HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 10 19991
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
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 10, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Absent:
None
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Sutter explained they will begin with Gateway Industrial.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Division
Manager, stated that the issue is a long- standing one. There has been a long-
standing issue dealing with what the zoning should be in the area. The zoning had
been established during adoption of the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. During this
meeting, the issue should be centered on whether there should be a zoning text
amendment in the Gateway Industrial Zone to implement the Urban Fringe Plan.
The staff and Planning Commission recommendations are that there needs to be
two text amendments, one limiting building size to 10,000 square feet in area two
and 35,000 square feet in area three. The other recommendation was that there
be a 100 -foot set back between the residential areas and the major industrial areas
two and three. The City of Bellingham questioned whether the County really
wanted a 100 -foot setback between area two and the adjacent residential areas.
The Plan currently said area three.
Sutter asked what zoning is area two. Goodwin stated that area two is also
area in Gateway Industrial. It does abut some residential development. The parcel
sizes are smaller in that area. The City questioned whether the setback would
make the area too difficult to develop.
Goodwin distributed a letter from Roger Ellingson, representing the
Birchwood neighborhood. There was a rebuttal to that letter from Jon Sitkin with
Langabeer, Tull, Sitkin, & Lee. She also distributed an original staff report dated
November 3, 1998. In that staff report, they examined the proposal by the
Birchwood neighborhood, which was to make all commercial uses conditional uses
in the Gateway Industrial zone. They looked at a modified option making them
administrative approval uses and also leaving as is. Staff recommended that the
uses be left permitted outright, which is what the Subarea Plan and the zoning
allow. There was no reason to change that.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether the amendments to the Urban Fringe Plan and the
amendments to the zoning text would be consistent with one another. Goodwin
stated that they would.
Sutter stated that the Planning Commission's work at their work session that
evening, as well as the Council's work, will take all the wrinkles out. Goodwin
stated that she hoped so. Ultimately, the Council will adopt both.
Sutter questioned whether any Committee' changes would affect the
Planning Commission recommendations on the Urban Fringe Plan. Goodwin stated
that the two are related, but one is a plan.
Sutter questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan, which guides County
planning, should be done first because the Urban Fringe Plan is a part of it.
Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission hearing is not to make any
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or change the intent of the Urban Fringe
Plan, it is to clarify the wording. The work the Planning Commission is doing is not
particularly relevent to the zoning that the Committee is working on during this
meeting. The Urban Fringe Plan has been clear all along that it is a mix of
commercial and industrial uses, envisioned within that Y4 mile. The only changes
necessary are amendments to the setback and building size. There are several
sections of the Urban Fringe Plan, as they've gone through, that have been pulled
out of context and interpreted to mean something that isn't intended. Their work
session is to clarify that language and make it tighter and more consistent with
other sections of the plan, which are already very clear.
Hoag questioned whether the Planning Commission is having a hearing on
the staff report that referred to changes to the Urban Fringe Plan. Goodwin stated
that was correct.
Hoag stated that she did not agree that they were just clarifying language.
Some of that language takes a different turn. For instance, some of the language
called for the commercial uses to be just those that serve the airport. However, the
proposed language suggests the intent to attract travelers, which is a very different
thing. Goodwin stated that, on that issue, there is a modified staff report that will
change the word "attract" to "serve." She didn't intend for it to be different. Now,
the wording is exactly as it was.
Hoag questioned whether she should contact Goodwin if there is anything on
the modified staff report that she would have a question about. Goodwin suggested
she attend the Planning Commission hearing. Or, it will come to the Council in a
few weeks.
Hoag questioned whether it was appropriate for a Council member to attend
a Planning Commission meeting. Goodwin stated that she believed it was
appropriate to attend, but not to testify.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
48
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that this is purely a
legislative matter. There is no problem with a Council member testifying at the
Planning Commission public hearing.
Brenner stated that she was concerned on page 17 of the Draft Planning
Commission Findings and Recommendations. She would like areas specifically
defined rather than referenced generally. Goodwin stated that inserting a legal
description would be very difficult.
Brenner stated that having the maps would be more useful.
Goodwin distributed excerpts of the Gateway Industrial District, from Title
20.
Brenner stated that she was concerned with section 2065.055(1) - (7) and
questioned whether the changes were to clarify the definition of retail shops.
Goodwin responded that they were put in because the old language references
other sections of the Code. The intent was to clarify that section. One item was
added regarding the indoor /outdoor commercial recreation facilities. It was unclear
whether that was intended or not. It was added for the Peace Portal area. It still
just clarifies the language.
Brenner questioned section 20.65.056 and questioned the uses within Y4 mile
of the freeway interchange. It only talks about retail. Some of these uses are not
retail uses.
Sutter stated that section .055 deals with uses within Y4 mile. Section .056
deals with uses outside of Y4 mile.
Brenner questioned whether .056 prohibits the listed uses within Y4 mile.
Goodwin agreed that was unclear. As it is written, they would not be located within
Y4 mile unless they were retail shops.
Brenner questioned whether that was the intent. They should be allowed
within Y4 mile of the freeway.
Hoag questioned whether the intent was to make that area light industrial, so
they didn't want those uses filling it up.
Goodwin suggested striking "1/4 mile."
Hoag stated that they should wait to hear testimony before striking anything.
