Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole April 1 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee of the Whole COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION April 1, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Absent: Marlene Dawson None Barbara Brenner Tom Brown Alvin Starkenburg Kathy Sutter Robert Imhof COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WORK SESSION ON THE DRAFT WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96 -051A THROUGH 051K) Nelson moved, as a point of order, that amendments to the Comp Plan will require a motion as well as a second in order to keep moving forward. There was discussion on the motion with Brenner speaking against it. Gibson noted Council may approve the motion by suspending the rules; a supermajority (5 -2 in favor) would be required. Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. Nelson then requested a staff report. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, gave the report, stating a portion of the paperwork was received late yesterday (March 31) so staff was unable to complete it. Most of the report was contained in the last work session's report. He began with the Lake Whatcom Watershed section. Knapp addressed specifically the areas to be covered in his report: Lummi /Eliza Islands; Lake Whatcom Watershed Protection Zone; Short- term/Long -term Boundary Clarification and Map Changes; Urban Growth Areas - -Urban Growth Areas Updated; Site Specific Council Review; and Text Changes Proposed by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED). Knapp read the section (3.1) on Lake Whatcom Watershed and reviewed staff proposals. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 1 Discussion followed regarding adding incentives for compliance; team effort on drafting the amendments (Nelson and Sue Blake, Water Resource Manager); Policy 8G -6 regarding commercial forestry zone (Blake responded); policy vs regulatory process for addressing various issues; parcel size for houses; specific planning and direction for the Lake Whatcom Watershed; protection of acreage; and development vs forestry practices. Dawson expressed concern over the language in Policy 8G -6, handout page 6, regarding residential development in Commercial Forestry Zones in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Discussion followed. Brown moved to add language to Policy 8G -6: "Adopt development regulations that would allow minimal residential development in Commercial Forestry Zones except in the Take NVha4eem Water-she ." Dawson seconded. There was discussion on the motion. Starkenburg commented that commercial forestry zoning should generally stay commercial forestry and suggested holding this issue until Council deals with the commercial forestry issue. Motion carried 6 - 1 with Imhof opposed. Brown expressed concerns regarding the suggested addition of language outlined on page 5, Section 3.11. Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services, clarified the intent of that language. Brown moved to amend the language "Funds have been allocated to assist in plan implementation, with additional resources needed to fully complete implementation as funds are available." Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved on page 7 to approve language as added by staff regarding 1. Action Item #(blank) below the**: "...Place a particular emphasis on developing and implementing a maintenance, operation, and inspection program for the Lake Whatcom Watershed with incentives for compliance." Dawson seconded. Blake stated she understood the intent. Knapp stated they would make that change. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 2 (Clerk's Note: No vote was taken on this motion. There was Council concurrence only.) Starkenburg noted that Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) may need to be addressed in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Knapp commented on the benefits of TDRs in the watershed. Motion to approve Section 3. 1, in its entirety and as amended, carried 5 - 2 with Imhof and Brenner opposed. Knapp directed the topic to Custer (materials submitted by Planning and Development Services). Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Counsel, clarified the County can determine an area for essential public facilities. Also, lot size and configuration can develop into a unique intermodel transportation facility. The original proposal was to make a proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA). Council may designate it urban but must be aware that public facility services are not opened to other rural areas. If this area does not become an intermodel facility, the urban designation would collapse. Mackie was concerned the urban designation could potentially be viewed as premature. There is no guidance on this area and much discretion. He urged caution with the policy language and recommended the best way to proceed was with a preliminary designation allowing vesting upon conclusion of the activities. There