held a hearing at that time, and that was the hearing Councilmember
Bornemann is referencing. It is covered in this packet. At that time, the Council
said the request was too significant and should not be done outside of the major
five -year review. The City does not initiate one -time Comprehensive Plan
amendments outside of the updates of a major neighborhood plan.
Crawford stated Councilmember Watts was trying to figure out how two
independent bodies who are objectively looking at the same information would
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
come up with two completely different conclusions. It appears that there has been
some history on this that the City Council has been involved in and that the County
Council has not seen in the record. He didn't have the testimony from their original
hearing. That might be a reason why they have come up with different conclusions.
McShane stated there was a reference to the neighborhood association. One
of the difficulties is that the County does not have a neighborhood association out
there. The city does. He asked if it is appropriate for the city, as part of their
neighborhood plan in an urban area, to maintain rural density. It is a philosophical
question.
Crawford stated he was not ignoring the one letter and testimony that they
received from the neighbor. He was considering that testimony. What one person
has to say is important.
Bjornson stated that when the city looks at a rezone, particularly one of
significance, they try to look at it in an area -wide context. They look at what the
impacts will be to the entire area.
Brenner stated big and small is subjective, depending on whether they are in
the city or in the county. The County Council does look at the amount of acreage
differently than the city.
Crawford stated he didn't see how what they are looking at is that different.
They have the same criteria and are looking at that aspect of it. He wondered
philosophically if the City Council would look at this request differently if it had not
had that public hearing in which the neighboring residents testified. The County
staff and Planning Commission have reached a different conclusion.
Hoag stated Ms. Decker talked about the significance of this in terms of it
opening the door for more industry in Dewey Valley. She questioned whether or
not the city has decided if it wants more industry in Dewey Valley.
Ryan stated the discussion, hearing, and vote that the City Council held
communicated clearly that the city prefers to look at this piece of property in the
context of not only the city's need for industrial and commercial land, but also the
transportation and other infrastructure needs in that area. The city prefers to wait.
Hoag stated she didn't understand whether the City Council decided it
wanted to promote the trend of bringing more industry into Dewey Valley, or wait
two years to decide.
Bjornson stated they are trying to look at the whole picture, when they have
the wetland information, the transportation information, and particularly because of
all the concerns expressed by the people in that area. They want to wait two years
to decide. That was the point of delaying the decision until the review period.
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
48
Brenner questioned whether the property is next to property that is already
light industrial. They are talking about a trend.
Goodwin stated that the property is immediately adjacent to the city limits.
There is one site that is industrial, which is immediately adjacent.
Imhof stated the Wilder area is also zoned light impact industrial.
Brenner questioned why they are talking about a trend if it is already
existing.
Decker stated the west side adjacent is industrial. On the north, east, and
south sides the adjacent land is residentially zoned. Much of the area is not
developed.
Bornemann stated it seems like they are looking at two different decisions.
The first decision is on the timing of the decision for a rezone, whether or not it is
appropriate to consider a rezone request now or wait for the City /County process
for the urban fringe review in this area. The other decision is the rezone itself. At
the heart of the differences between the City Council and the County Council is the
timing. The City Council's decision was based on the timing, and not the
appropriateness of the rezone. The change to industrial might in fact be
appropriate, but the City Council chose not to consider whether that was the
appropriate decision, but instead chose to wait and look at this as a whole. The
County Planning Commission had a split decision. The three dissenting votes were
based on the issues of timing to wait until they can look at it as a whole and gather
the other information, particularly about the differences in the environmental
impacts and wetlands. There are clear differences on how that was looked at and
how that was decided. He agreed that the location might be better suited for light
industrial than residential, although they need to consider the environmental
impact. He found no evidence that would indicate that a rezone is needed at this
time, or that delaying this decision until they can reach a joint regional plan would
be an undue hardship. He did not see that urgency to move forward. Even Mr.
Sandell testified that he had no intention to develop the site as industrial, but that
it was better suited for industry. There are no pending plans at this time. Given
that, he questioned the reason for the urgency.
Sandell stated that when he was asked if there are specific plans for the
property, he testified that there weren't. They farmed it for many years. It is not
viable economically to farm that land. They have to look for another use. They are
trying to position themselves to accommodate another use. He believes residential
is not appropriate. They do not have a specific plan.