Sutter stated that the interpretation of "Retail shops in other areas may not
exceed 35,000 square feet per retail shop:" means that the retail shops that cannot
exceed 35,000 square feet are the ones that are listed is subsections (2) through
(7)•
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated that this is the first time these issues have come before her and
she wanted to know what the issues are, rather than trying to go through it two
times. She wanted to know what the citizen's concerns are before the committee
has discussion.
Goodwin stated that uses listed in section .056 can be inside or outside, but
if beyond Y4 mile of a freeway, then they cannot exceed 6,000 square feet.
Hoag requested a brief recess.
The committee concurred.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a five minute break.)
Roger Ellingson, Attorney, stated that there are two issues. The first is that
Planning staff insisted on changing the Gateway Industrial Zone so that it applies to
both the Urban Fringe Area and the Peace Portal Factory Outlet Mall area. Only one
lies within the Urban Fringe Plan and is required to be consistent and implement the
Urban Fringe Plan. For some reason, they've been thrown together. Putting them
in the same zone will generate confusion. He represented the Birchwood
Neighborhood Association. If adopted the way it looks, they will be appealing this
version of the amendment, which will tie up the Peace Portal Factory Outlet Mall.
Related to that same concern is that they've added indoor /outdoor recreation
facilities. In addition to combining the two into one zone, they've thrown in a new
use, which was requested by representatives of the Peace Arch Factory Mall area.
That was not contemplated when the Urban Fringe was drafted. He was unsure of
the limitation of the facilities, but was sure that they don't want those uses as a
gateway to the city's airport. The one issue is making one zone for the Peace Arch
Factory Outlet Mall because it isn't regulated by the Urban Fringe Plan. The
Gateway Industrial zone is going to be much more complicated. According to
Planning staff, this is a zone that is supposed to be designed to accommodate
mixed uses. "Mixed uses" means that one use should not predominate to the
exclusion of others. The way this ordinance is currently drafted, there is no
mechanism that will insure that commercial retail uses will not predominate to the
exclusion of light industrial uses. If they allow enough tourist related services, they
could use up enough land to prevent any light industrial uses, especially light
industrial park uses because they require more land. There is nothing here to do
that. Also, there is nothing to prevent clustered developments, such as seen at the
Peace Arch Factory Outlet Mall. For instance, one could have commercial retail
developments of 10,000 square feet or less dominating the entire land area. As a
consequence, there wouldn't be any mixed use or any light industrial uses. The
City of Bellingham has witnessed this precise problem. They zoned an area for
mixed uses and found that commercial uses were dominating to the exclusion of
others. They had to amend the ordinance so that it required some mix of uses.
How that is accomplished makes no difference to the Neighborhood Association, as
long as it is accomplished. There is nothing in the current zone or amendments
that will do that. As a consequence, the County is not consistent with the Growth
Management Act, which requires that the zoning ordinance is consistent with and
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
implements the Comprehensive Plan. In order to do that, they need to provide a
conditional use process. That way, someone is going to have the job of taking a
look at the existing development, the proposed development, and whether it fits in
with the mixed -use scenario that the Comprehensive Plan mandates. There are
other ways to do that, including an administrative approval process. Every
provision in the proposed amendments that are outlined in their letter is based on
language taken directly out of the Plan.
Sutter questioned whether he believed mixed use was mandated. Ellingson
stated that was correct.
Sutter stated that she believed zoning was less of a mandate to develop in a
specific way and more of a limit on how they can develop. Ellingson agreed.
Sutter stated that, with her interpretation, mixed uses are not to mandate a
specific amount of different types of uses, but only to allow different types of uses.
Ellingson stated that, for example, residential zoning allows certain permitted
uses. There is nothing that regulates the amount of those uses that are allowed.
However, Mixed Uses is different because there is a Comprehensive Plan that says
it is a Gateway Industrial Area in which they want a mix of uses.
Sutter questioned whether the County would get in trouble if someone came
forward wanting to develop an allowed permitted use, and the County denied the
request because there are already the same type of use in that area. Ellingson
stated that there is nothing to say they are going to get the mix of uses if they
simply list permitted uses. There are zones in existence that require a mix of uses
and don't allow one use to predominate. That is what the Plan text says. The
underlying rationale of this designation is light industrial zoning. If they create a
zone that is typical and doesn't require a mix of uses, then they will probably end
up with a predominance of commercial retail because the property is located at the
first exit from Canada to the Bellis Fair Mall. If they don't create a mechanism for
review to ensure the mix is occurring, then they will not get a mix of uses.
Sutter stated that would present problems unless they specify an exact
amount of each allowed use. She worried about getting that restrictive with
people's rights. Ellingson stated that those types of zones exist. He was not
suggesting specific percentages. The criteria would be whether it precludes the
development of light industrial areas or is clearly more suitable for commercial
retail development than for light industrial.
Sutter stated that they wouldn't want light industrial to preclude other uses
either.
Brenner stated that the Mixed Uses zoning implies that the County wants a
mix of uses. However, the zone doesn't create that mixed use.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Ellingson stated that, regarding land use planning, there is no fixed solution
to problems. If they can figure out a way to effectively accomplish the goal. The
City of Bellingham uses percentages, but that is not critical.
Brenner questioned whether there were any comments from the City of
Bellingham about this area, since it is in the Urban Fringe. Ellingson stated that the
City participated and provided numerous letters, all opposing the staff
recommendation because it doesn't provide for a conditional use review process to
ensure that the language of the Plan is complied with.