was discussion. Brenner stated that there is a history of this type of development not working, as with the Beacon Studio project. Imhof concurred. This should be designated as potential UGA. Sutter suggested implementing Curtis Smelsor's suggestions for wording changes and suggested striking Policy 21313-3. She requested the last sentence of that policy be left in place, which states that if no master plan "comes forward ", the area would then be open for review. She suggested "potential" be deleted. Brown requested clarification from Mackie regarding the County liability for development of infrastructure if "potential" is deleted. Mackie responded that Council would be the responsible parry, as the governing body, under the proposal for the development regulations under the master planning process. Law enforcement administration, permitting, and coordination of adequate levels of service (LOS) would be the County's responsibility. Sewer and water would be a developer responsibility to identify in the master plan. County has the administrative role; the developer has the development role. Starkenburg asked why "preliminary" was used instead of "potential ". Mackie said Council was attempting to create a status for the area as the beginning of development. Starkeburg moved using the word "preliminary" throughout the text regarding the Custer UGA and deleting "potential ". Imhof seconded. Sutter suggested "provisional UGA ". Mackie cautioned Council of the need to be clear in the Comp Plan regarding what is expected for the area. Facilities need to be identified, as well as sources of potential funding and environmental constraints. The master plan sets zoning. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 3 Until the master plan is approved, use will state rural. Imhof stated if this does not develop into the intermodal facility, he requested it stay as it presently is. Starkenburg noted he would accept Sutter's suggestion as a friendly amendment to replace the word "potential" to "provisional ". Imhof seconded. Mackie will return to Council on April 8 with modifications to reflect the conversation held today regarding this matter. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to amend page 2 -62 by substituting the language from Curt Smelsor. There was discussion on the motion. Sutter withdrew her motion and reserved the right to make the motion at the April 8 work session. Mackie stated he would review the language before April 8 and make recommendations. Knapp moved the conversation to short-term boundaries on page 7 of the Addendum Items. Sue Blake spoke about Policy 2R -3 regarding extension of sewer and water boundaries outside short-term boundaries. Recommendations are an attempt to clarify inconsistencies. Blake recommended adding the following language to the first bullet, page 8: "No sewer or water line shall be extended at urban levels of service to serve urban uses." She also recommended a couple of exceptions to this. Since the reality of "legal obligation" is very difficult to define, Blake explained the intent of this issue. Mackie suggested using the term "vested right" instead of "legal obligation" on page 8 of the Addendum Items (second bulleted item after #1). Her final recommendation was to add language stating that these exceptions will be allowed to help meet regional supply needs as long as the purveyor has sufficient quantities of water to meet its needs in its UGA as determined by both the purveyor and agreed to by the County. Starkenburg asked if there were a way (page 8, item #2: "The city has corrected the deficiency which created... ") to list the deficiencies. Mackie responded that through the development regulation process, the County would define the specifics. Discussion followed regarding short-term boundaries. Nelson moved to change language where "vested right" currently exists. Imhof seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter stated she was concerned about water service and the short-term boundaries, Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 4 Goal 2P, establishing interlocal agreement with each city and suggested interlocals need to include other services providers besides just city and the County. She noted water districts should be included as a parry to any agreement. Discussion followed. Knapp directed the conversation to individual city map changes. A request from Blaine was received to include Cannery Hill and West Semiahmoo in the short-term boundary. He noted a correction at the bottom of page 9 of the addendum items, Attachment 5.5, Blaine/Birch Bay Map Notations, regarding new information on the short-term boundary. Mackie suggested dealing with this on April 8. This dispute regarding clarification on which entity provides services to Cannery Hill and West Semiahmoo needs to fully resolved. Mackie suggested language as a Finding: "The short-term boundary will be lifted with the following understanding that the sewer and water services be provided by the City of Birch Bay." This would be consistent