Imhof stated it doesn't matter whether it is rezoned to light impact industrial
or high density residential, they still have to deal with the wetland issues. That is a
non - issue. The issue is that there are already light impact industrial zones to the
west and southwest. There is a piece of property that is not suitable for residential
because of a number of factors, such as the pipelines on the site. The site is on a
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
road that is being built as a main connector for the industrial area to the north of
Bellingham. All of those conditions point to the fact that the appropriateness of the
rezone, whether it is done now or in two years, will still be the same. It is an
appropriate rezone for the parcel. The issues that are of concern will be dealt with
before any development takes place. The land is serviced.
Watts stated that there have been a number of developments in the urban
growth area during the time that he has been on the City Council. The arterial
traffic plan has been a major consideration. He's been asking the public works
department to come up with an arterial plan. They expect to have it in the next
few months to help with decision - making in the urban growth area.
Some of the comments heard earlier related to the Dewey Valley Road that
has been, until now, restricted to light traffic. What is at stake is the big picture,
such as how the city and county determine what the arterial system is going to be
in and out of the city, and what roads and arterials are appropriate for heavy truck
traffic. If the road is appropriate for truck traffic, then the question is whether that
is compatible with residential or rural living. The condition of the road is also a
factor. One of the big factors is to see what the arterial plan is for the urban
growth area, getting into and out of Bellingham. It is reasonable to think they
would have such a thing in the next several months. He would prefer to see the
engineer's assessment about making Dewey Valley Road a major arterial.
Dawson questioned whether the arterial design would have implications if the
property were developed as residential, and if Councilmember Watts believed that
this property has the potential for residential use.
Watts stated it has the potential for whatever is appropriate, but whatever
that is will require some arterial planning and coordination between the county and
the city.
Dawson stated she'd gotten the indication that most people feel that the
residential use is not compatible at all because of the pipeline. She questioned
whether Councilmember Watts believed that there is the possibility of residential
use.
Watts stated it is a leap to say that it is not satisfactory for any type of
residential use. There is a pipeline right -of -way through the city right now. It
would not be popular to propose a pipeline through an existing area, but if the
pipeline is there first, people are aware of it, and there have been major
improvements on the pipeline, then he wouldn't rule it out.
Hoag questioned whether the land supply in the urban growth area is an
issue for the county or the city.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
Goodwin stated that the Port of Bellingham economic development study
says that they need to focus the economic development efforts in Bellingham
because it is the most logical place for it. There is definitely a need for industrial
and commercial land. In the urban growth areas is where it should be. It is the
County's issue as long as the land is in the county. It becomes the city's issue once
they annex the property, but it is jointly the city and county's issue. Economic
development and land supply is a countywide issue that all the cities and county
should be concerned about.
Hoag stated there was testimony about the land supply being 125 percent of
the planned growth in the next 20 years, that they are only five years into it, and
that this could possibly be used for mitigation banking. She questioned whether
they would need to have mitigation banking in an urban growth area somewhere.
Goodwin stated they wouldn't necessarily put wetland mitigation land in an urban
growth area. That is probably more appropriate in a rural area. It needs to be
wherever the water and watershed are.
Hoag stated that if a watershed needs it, it is likely that they would end up
with urban growth areas that need some mitigation banking within them. Goodwin
stated that was correct. Or, the banking could stay within the same watershed, but
moved into the rural areas.
Bornemann stated that when Councilmember Imhof talked about the
appropriateness of this, he stated that the property was serviced. This property is
not fully serviced at this time. The owner would have to come to the city to extend
services.
Imhof stated that the services are to the edge of the property.
Bornemann stated that extending services would be a decision of the city
whether it is zoned or not.
Dawson stated that the indication was that the city would not extend the
services for the density that it is currently zoned. That makes it difficult for the
owner to have any kind of predictability when he has a zone that he can't use.
Brenner stated the County Council does understand that the city has the final
decision about whether or not to extend services, but the fact is that the services
are there. The County has been told to put the economic development in the cities.
She appreciated Councilmember Watts' comments because she understood the
issue of timeliness. She looked at it differently. She looked at whether it seems
like a good idea. When the County Council has something that seems like a good
idea, it puts it in the annual review process. She wanted this to be considered.