Hoag stated that the problem is that, if the text is not changed, then all the
Hearing Examiner can do is compare it with the Code. If the use matches the
Code, then it is allowed. She suggested adding two criteria within the text that
asks if it precludes light industrial or commercial uses in the area. That makes it
clear that it has to meet that criterion.
Ellingson stated that those criteria are an oversimplification of what the text
requires. It is a mixed more than commercial or light industrial. It can also
preclude services to the traveling public or airport users.
Hoag suggested language that questions whether it promotes a mix of uses
in the area. She was concerned that they are creating a loophole with nothing to
benefit if all they do is require a conditional use permit without creating the criteria
that it's going to look at. Ellingson suggested that the committee read his letter.
There are suggested criteria in the letter.
Hoag asked if the Peace Arch area has always been zoned Gateway
Industrial. Ellingson stated that the Gateway Industrial Zone was created for that
area. One of the city's recommendations was to change the language from
"attracting" airport users to "serving" airport users. The language in the text is
confusing. Every Comprehensive Plan that has ever been drafted has had a lot of
citizen involvement by people who are not attorneys. Every Comprehensive Plan
that one could look at is imperfect. If they look at the language as a whole, it can
be seen that they want a mix of uses, to accommodate the traveling public, and as
a beautiful entrance to the City. Design standards would also be appropriate here.
Hoag asked if there is anything in the three pages before the committee that
he has a particular concern about. Ellingson stated that his concerns aren't
necessarily with the particular uses. All of the uses that are referenced in the
original Gateway zone, which was in existence at the time the Urban Fringe Plan
was drafted, may not be consistent with the text of the Urban Fringe Plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Ellingson stated that the indoor /outdoor addition is not consistent with the
language of the Plan. No one in that area came to the County and asked that it be
a permitted use. It was requested to be added by the representatives at the Peace
Arch Factory Outlet Mall. The Council would do a disservice to tie up the property
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
owners of the Peace Arch Factory Outlet Mall on their appeal of the Gateway issue.
They want two separate zones. One zone should be for the Urban Fringe Gateway
Industrial and one should be for the Peace Arch Factory Outlet Mall.
Hoag suggested adding, 'outside the Urban Fringe area" to the
indoor /outdoor recreational use, so that it would not apply to the Gateway
Industrial area. Ellingson stated that when they appeal, they would appeal the
entire ordinance.
Sutter questioned whether there is a reason to not separate the two zoning
areas.
Frakes stated that their appeal would not tie up the Peace Arch Factory
Outlet Mall. When the Board invalidated zoning in a previous appeal, they only did
it in certain areas. She didn't foresee this as an invalidation situation.
Goodwin stated that they could be separated. The outdoor recreational
facility use is not new. It is already allowed and has always been allowed. If they
look under the language that was stricken in section .055, it allows that use. Those
are all tourist commercial uses. Indoor recreational facilities are allowed in other
sections, but was added. This change will not affect the Peace Arch area other than
to clarify that the uses being proposed don't have to be called retail. They can be
called recreational. All of the recreational amenities are associated with the Outlet
Mall.
Brenner stated that she was not concerned about an appeal holding people
up. She questioned whether they can restrict or limit a large outdoor recreational
facility. Goodwin stated that they could add, '...indoor or outdoor commercial
recreational facilities in the Portal Way Gateway Industrial Area only." The Council
would have to have a public hearing.
Brenner questioned whether there could be other Gateway Industrial Areas.
Goodwin stated that it is unlikely. If it did, then they could modify it. Also, section
20.80.355 allows design standards that address compatibility with the residential
neighborhood. One clearly says that garbage areas must be screened.
Brenner stated that it is also referenced in the Findings of Fact in item #6.
Goodwin stated that there are already fairly extensive design standards. Ellingson
referred to the Urban Fringe Plan page 111, regarding Implementation and Action
Plan. It says that consideration shall be given to creating a design overlay district
in this and other areas where appearance is of importance to the economic vitality
and future livability of the community. The Design Standards that are in place are
not designed to be used in the Gateway context, which was designed to create a
pretty entrance to an area. The existing design standards do not focus on the
Gateway theme.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
48
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that he
concurred with Ellingson's aesthetics in the Gateway zone. They are having trouble
understanding how they could work that. They could add to the aesthetics portion.
Sutter stated that kind of thing is an area where the County and City should
discuss this together. These are areas that are anticipated to be within the City of
Bellingham in the future.
Knapp stated that they have met with the City.
Sutter stated that they will need development regulations specific to the
Urban Fringe and are jointly adopted by the City and the County under the
interlocal agreements.
Goodwin stated that there is a section of Gateway zoning called Facility
Design. It talks about certain design standards. That was already done in the
Gateway zoning. It is the zoning that is in place. The Urban Fringe Plan is the joint
plan between the City and County. It went through a nine year process. Both the
City and County agreed that the Gateway zoning is the appropriate zoning for the
area. The City recommended it and the County adopted it. The facility and design
standards are already in that zone. That is why it was recommended.
Knapp stated that they are open to hearing from Ellingson about which
design areas he felt had been left out.
Sutter stated that she was concerned about making this too fine, without any
flexibility.
Hoag suggested Ellingson bring proposals to staff. She questioned whether
there are pros and cons to separating the two areas. Goodwin stated that they
could split the two areas. At this point, they haven't identified anything specific in
the permitted uses that wouldn't be appropriate for both areas. If they are going to
split the areas, then they need to identify which areas they specifically don't want in
the Gateway Industrial zone. The easiest thing to then do would be to qualify those
uses. For instance, if the concern is with outdoor recreational uses, then they can
specify only the Portal Way area. At one point, they talked about rezoning the
Portal Way area to something else totally different, but at this point there isn't a
need.
Knapp stated that there are two types of gateways. One is to Whatcom
County, which is Portal Way. The other is the gateway to the City and the airport,
which is this area. There has been an effort to look at the aesthetics.
Heather Wolf, Attorney with Langabeer, Tull, Sitkin, and Lee, stated that they
represent the major property owner at the Peace Arch Factory Outlet Mall and the
property owner within Area Three on Map 6 of the Urban Fringe Subarea. She
didn't see a need for splitting out the two areas. She would address the Garrett
property. The zoning designation is not the issue. Before the committee is the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
zoning text. The zoning designation was made by the Urban Fringe Plan and the
maps attached. It is clearly Gateway Industrial. The text amendments clearly
implement the plan. The area has historically been zoned commercial and has
never been designated as industrial land in any land supply analysis. No one has
presented any new information that would argue that the area has not been zoned
commercial or the uses should not be allowed.
Hoag requested clarification on the land supply analysis. Wolf stated that it
has never been zoned industrial. A majority of the land, 75 %, in the Bellingham
land supply analysis was actually counted as commercial land in 1996. The other
25% were from areas one and two.
Sutter questioned how they incorporate the Mixed Use Zone into a land
supply analysis. It is going to skew the land supply analysis depending on what
actually ends up out there. Wolf stated that this has always been dedicated as
commercial zoning. It would be brand new to say that they are not permitted
outright. Area three is not needed as industrial land in any land supply analysis.
They do allow mixed uses. The zoning allows retail within Y4 mile of the freeway.
They have determined what uses are allowed. It is a mix of uses that are
appropriate in the area.
Brenner believed that the reason this was controversial was because of a
change from one kind of commercial to Gateway Industrial. She questioned
whether it is had anything to do with the building size. Wolf stated that it was
zoned Tourist Commercial prior to being changed to Gateway Industrial.
Brenner questioned whether Tourist Commercial was a smaller size.
Goodwin stated that the zoning adopted was exactly as recommended by the City,
which was to change Area Three from Tourist Commercial to Gateway Industrial,
and to limit the size to 10,000 square feet in Areas One and Two.
Brenner questioned whether the Gateway Industrial zone allows the
commercial size buildings bigger than in Tourist Commercial.
Ellingson stated that that wasn't true. Goodwin stated that the Urban Fringe
Plan says to change it to Gateway Industrial and limit the size to 10,000 square
feet. That is what the County adopted, the City recommended, and what the
zoning does.
Brenner stated that is bigger than what was allowed for Tourist Commercial.
Goodwin stated that it may be bigger than what was allowed by Tourist
Commercial, but it is exactly what is allowed by the Urban Fringe Plan.
Wolf stated that the historical uses allow commercial to be generally
permitted outright in that area. There is no reason now to say that they should not
be. Having commercial uses become a conditional use is a smoke screen for not
allowing development there at all. There hasn't been a history of industrial use on
the property and there does not appear to be a market for such. She questioned
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
the Bellingham zone that requires certain percentages in mixed uses. She didn't
believe that existed.
Brenner suggested going back to Tourist Commercial instead of Gateway
Industrial. All commercial zoning is not the same. That is where the controversy
sta rted .
Wolf stated that the controversy is over about whether commercial is going
to be permitted outright in the area. The zoning clearly allows for commercial
being permitted outright. There has never been a history on the site of commercial
not being allowed outright.
Hoag stated that the change to a Gateway Industrial zone was the result of a
compromise that people wanted to put in bigger commercial areas and include light
industrial. In the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan, the language says that commercial
uses are allowed where the transportation system makes them appropriate.
However, the design standards and buffering requirements are intended to
discourage commercial uses except where they are clearly more appropriate than
light industrial park uses. That is not the same as saying that it always has been
and will be figured for commercial use. She questioned why the City had never
figured this land into its industrial land supply. Wolf stated that she had a 1996
staff report.
Hoag questioned when it was changed to Gateway Industrial. She also
questioned whether there have been any analyses that show where the City plans
its industrial after the zoning change. Wolf stated that the land study from 1995 -
1996 was used in creating the Comprehensive Plan. She did not know if there was
any study done after the change.
Hoag stated that the study done prior to the change from commercial would
indicate that they looked at it as commercial. However, if they've done a study
since the change, then whether they looked at the area as commercial prior to the
change is not the point. She requested clarification on the three areas. Wolf stated
that Area three is the Bakerview /I -5 interchange. Garrett owns that area. It was
calculated as commercial land when the City of Bellingham did its land supply
analysis.
Hoag asked if that was the only area regarding Gateway Industrial. Wolf
stated that there are also areas One and Two, and the Peace Arch property.
Hoag asked if the other areas are being affected by the text amendments or
whether they are only changing Area Three. Wolf stated that the text amendments
affect all of the Gateway Industrial District. She focused on Area Three, because it
has been the area of controversy.
Hoag questioned whether the City looked at any of the other areas for
industrial. Wolf stated that they looked at all areas. Parts of areas one and two
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
were not necessarily counted as commercial lands. They were part of the industrial
supply.