She didn't want to see the area residential. The City and the County have a
different constituency. The County Council has an obligation to the people in the
urban growth area because they are the county's constituents. The City Council
constituency is within the city limits. If someone has a good proposal, they should
consider it now because she would not want circumstances to change that might
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
prevent them from looking at it in the future. This looks like a good proposal for
several reasons. Mitigation banking sounds great, but she got the impression that
the city thinks this is a good area to do regional mitigation banking. She
questioned whether the city would buy it and use it for regional banking. She had a
concern with holding up people's property. If the City Council felt that they would
never consider something like this, then she would feel differently. She's heard
several City councilmembers say that it might be a good idea. She didn't
understand why they have to wait two years for something like that to put it in the
process.
Ryan stated at one point Ms. Goodwin said they want to infill the urban
growth areas. As they know, urban growth areas are intended to be the places
where infill occurs. The city is less anxious to infill in those areas until they are
annexed, so it has a better sense of exactly what is going to be needed in terms of
parks, trails, schools, and other infrastructure. They like to look at an area in
context. They also like to make sure that areas are serviced appropriately for
whatever their uses are. They are getting to the need for more cooperation in
terms of figuring out what they are going to do with urban growth areas. There
have been several issues that they've dealt with so far in those areas. One of the
issues is transportation. She'd invited the Council of Governments to give a
presentation to the City Council on the countywide plan that was presented to the
regional transportation group. That would be a good way to begin looking at
transportation needs in that urban growth area. She encouraged the County
councilmembers to attend that meeting and define what the transportation
circulation plan would look like. That would help them when they have to address
these kinds of questions. She was reluctant to say yes or no today because they
have not done the homework. They have had many different pieces of information
that tell them there is more to be considered than they've had time to consider,
such as the environmental and transportation issues. The city has a supply of
industrial land that should last for the next 15 years. Those are all pieces of the
puzzle that she wants to consider before making a decision.
Crawford questioned whether the City Council was confident that it would not
provide water and sewer in the next two years if the County Council was to approve
the rezone.
Bjornson stated they would have to study it. They don't have the
information right now.
Watts stated that if they force an answer now, it might be different than they
would answer if they decided later. They need to develop an appropriate answer.
It does take time to understand what the use is going to be, and plan for it.
Crawford questioned whether the proponent felt that there was anything to
lose by waiting two years if the City Council were to not allow water and sewer in
the next two years. Sandell stated the obvious loss is the $3,000 or $4,000 in
permit fees that they've paid to this process. Regarding the road as an arterial,
that decision had already been made. The road to this property is already an all-
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
weather transportation improved road. That is done. The utilities to the property
line were sized adequate to service that area when they were put in. It was a
requirement to do that of Ludtke when he put those services in. To his knowledge,
every piece of property that has been adjacent to the city limits and that has
requested an extension on water in that area has gotten it to date when they've
gone through the proper process to apply for it. They address the wetlands, the
binding site plan, and all of that at the time the application is made. They work
with the city to get that project up to the city's standard, and water has been
approved. Regarding whether they have anything to lose, he is doing this for his
father, who is 88 years old. The issue of two years is not really two years. When
they first started going down this road to define the urban growth boundary as it is,
it was a seven -year process. When they start that process in two years, it will
probably take a very long time to go through that process again. They are not
talking about two years, they are talking about several years.
Crawford stated he didn't hear the City Council saying that they don't want
the Light Impact Industrial (LII) zoning. They are saying they don't want to do it
today. Most of their discussion has centered on the appropriate timeframe for
review being in two years. The timeframe was planned long ago.
Donovan Kehrer, citizen, stated that the City Council was right, they can't
answer that question. If it is zoned LII and the appropriate use comes in, then they
will get sewer and water. If a use comes in that isn't an appropriate use, they
would not get it. In that two -year window, there is a lot of time to use to put
together a satisfactory project. It is not a fair question.
Dawson stated she hears that same response about the level of residential
use.
McShane stated the zoning is UR -4 now. He questioned whether the
applicant could build the four homes per acre right now. Goodwin stated they could
if they were on wells and septic tanks, without the city utilities.