Sutter stated that on the map, the area in parenthesis is what the County
zoning used to be.
Goodwin stated that the bulk of Area One was previously zoned Tourist
Commercial. There is a small piece that was previously zoned Light Industrial
Impact (LII). The same with area two. The entire area was previously zoned
commercial and looked at as commercial land. Retail and office buildings in Tourist
Commercial were limited to 2,500 square feet. General commercial did not have a
limitation. That is the rest of Area Two. Also, big box stores such as Wal -Mart or
Home Base are 100,000 square feet, not 35,000 square feet. Haggen is 65,000
square feet. They are talking about a store half the size of Haggen.
Brenner stated that, compared to 2,500 square feet, it is a big box. Goodwin
stated that they are not talking about any major retail chain stores.
Knapp stated that they are not talking about a big box. It is not a subjective
term. There are distinct industry standard requirements for big box. Home Base is
a typical big box.
Wolf stated that the text adequately implements the Plan language
discussing attracting customers at the airport. Retail uses are limited to within Y4
mile of the freeway. Those distinctions implement the Plan.
Hoag stated that section .056 allows uses beyond Y4 mile of the free, but
can't be over 6,000 square feet. Wolf stated that the larger size is limited. The
threat of litigation should not determine zoning decisions.
Brenner stated that she would like to see the paperwork on how they got to
this point. They need to work with the City. She wanted the last comments from
the City of Bellingham prior to the change. Goodwin stated that the City officially
commented that they recommended the Gateway Industrial zoning. They
recommended the text of the Urban Fringe Plan. The Council adopted it exactly as
recommended by the City. That zoning was Gateway Industrial. The size was as
described. The City has had a change of Council. Now, City Council Member Ryan
happens to be chairman of the City Council, and is also an active Birchwood
Neighborhood Association member. They may have gotten a different
recommendation from the City if this issue came up yesterday, however it didn't.
What was adopted was the City's recommendation.
Sutter asked if the current City Council had commented on this issue.
Goodwin stated that the City Council commented that they recommend going along
with a conditional use permit. That was from the current City Council. The
Gateway Industrial zone that was adopted was what the Council at that time
recommended.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag questioned why the lack of a requirement for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in section 20.65.054 is being stricken. Goodwin stated that they
can't ever decide what is going to need an EIS until after the application is
submitted. That is the process. There are no criteria in the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) or in County rules that say a building of this type requires an
EIS. They are requiring people to spend a lot of money, design a building, pay for
all the building permits, then finally do a SEPA review to determine whether the
application will be accepted. Generally something smaller than 35,000 square feet
or 10,000 square feet wouldn't require an EIS, but they wouldn't know until there
was a SEPA determination. They rarely require an EIS for an individual building
project.
Hoag questioned why the language was there is the first place. Goodwin
stated that she did not know.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants Engineer, 1401 Astor Street,
Bellingham, stated that he had been involved in this earlier than anyone else. In
1986, they dealt with the issue of the 2,500 square foot limit. He supported the
present text amendment, which has been through a long process of review by the
City and County. At the time, the County was hoping to attract business to the
Gateway zone, the Outlet Mall showed up. They have to be remote from other
commercial centers. Coming into that location, with the 2,500 square foot
limitation, was prohibitive. The applicant requested in 1986 to make the shop size
120,000 square feet. That would have allowed more economic development of that
site. At that time, the Planning Commission and Council felt that was too big. They
compromised on 35,000 square feet. The issue showed that the market makes the
decisions about what is needed. 35,000 square feet allows for a company to come
in and manufacture and sell their goods. He supported the zone text changes for
reasons of the market, which seems to be comfortable with that limitation.
Hoag questioned whether there is any light industry at the Peace Arch area.
Campbell stated that there is a chain manufacturing plant in that Gateway
Industrial zone. There is also a greenhouse operation.
Hoag questioned whether those uses were there prior to the zone change.
Campbell stated that he believed they were. There is some activity that will bring
some other industrial use, but not within the Y4 mile. The market, as it is zoned,
will not be able to afford property within the Y4 mile of the freeway. It is zoned
primarily for commercial use. Outside of the Y4 mile boundary there is industrial
use. There is a trend for manufacturers to sell their product on the manufacturing
site. In the City, Planned Industrial is a zone that allows a lot of commercial uses.
The entire Guide Meridian to Horton Road is Planned Industrial. They are planned,
which means that they go through a public process for approval. Mixed Use is the
same concept.
Hoag stated that she wanted to ensure there is enough land available for
light industrial uses. There seems to be a shortage of land for light industrial uses.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
She questioned whether it is feasible to expect light industry to set up
outside of the Ya mile of the freeway with the size limitations. Campbell stated
that, because of the restriction, they end up building their shop component in that
size. If they want to grow, then there is flexibility to expand.
Sutter stated that light impact industrial uses are not limited, only retail and
the listed uses. Campbell stated that was true, except in Areas One and Two.
Brenner stated that the idea of market comfort is foreign to her. She is
supposed to look at what is in the public interest. There were already a lot of uses
there, especially some residential uses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated that her concern was that they allow multi -uses for a lot of
competition for awhile, and then there are empty spaces after people move out.
When it was commercial, it was reasonable to the other uses that were in there.
She was uncomfortable hearing about commercial use as if it is one - size - fits -all. If
they are not restrictive about commercial development in this area, then it will be
the predominant use and will be big. Their obligation is not to the individual
property owners who want the highest and best use for their property. The
obligation is to the entire planning process. Also, there was an issue of traffic
problems. They are watching commercial shops closely, and there are already
traffic problems in the area that will get worse. Design standards will not
necessarily deal with the traffic problems.
Campbell stated that there are transitions regarding empty commercial
spaces. Other companies and organizations will use those spaces. The County is
faced with making decisions that may restrict the flexibility that the business
climate needs. In the context of what they read, appropriate can mean financially
viable, not just aesthetic viability. The flexibility is there and the restrictions are
there.
Brenner questioned whether the lack of commercial development would
entice people to locate in the vacant stores.
Sutter stated that they would not because they are bigger than most people
would use. A business that only needs 35,000 square feet is not going to locate in
a 100,000 square foot building.
Brenner stated that the 100,000 square foot building could be divided into a
multi -use building.
Sutter stated that requires enough people coming into the building to pay for
it.
Brenner stated that the owner should change the look of it so it doesn't look
like a big box building.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Campbell stated that the Smith's building is 52,000 square feet. No one
wants to create an eyesore. With a shop size of 35,000 square feet, there will be
turnover. It is much more difficult to fill a building that is 125,000 square feet.
Sutter questioned the development that has occurred under the Gateway
Industrial zoning. Goodwin stated that she was only aware of the Greek restaurant.
There hasn't been a rush for commercial or industrial development.
Campbell stated that the state Department of Transportation (DOT) facility is
within the Gateway Industrial zone. There are retailers that want to come to
Bellingham and manufacture on -site. The Gateway Industrial zone is perfect for
that. Most of those folks build a nice looking building because they retail out of it.
Hoag stated that section 20.65.056 is to be stricken. She presumed that
they did not want a bunch of traffic congestion, so they were looking for uses that
are independent of that. She questioned why that language is recommended to be
stricken. Goodwin stated that she recommended that it be stricken. It would be
very difficult to create a study that would show how a use would not be dependent
upon attracting freeway motorists. It was an extra hoop to make someone jump
through, and questioned how they would draw that conclusion.
Hoag stated that this section does not deal with facilities within Y4 mile of the
freeway. Goodwin stated that it is still within the Gateway Industrial Area.
Sutter stated that, as the strikeout section was written, it didn't have
anything to do with the distance from the freeway.
Goodwin stated that her intent was to prevent requiring every potential
applicant from having to do a study that proves the development wouldn't take
traffic off the freeway.
Hoag stated that this has gone on for years. That language did not end up
there by accident. She wanted to find out why the language was there and whether
they are accomplishing the intent with what they are replacing it with. Goodwin
stated that they may or may not be accomplishing it, but there has been no
development in the Gateway Industrial zone at Portal Way since the zoning was
adopted. Maybe no one wanted to do a market study to show that the use on the
freeway wouldn't draw traffic off the freeway.
Hoag stated that the language to which she was referring was beyond the Y4
mile of the freeway.
mile.
Sutter reiterated that, as it was written, there was no differentiation of Y4
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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 stated that, in the new language, they are not referencing this
language about attracting motorists. Goodwin stated that the reality is that there
isn't any Gateway Industrial zoning that isn't on the freeway.
Sutter asked how one would prove that the business is not dependent upon
freeway traffic.
Hoag stated that she wanted to know why the language was there in the first
place and whether they are accomplishing the intent with the new language.
Goodwin stated that she did not know why the language was there. There were no
findings in support of the language.
Brenner stated that one of the reasons the language was added was to deal
with traffic congestion. It was added to ensure that they allow the kind of retail
and industrial use that can support itself without the ups and downs in the retail
economy. They wanted to ensure they don't create traffic congestion and find
themselves dependent on the whims of the Canadian dollar.
Sutter stated that the intent, the way it is written, is an impossible task.
Brenner agreed.
Hoag disagreed. Any business does market studies before they pick a
location. This is not an extra hoop for anyone.
Ellingson stated that the reasoning behind the language is obvious. It
references the uses, both permitted and conditionally permitted, in the
Neighborhood Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial is not large scale. They are
trying to avoid destination retail shopping facilities. Taking the language out
defeats the purpose.
Goodwin stated that another use permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial
zone that was referenced in section .056 is recreational vehicle (RV) parks. She
questioned how one would do a study to show that a recreational vehicle park
wouldn't draw traffic off the freeway.
Hoag clarified that the language states the business could not be "dependent
upon attracting" freeway traffic.
Knapp stated that there are different uses that are either neighborhood
oriented or community oriented. The Haggen grocery on the Guide Meridian is a
good size store, but it is a neighborhood store. The Haggen on Samish Way serves
the neighborhood, but serves a larger market share. It is a question of siting and
the intent of the use. To do market studies, businesses look at primary and
secondary trade areas.
reta i 1.
Brenner stated that is why the language needs to be reworded as destination
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Sutter stated that is the opposite of the intent. If someone's destination is
that place, then they are not being drawn off of the freeway. They do want the
businesses to be destination businesses.
Brenner agreed, and stated that they need another phrase.
Sutter suggested avoiding attracting people off the freeway with signage
restrictions. Goodwin stated that already exists.
Hoag agreed that the staff should provide language that accomplishes the
purpose.