McShane stated something could happen on that property within the next
year. An application could go in tomorrow.
Goodwin stated the applicant could cluster the homes on the one -acre sites.
McShane questioned whether the applicant would not be able to develop that
property until they come to some sort of an agreement with the city for services if
it is zoned light impact industrial. Decker stated the process is such where the
applicant would apply for sewer and water extensions, and that would go before the
City Council. In that process they would evaluate the proposal, they may condition
it, and make recommendations to the Council.
McShane stated he had looked at that property from a wetland perspective.
No one has dug holes in the middle of the field, and they may find some low -level
wetlands in the middle of the field. The vast majority of that water that would
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, Page 11
1 normally be there was removed artificially years ago by the digging of the pond and
2 the ditch on the side, which has intercepted quite a bit of water. He concurred with
3 Mr. Spens and Mr. Fogelsong, who mentioned that this is an area where they could
4 potentially do some incredible things for wetlands in Squalicum Creek and offsite
5 mitigation. He didn't see that zoning this Light Impact Industrial, when the city still
6 has say on development of the property, would preclude that mitigation from
7 occurring. He didn't see that a rezone would cause any problem, such as traffic and
8 the safety of people working next to pipelines, which could be addressed by the city
9 when services are extended. The crux of the problem is the timing issue, on which
10 he agreed with the city. The concept is great and one that the County Council has
11 grossly neglected in past conversations with the city. It is a great philosophy, but
12 he wondered if they were pushing it to the point it was becoming dogma on this
13 issue. The city would still have a tremendous amount of say on what happens on
14 the property if it is zoned Light Impact Industrial. He questioned whether the
15 applicant would still be able to build four homes on it if it is zoned light impact
16 industrial. Goodwin stated they would not.
17
18 McShane stated that is a risk. That site is not appropriate for homes. That
19 would be his greatest concern. The greatest negative impact would be to have
20 homes out there affecting the wetlands. Those are things to think about. The city
21 is not going to lose control on what would happen.
22
23 Ryan stated that once the rezone takes place, there is still a limit to the kinds
24 of restrictions they could create. If there is a proposal that meets the general
25 outlines of light industrial use, that is what the city is required to accept. The city
26 can't condition beyond that.
27
28 Bjornson stated there are not as many options as to how the land is
29 developed once it is rezoned. If it is rezoned with all the knowledge and
30 background, and the conditions are stated at the time of rezone, it might be better
31 protection.
32
33 Ryan stated that if they have a Light Impact Industrial zone there, there are
34 light impact industrial uses at that location. The city can't say deny or restrict a
35 project assuming the use is appropriate.
36
37 Decker stated that if it is rezoned to Light Impact Industrial and the applicant
38 comes forward with a request for a sewer and water extension, and a specific
39 proposal, the city is under no obligation to extend utilities whether it is zoned light
40 impact industrial or residential. They are not a utility provider. They are a city,
41 and they agreed to extend utilities into the urban growth areas if it is in the best
42 interest of the city. The City Council may determine that it isn't in the best interest
43 of the city to allow industrial development to occur outside the city with city
44 utilities. That is one answer. If the Light Impact Industrial zone goes forward and
45 the city denies a request for utilities, then the question is what could happen
46 without utilities under the LII zoning in the county. She didn't know the answer to
47 that.
48
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
Goodwin stated that is a good question. The Grandview Business Park, which
is fairly industrial, is on wells and septic tanks. They certainly could have
something on the order of the Grandview Business Park developing on that site
without city utilities and without city approval. The development would be limited
on the number of employees. Certain types of businesses that produce a lot of
effluent would not be allowed to go in. Certainly warehouses, trucking, and other
low intensity uses could go out there without utilities.
Hoag thanked the City Council for taking the County's constituency into
account. Regarding the land supply and transportation review, she agreed that the
approach the city is taking makes more sense than what the county has pursued.