Sutter asked about the signage restrictions. Goodwin stated that there are
detailed sign restrictions in the development standards, which limit the number of
freeway oriented signs. There are also detailed restrictions on traffic, under section
20.65.656 regarding access. Section 20.65.600 deals with signage.
Goodwin stated that there is a difference between being within Y4 mile of the
freeway and being within Y4 mile of the freeway interchange. Portal Way parallels
the freeway. The restriction is just within Y4 mile of the interchange.
Brenner asked for clarification on commercial signs.
Sutter stated that they should think of it in terms of the zoning.
Brenner stated that commercial signage is business signage, which includes
industrial and service industries. Goodwin stated that industrial is not commercial
because it is covered under section .601. Section .602 covers commercial
businesses such as retail, restaurants, and hotel /motel uses. Commercial
insinuates that something is for sale. A wholesale industrial use is not considered
commercial.
Hoag stated that the point was to see if the language covers the intent. It
still allows everyone within Y4 mile radius of the interchange to be advertising their
business. She questioned how the signage regulation accomplishes the language
that restricted commercial uses dependent upon attracting freeway motorists.
Goodwin stated that section .056 doesn't refer to anything within Y4 mile of the
freeway interchange. That is covered only under section .055. Tourist Commercial
uses are allowed within Y4 mile, whether they attract freeway business or not. It is
the section .056 that were dependent upon the market study.
Sutter stated that they need to make this more clear. These are permitted
uses in the Gateway Industrial zone, except that if they are outside the Y4 mile of
the freeway interchange, then their size is limited. They are still allowed beyond Y4
mile. It only restricts the size.
Brenner stated that there needs to be clarification on commercial businesses.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Goodwin stated that it is probably defined in the Code.
Knapp stated that a service business is commercial. If they are producing
something, then it would be manufacturing and industrial. If they sell it on -site,
then it becomes both industrial and commercial. Wholesale is not commercial.
Hoag requested staff bring forward language that would accomplish the same
thing as the intent of avoiding traffic congestion by limiting business that attract
traffic off of the freeway.
Sutter stated that she would add it is appropriate to allow businesses within
Y4 mile of the freeway interchange that attract freeway motorists. Any farther than
that, it is not appropriate.
Knapp stated that it is also close to the airport. In terms of planning, they
want the more intensive traffic generators to be at the interchanges, not in the
neighborhood. You want them limited to the close access areas. It makes sense to
have commercial uses closer to the interchanges and industrial uses away from the
interchanges. Industrial developments do not want to pay the price to be near the
interchanges. They want to be away from the traffic.
Hoag questioned from where the Ya mile is measured. Goodwin stated that it
is where the off ramp meets Bakerview Road.
Hoag stated that it wipes out the whole zone here. Goodwin stated that she
would get an interpretation.
Jack Petry, citizen, stated that the Mixed Use area in the City of Bellingham is
the result of a planned contract, or Planned Unit Development (PUD). It allows the
City and proponent to sit down and devise the mixes. The District to which
Ellingson referred is the Barkley Village contract with Talbot, which does have
percentages. There are two ways to provide mixing of uses. At Barkley, the
commercial is at the main intersection. Out from that is the industrial, and then
surrounding that is the residential. The best place for commercial is at the
intersection. Around that would be high density residential. The commercial at the
freeway intersection in the Barkley Village context is at the context of the
intersection of Barkley and Woburn. In modern planning, one would live, work, and
shop in as close an area as possible. Because of the dependence on Canadian
traffic, Whatcom County is one of the slowest growing counties on the I -5 corridor.
Also, commercial building vacancies aren't an indication that no new commercial
buildings are needed. In the Gateway areas, only 25% of the land has been
designated for industrial land. Nearby, there are over 1,000 acres of industrial land
that has not been used. Within the City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, staff
studies show a need for 660 acres over 20 years for commercial land supply.
Bellingham only set aside 453 acres.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Petry continued to state that 336 acres are actually industrially zoned land
that they knew had to change. In this specific area, there were at least 6 or 7
hearings over the years and 50 or 60 committee meetings. All of this took a long
time. At the end of it, this was decided as the best way to plan for the
neighborhood. If they change this decision every time there is a new Council or
someone new comes on, then they are in trouble. That is why Bellingham only
grew jobs at a rate of .6 %, when the State grew at a rate of 3 %.
Brenner questioned whether there was any specificity as to the type of
commercial that was needed. Petry stated that it is the need for retail and office,
as he remembers it.
Brenner questioned how to prevent congestion at Y4 mile from the
interchange, and whether there are many vacant industrial sites that don't have
attached environmental problems. Petry stated that there are several thousand
acres of vacant industrial land in the County because no one can site on them
because it can't be done quickly.
Brenner stated that there isn't good infrastructure for industrial. If there are
plenty of industrial sites available, they should determine why it is not being used.
Petry stated that is the same problem with commercial.
Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated that he retired to
Bellingham in 1981 from a career in foreign work. There is more to it than the
Birchwood Neighborhood Association attitudes or the developers' attitudes. There
is a mess because of all the compromise. Some people want light industry to
prevent an enormous amount of traffic near the airport. Also, there is a lack of
living wage jobs available. Commercial businesses don't pay that much. He didn't
think that the Canadians would begin coming to the County again any time soon.
There will be a population growth in the County. Zoning is about the public's
interest. When the Council thinks about how the planning looks, they should
consider the public's interest.
Brenner asked Petry about the turnover of vacant commercial buildings.
There is not a big turnover. Petry stated that there are constant turnovers going
on, if one looks at downtown Bellingham. The market goes where it will. When
companies come into an area like Bellingham, they are looking for a mix of uses.
They want their people to be able to live close to where they work. Bellingham is
still operating under the concept of separating the uses.
Hoag stated that Mixed Uses support the concept of having people live, work,
and shop in the same area. The slow job growth in Whatcom County has been
accompanied by the decline in the Canadian dollar. She recommended a change to
section 20.65.055 so that Y4 mile would be changed to a smaller area, such as 1/8
mile. The Urban Fringe Area is trying to encourage mixed uses, light industry, and
to service the travelers coming from the airport. A smaller area can service the
travelers without excluding the light industry and other mixed uses that they would
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
like to see in that area. She was concerned that they would end up with only
commercial in that entire area. In the letter from the City of Bellingham Planning
and Community Development, dated November 12, 1998, to the Whatcom County
Planning Commission, it talks about the proposal of allowing additional commercial
uses beyond the Y4 mile. It was a request for the Portal Way area and should not
be applied to the Bellingham UGA along the Bakerview Road.
Sutter stated that would only reduce the size. These uses listed under
section .055 are allowed anywhere within the Gateway Industrial zone, not just
within Y4 mile of the interchange. What Hoag is suggesting would limit the size of
the facility within 700 feet of the interchange, not Y4 mile. It would increase the
allowable size of the facilities outside of that area.
Brenner agreed.
Sutter stated that they would be limiting the retail shops, but would still
allow other service areas. It would also make the Outlet Mall a non - conforming
use.
Hoag questioned whether a one - size - fits -all is appropriate for Bakerview and
Portal Way. Goodwin stated that right now it is. If it was changed, then they
would also need to amend the Urban Fringe Plan, because it may specifically say A
mile.
Hoag questioned whether the Planning Commission was dealing with the
Urban Fringe Plan that evening. Goodwin stated that they are clarifying language,
not modifying language. It is not on their docket of things to consider.
Sutter stated that they would need the City's approval.
Hoag asked to restrict the uses listed in section .055 to within 750 feet of the
freeway interchange, and the uses listed in section .056 could be allowed beyond
750 feet, but couldn't exceed 6,000 square feet in size. Goodwin stated that was
correct. They would also want to look at the Hampton Inn, which would be a non-
conforming use.
Sutter stated that the language is written in a confusing way. In section
.055, there should not be a colon after "Retail Shop" at the top of page 18. It
should just be a period. If they restrict the distance to 700 feet, then they could
have retail shops that don't exceed 10,000 square feet in Areas One and Two. In
Area Three, it could be up to 35,000 square feet. She didn't understand why items
such as post offices and banks wouldn't be appropriate in other areas of the zoning.
Hoag stated that they are allowed, but they have to be within the first 750
feet of the freeway interchange. Those items are aimed at servicing the traveling
public.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Sutter stated that Post Offices are not appropriate for freeway traffic. It
should be a neighborhood facility.
Hoag stated that, in terms of planning, it would be easier to access if it was
closer to the freeway.
Sutter stated that they would have to take a harder look at whether each of
these items are appropriate that close to the facility. Indoor /Outdoor recreation
facilities should not be located within 750 feet of a freeway.
Hoag stated that the point was these were the types of uses that service the
traveling public. The point of the Gateway Industrial zone was to service the
traveling public and to provide areas for Light Impact Industrial uses. Narrowing
the radius allows for more mixed uses.
Sutter stated that her concept of mixed uses allows a variety of uses spread
out and mixed together, not lining up a variety of uses in a linear approach.
Hoag stated that the uses that require people to drive in and drive out would
be located next to the freeway, so they don't run the cars through the
neighborhood.
Sutter stated that they would then need to make major changes.
Brenner stated that Sutter would be correct if all things were equal, however
leaving the area the size that it is could crowd all of the uses together in the entire
Gateway Industrial zone. If they are going to crowd traffic and uses together, then
they should be confined to a smaller area.
Sutter stated that spreading out the uses would disperse the traffic.
Brenner stated that there are not any regulations to ensure that would
happen. Mixed Use doesn't have any regulation that prohibits locating facilities
right next to each other. There would be twice as much congestion.
Hoag stated that they would not end up with neighborhood services such as
a dentist or beauty shop because no one could afford the property if it is
commercial. The language of the Urban Fringe Plan discourages commercial uses,
except where they are appropriate in a Light Impact Industrial setting. The only
way to accomplish this is to restrict the larger stores and the listed uses to the
smaller areas. Outside of the smaller areas, they would allow for light impact and
neighborhood uses. Also, commercial uses should be further delineated in the
context of identifying a shortage of commercial space.
Sutter stated that they would come back to this at their next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Brenner suggested setting up more work sessions.
Sutter stated that they will discuss it at the Planning and Development
Committee on Tuesday, June 15. It is a limited time.
Brenner stated that the committee also has a special meeting scheduled for
June 16 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.
Goodwin stated that they have made a commitment to Roger Ellingson and
the Birchwood Neighborhood Association. She suggested finishing this discussion
on June 15th, then set a public hearing for June 29th if it is needed.
Sutter scheduled a meeting on June 24th from 9:45 to 1:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 21