She would like to see the county make that change because it spends an inordinate
amount of staff time looking at land supply and potential impacts when projects
come forward on an individual basis, rather than a five -year review basis. Specific
to this rezone, it is not appropriate to have 96 homes in there. The other options
mentioned are more of what she is looking at, but her concern with it being Light
Impact Industrial is about the toxins. Four homes will generally not create many
toxins. Light Impact Industrial would have a better chance to produce toxins, and
it is right by Squalicum Creek. Regarding Grandview Business Park, if they have
light industrial applications on septic systems, they increase the chances of the
toxins ending up in the wetlands and creek. She agreed that it is more appropriate
to have minimal density because of the pipelines, but she also agreed that there
are many options available for that area. It is appropriate to defer to the city's
wish and allow them to take a look at this in their five -year review because there is
no urgency here. That is the key. The county develops a new process so that the
applications should be done on an urgency basis. Other than that, they are only
five years into a twenty -year plan and it can wait until the next regular review.
Bornemann stated this is going to be part of the city at some time or
another. They recognize that this is where the infilling needs to go. They are
looking at areas coming into the city to do long -range planning for how the city is
going to look and how it is going to affect its other parts. That is much easier to do
if they are looking at the interconnectedness of parcels in a regional area as
opposed to looking at individual pieces and their surrounding pieces. They don't
get the full impact of the effects. They have the opportunity in a short period of
time of being able to look at the regional part of this to get a better picture of
whether this is the most appropriate use for the area.
Dawson stated there is no project to review, so there is no urgency.
However, there are costs involved with coming up with a project, so the applicant
needs the predictability.
Crawford stated he appreciated the arguments on both sides. The City
Council has had an impact on his thinking. Nonetheless, he moved that the County
Council approve the County staff's recommendation to approve this rezone. There
is a natural bluff formed by the Squalicum Creek flow, which is defined by the
presence of the Mt. Baker Highway. On one side of the bluff, there has been a
growth pattern of residential. On the other side of the bluff, there has been a
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
growth pattern of light industrial. On the light industrial side, there is a small
section that has not been zoned Light Impact Industrial. He's been predisposed to
this fact from the beginning, but he tried to listen to the arguments, which are valid
arguments, without his predisposition. However, the arguments haven't overcome
his sense of what is happening in the Dewey Valley.
Brenner stated that she came into this thing feeling like it was the city's
business. It wasn't until the meeting the previous evening when she actually
changed her mind for several reasons. One reason was because the zoning was
UR -4 for many years, so there was an expectation of the property owner of a return
on his money. She was not comfortable down - zoning without some kind of
compensation. She is looking at the property as if it is still zoned UR -4, even
though there are impediments on the UR -4 zoning. Regarding the LII zoning, she
fought hard against the Bakerview rezone and the Trillium rezone, which both
reduced the amount of LII. There has been no replacement of those properties.
The city initially made the determination of how much LII it wanted. This is a
trade. She didn't want houses to go in there. LII seems to go so well with the
area. The city can still do any kind of regional planning and wetland mitigation it
wants on the property. She assumed the property owners would work with the city
to do that kind of stuff.
Hoag stated the letters in the packet included a letter from a professor at
Western Washington University regarding toxicology. He recommended that this be
postponed. There is a letter from the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
that recommends it be postponed. The neighbors have requested that it be
postponed. The City of Bellingham requested that it be postponed, including their
Public Works Department. If the County Council is going to be representative in
their government, then it should take that into consideration.
McShane stated he agreed with Councilmember Crawford. They have to
have some confidence in their regulations in dealing with stormwater runoff. There
are going to be some strict standards placed on that if it is Light Impact Industrial.
Regarding the wetlands, they could be greatly improved. If the property is
developed industrially, there is an opportunity where the mitigation would have to
be very significant, or it could be used as mitigation for another site. The wetlands
there are in pretty bad shape. There is super - potential there. The wetland issue
isn't what concerns him. The water quality issue is something where they have to
have faith that the regulations are working and are being enforced. For him, it is
an issue of timing. He hadn't heard a compelling argument for why this site would
not be good in the future. They need to have flexibility on that issue. It would
ultimately be up to the city whether they want to oppose it.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed and Nelson absent.
(Clerk's Note: City Councilmember Bjornson adjourned the City Council
meeting, and the City councilmembers left.)
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, 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
ADDENDUM:
ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL
TRANSMISSION PIPELINES OF PETROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,
AND NATURAL GAS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (AB00 -216B)
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Item.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 6-, 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Meeting, 10/25/2000, Page 15