with the Comp Plan. Knapp stated there are some issues that still need to be clarified regarding the Blaine land use analysis. There was discussion regarding the city of Lynden's map changes and Bellingham UGAs. Brenner suggested taking the Curtis Road area out of the Comp Plan map. Mackie stated that this area is an isolated pocket of rural development surrounded by urban development on three sides and a railroad track. There is nothing in the Growth Management Act (GMA) statutes that require it to be urban. Knapp stated that because of the proximity of the airport, long -time use is not appropriate for residential, only industrial. Imhof stated the area is large, but there are certain areas that were requested to be changed and included into the UGA, otherwise they would end up being conditional uses. Those areas are the former Bellingham Frozen Foods (BFF) property - -5 acres; the Smith property north of the BFF property - -5 acres; and the ten acres south of that. The consensus of Council was for staff to come up with revised map changes to exclude the Curtis Road area and include only the three properties specified by Imhof. Knapp then spoke to the Slater Road area east of the freeway to Northwest regarding a short-term boundary that may not be appropriate. There was discussion among Council members regarding development -- residential and industrial - -in the vicinity of an airport. Sutter pointed out the shoreline industrial area, Map 1, page 39, in the southern tip contains a space between the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) and the city limits boundary and wondered why the blank space. Staff will investigate. (Clerk's Note: A lunch break was taken) (Clerk's Note: The meeting resumed at 1:30 p.m. with Imhof absent) Mackie pointed out a technical change on 6.43, page 2 -37, "...included for consistency with Ferndale's future utility plans" should be "... Ferndale's future land needs." Staff will make this change. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 5 Discussion began after lunch with Council members and Gibson regarding recently submitted rezone lists. The question was whether to work on the Mineral Resource Lands list distributed by Gibson (on file). The first on the list was the Everett Rock Quarry, which received much public input. The scope of this is currently before the Hearing Examiner and may eventually reach the Council for decision, so he urged caution on the discussion. Gibson reviewed the situation and stated that Council needs to make its decision regarding MRL designation apart from a prejudgment as to what the non - conforming use is. At first, the Planning Commission recommended a MRL designation for 20 acres. That did not come by way of a request. Staff suggested this recommendation, based on their analysis of the situation at that time. Subsequently, Bride, on behalf of Everett Rock, requested 104 acres of MRL designation. The question is how many acres, if any, should be designated MRL in view of the input and what the law states. Regarding the public process, it was clear regarding the 20 acres. Staff has re- examined those 20 acres and has additional input on whether or not that 20 acres is proper. Regarding notice and public process regarding the 84 acres, it was published in the Bellingham Herald and there was extensive public input. It was hard to imagine what more could be said than what has been said. He suggested the Council's decision is less related to public process and related more to the input the Council has received, what the Council knows, and what the decision should be at this juncture, recognizing that there is pending litigation regarding non- conforming status. acres. Dawson moved to decline the MRL designation regarding Everett Rock except for the 20 Sutter seconded. Discussion followed regarding the MRL designation with Sutter, Gibson and Griffin. Topics discussed included: a legally permitted site; non - conforming permit; and acreage. (Clerk's Note: The following portion of the minutes is transcribed verbatim) Gibson: Once you are MRL, once you've gone through MRL designation and then being picked up subsequently in an MRL zone and in getting your administrative permit, it does away with the need for non - conforming status, assuming that you're getting at least what you had before. Mr. Griffin, is that accurate? Dawson: Basically it becomes less political, it is more administrative driven. Gibson: For example, if he had non - conforming status for 64 acres, lets just say for the sake of argument, and he got an MRL designation for 104, went in and got an administrative permit, it could well be that his non - conforming status would be irrelevant, a thing of the past. Sutter: So then, what I'm not clear on, when we say that designation number, I'm trying to find the right one if it's in here, the one that says that existing permits will be Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 6 designated. Is there not one in here? Gibson: Yeah, there is a designation criteria... Griffin: And that's, but it's a 20 -acre, Jeff Griffin, for the record, Whatcom County Planning. Designation criteria, I think that is number one or two. Sutter: Yeah, that's what I thought. Griffin: If there is a permitted site that the permit is in excess or is 20 acres or greater... Sutter: Or here it is, number four. Griffin: In this case it's not 20 acres. Sutter: Okay, wait a minute, it doesn't say that. All it says is, "all pre- existing legal permitted sites meeting the above..." Oh, 20 acres, okay. What's a legally permitted site? Griffin: They way I've interpreted that all along has been they have a state permit. Sutter: A DNR permit? Reclamation permit? Griffin: Correct. And, well, and /or a County conditional use permit. But, if they have a County conditional use permit for 20 acres, they'll usually have a state permit as well. Sutter: His isn't a conditional permit, it's a non - conforming. Griffin: Right, right. Sutter: So it may not be legally permitted, he doesn't have... Griffin: He doesn't meet the, under those first four criteria. Sutter: He doesn't meet the criteria, so we can't designate it. He doesn't meet number one or number two. Griffin: In general, if sites don't meet the first four, they can still be designated if they meet all the criteria after that. That's how that works. Staff's interpretation now, and the reason we recommended against our original recommendation, is my interpretation of criteria number six is the one criteria that the quarry does not meet now. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 7 Sutter: Does the 11 %2 acres meet the criteria? Griffin: No, it has to be 20. Nelson: That was on, based upon the, page 826, one unit per 20 acres. Right? I just wanted to finish up so that she had a chance to get hers answered then I'll be right... Sutter: It's just very confusing to me. Griffin: 829? One through four... Brenner: Can I have clarification? I just have a clarification. When we left, we were going to come back and work on urban growth areas around the cities. I know there are lot of people who are here for this. Why are we doing this instead? Nelson: Because Michael Knapp wasn't here and we're moving on. Brenner: Well Michael is here now and I think we really ought to go back and... This is what you announced at a public meeting. I really think you should go back to it. Nelson: Thank you. Continue. Brenner: I think this is unbelievable. Griffin: The criteria I was referring to is on page 829 and it's one through four. A lot of sites met... The way four reads is, "all pre- existing legal permitted sites meeting the above criteria will be designated." i.e. if they have 20 acres that is permitted and they have a million cubic yards of material. Sutter: Okay, now if they're not legally permitted, what do they have to meet. Griffin: Then they have to meet, well they have to meet, well four doesn't apply to those, right? Sutter: Right. Griffin: So they have to meet the remaining. They still do have to meet one and two, in terms of size and quantity. Sutter: Okay, now that's what I'm trying to get at, so his site is less than 20 acres. Griffin: Right, but his request is for 104 acres. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 8 Sutter: Okay. So, what I'm trying to say is we cannot just go ahead and designate his current, currently permitted site. We'd have to designate more. Griffin: Right. Nelson: That was in the motion if I recall. Sutter: Yeah, I'm just trying to get straight, because I have a hard time with these designation criteria and I'm attempting to understand, at least in the context of this one. Nelson: Council Member Brown. Brown: I think there is an interesting proposal put forth in our last public testimony. I wish we had time to work on and I would hope that maybe it will be continued in the future some time and that was, some, an offer I believe by Everett Rock to set 40 acres aside closest to the residential development in consideration for MRL designation to the opposite side. And that came at public testimony and so, I don't think we have the opportunity to work on it now, but I think it should be considered for maybe the next comp plan amendment and see if that would work out and satisfy a lot of people's issues. Nelson: `Kay, the motion is to recommend for, to decline Everett Rock's proposed MRL, except for 20 acres. Gibson: That was, that was Miss Dawson's motion. Staff recommendation was for removal of the 20 acres that had previously been recommended, so that's what's before you. Brenner: I'd like to see that done with two motions, either recommend 20 acres or recommend the decline. I mean, obviously it's one or the other. Either you're declining or your recommending 20 acres or you're recommending the whole thing. Those are three different motions. To say you're recommending a decline, except for 20 acres is very misleading. Nelson: I can understand that. Would you like to do the first motion as being decline that, and then make another motion for accepting 20 acres. Dawson: That would be fine. Nelson: How would that work out, Jeff? Now that meets the criteria for the MRL designation? Griffin: The 20? Is that what you're saying? Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 9 Nelson: Yes. Griffin: In my interpretation, it, the 20 fails to meet criteria number six. And it's open to interpretation. The situation there is as you read number six, "MRL designations must not be within or adjacent to developed residential zones or subdivisions platted at urban densities." This, in this situation, the 20 acres is caddy -corner to where the Scenic Estates subdivision starts. It's not abutting, but it's near. It's next to. And the way I interpret "adjacent" is abutting or near. Nelson: Okay, so let me interpret this. What he's essentially saying is even though you may want to include the 20 acres, that, in essence, under the criteria it still would not meet the qualifications. Correct? Griffin: Under my interpretation, yeah. Dawson: Okay, I guess, I don't, I guess I'm not really comfortable with further explanation on this. I thought this 20 acres would not be... I thought the Commission was approving 20 acres that was not adjacent to this particular area, so I don't think I'm really comfortable with going forward with that motion. Nelson: So, you're moving your motion. Dawson: Yeah. Brenner: I'll make a motion. Dawson: Removing my motion. Nelson: `Kay. Council Member Brenner. Brenner: I move we decline the request and decline the total request. Nelson: `Kay. The motion is to decline the total request of designation for Everett Rock. Is there a second? No second. Council Member Starkenburg. Brenner: Wait a minute. Did somebody want to second it? Nelson: Evidently not. Council Member Starkenburg. Starkenburg: Just for consistency I'll participate in discussion and then when it comes to voting, just out of appearance of fairness to those that I may be in competition to, I will not. So, for clarity on Dawson's comment on the motion, Gibson needs to clarify it as well. I believe the Planning Commission brought forward the 20 -acre. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 10 Jeff Griffin interprets item number 6, criteria number 6, as he did. And that's open for your, for our interpretation. So that's, that's just to try to bring as much clarity as possible. It's whether it is abutting or whether it's close to abutting or whatever the case may be as far as choice of words, so I just wanted to make sure you were clear on what the Planning Commission did bring forward. Dawson: Okay, so the Planning Commission did bring forward the 20 acres. Then, I would be comfortable with supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation, so I will keep my motion, then for the 20 acres. Nelson: The motion is for approval of the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Brenner: You can't do that. I already have a motion on the floor. Sutter: She has a motion on the floor. It wasn't seconded... Was it seconded? Nelson: It died for lack of second. Brenner: Oh, we're still suspending all the rules again, huh? Nelson: Okay, so the motion is to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to designate 20 acres MRL for Everett Rock. Is that adequately stated? Griffin: That's pretty clear. Gibson: That's, that's the issue. Nelson: Is there a second? (Clerk's Note, the remainder of the minutes is not transcribed verbatim) Sutter seconded. Brenner objected to Starkenburg's participation in these discussions. There was discussion regarding this issue. Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed, Imhof absent, and Starkenburg abstaining. Knapp then discussed Nooksack, Everson and Sumas. He reviewed the suggested amendment from each of these cities, noting that Policy 2T -1 was recommended to be deleted: "Easufe Ever-son adepts measufes to eneoufage development outside floodplains." Brown stated one of the City of Everson's arguments for taking out this language is that Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 11 they are against having to develop more regulations or go through another process. They feel some of this is already handled by chapter 15.10 and chapter 16.12. They don't want the County to make them produce redundant information. Dawson moved to delete Policy 2T -1. Sutter seconded. There was discussion on the motion. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. Brenner moved approval of new policy: "Within the delineated recharge area of the Everson well field, avoid land uses that pose an increased threat to groundwater quality." Dawson seconded. Brenner moved a friendly amendment regarding "...avoid additional land uses ". Sutter suggested "delineated wellhead protection area" instead of "delineated recharge area ". Brenner accepted that as a friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to strike policy 2T -4: "Allow Ever -senN ,,,ksaev to resolve ; sdiet;,.na issues ever- eempeting UGAs". Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner moved to delete Goal 2T -6: "Require Everson to propose long *°fm measures *� Brown seconded. Discussion followed. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, addressed the right -to -farm ordinance in the city limits; meeting goals and objectives; jurisdictions; and interlocal requirement. Sutter moved to amend Goal 2T -6 as part of the interlocal agreement items: "Negotiate long -term measures to assure compatibility of adjacent uses." place. Nelson stated the motion is tabled until discussion of the interlocal agreements takes Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 12 Motion carried unanimously. Dawson moved to change language on 2T -1: change "require" to "encourage ": "...work with Everson to adopt measures to encourage development outside the floodplain." Brenner seconded. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed. Knapp noted 2T -7, 4th bullet down: "Negotiate and adopt an interlocal agreement which provides for..." and recommended striking "...identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for..." He suggested new language. Sutter moved to leave 2T -7 as is. Dawson seconded. Nelson pointed out to Council these are proposals from Everson and, if agreement is intended, move to do so; otherwise, the language will remain as written. Brenner moved to table 2T -7 to find out if these issues are covered in Everson's Capital Facilities Plan. There was no second. Knapp spoke to the next section: "Timing an pProcedures to be used during €er reviews of adequate adequacy of land supply in the year 2000 and at five -year intervals thereafter." Nelson moved to adopt Everson's language. Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Knapp moved to the next section: "cooperation regarding conversion of mineral resource lands ^ r'ar ". Dawson moved to adopt. Brenner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to add another bullet to 2T -7: "long -term measures to assure compatibility of adjacent uses to mineral and agricultural resource lands ". Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 13 Brenner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Knapp spoke regarding Sumas on page 12, 6.72, page 2 -46: a wording change is needed here. Mackie clarified regarding industrial area. Nelson moved to adopt the new language: "West This area includes a mix of industrial use to the south, adjacent to the B -N rail line, as well as some land to the north that will remain in agricultural use due to peat soils. an industrial area that -TSm a-s iseemm tted to serviee.; a Also Sutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved to change language on page 12, section 6.7 1, page 2 -46: "County goals encourage Sumas to develop average net densities at four units per residentially zoned acre.-(Clerk's Note: Add a space at the end of previous sentence) Sufflas is in . . if-etimstanee in that all ef the proposed residen4ial !a-ad exeept 183 aefes is within the floodplai„ Sutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved to delete "primarily" in the section labeled South on that same page. Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner moved to delete the language labeled East, same page. Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Brown moved to delete the language on page 2 -47: " and adoption of a flood study for- the area due east of StFmas p6of to inelusion in the filial tir-ban growth af , " Sutter seconded. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 14 Motion carried unanimously. Brenner moved to add language on Policy 2 YX -1: "Ensure Sumas can provide adequate urban services within the urban growth area to accommodate anticipated growth." There was no second. Sutter moved language on Policy 2 YX -3 is changed to the same as Everson's language: gr-eenbelt „rateet o„. Work with Sumas to adopt measures to encourage development outside floodplains." Dawson seconded. Nelson moved to delete recommended language on "DUX -5: 11--„ -„r° StIm s has There was discussion on the motion. Sutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to approve language on 2 Y-X -6 and move to an interlocal section: "Dr ehey The Council concurred. Sutter moved to change language "delineated recharge area" to "delineated wellhead area" and add "additional" (the same as with Everson). The Council concurred. Brown moved approval to approve language change in Policy 2 YX -7, the first bullet point: "restriction of extension of urban levels of service to urban uses outside the urban growth areas." Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to strike language on page 2 -47, Policy 2Y -7, the first bullet point: "r- estfietio of ex4ension of urban levels of service outside the short term boundaries of the urban Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 15 growth areas ". Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved to change the following language on page 2 -47 to how it was worded previously: "identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for ". Sutter moved to delete "including wetland protection" on page 2 -47: "review of procedures and standards, ;,,eluding wetland pfeteetio , for development proposals ". Nelson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter stated the bullet on page 2 -47: "timing and procedures for review of adequate land supply" should be worded as previously. Nelson stated language should be added (a new bullet) on page 2 -47: "protection of groundwater quality within the wellhead protection areas of the Sumas well fields." Sutter moved to change "recharge area" to "wellhead protection area ". Starkenburg seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Nooksack was the next topic. Brenner moved to delete language on page 2 -43: "While Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter moved to change "108 acres of land" to "221 acres of land" on page 2 -43. Nelson seconded. Discussion followed with Griffin stating this is consistent with the map. Nelson requested consensus from Council members that if any proposed boundaries on Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 16 land uses are changed, the entire language pertaining to that area would be changed. Council agreed. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved approval to delete the following language on page 2 -43: "Setith " sm area, 23 aer-es, has been ineluded in the growth area for- Ever-son. The two eities will need to fesolve whieh is best suited to pfovide sefviees to the area-." Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 2W -1: Brenner moved to include the same language as previously with the other small cities on Policy 2X -3 and add: "...pursue encourage multi- family development..." Nelson seconded. Motion carried 5 -1 with Starkenburg opposed. Brenner moved to adopt Nooksack's language on Policy 2X -3: "...measures to inerease defies develop vacant lands with the existing city limits at increased densities." Dawson seconded. Motion carried 5 -1 with Sutter opposed. Brenner noted Policy 2W -4 was a ditto regrading the language. There was discussion regarding the new policy regarding the Breckenridge Plateau. Brenner moved to adopt the new policy proposed by Nooksack. There was no second. This was tabled for further information to be supplied by Knapp (what and where the Breckenridge Plateau is located). Brenner moved to ditto Nooksack Policy 2W -7 as was written for Sumas. (Clerk's Note: A I 0-minute break was taken) Knapp picked up after break with Section 5.2, page 9, regarding long -term boundaries. Nelson was concerned about conditional use options. Knapp stated the delivery of services prevents sprawl. Mackie commented about the interlocal agreements. Sutter requested clarification regarding areas and density. Knapp noted the long -term areas are to be settled at a later date; the short -term are areas having resolution of density agreements. Starkenburg referred to page 8. Knapp spoke further to long -term boundaries, stating it was necessary to meet the objectives of density and GMA and the criteria; after these have been met, the short-term Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 17 boundaries must then be met. Brown moved to change Lynden's map (based on its clarification letter to the County) from Lynden's eastern long -term to a short-term boundary provided the drafting of the agreed - upon interlocal agreement has been completed. Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Dawson moved approval of page 2 -23 as written. Brown seconded. Discussion followed regarding the Denke property. Mackie spoke to the recommendation and the reasons for placing this property inside the urban boundary as a logical service area. Starkenburg referred to the Planning and Development Committee's vote. Knapp stated this has not been platted as yet, but an application has been submitted. Mackie then stated it was not the intent with the inclusion of this property in the long -term boundary of the city to change the vested rights under the present application. The R -2 zoning will remain in place. Denke would then work with the city of Bellingham regarding upzoning. Nelson stated the motion would be to include Summit View as a long -term growth boundary. Motion carried unanimously. Blaine UGAs were next discussed. Knapp spoke to the language changes in this section. Since this language has been requested, a preliminary review by the Department Of Health (DOH) was done regarding the purveyor of water and sewer services. The preliminary discussion with the County Health Department has recommended Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, even though it is within the Blaine UGA. Mackie stated that any annexation would be conditioned upon Blaine's acceptance of that recommendation. With that limitation, the restrictions can be lifted because there would be no need for a short-term boundary. This resolves the utility issue which effectively is being resolved by the parties. Thus, the confusion over which entity performs the service is eliminated. Mackie suggested further examination of this point on Tuesday with further language recommendations. Starkenburg moved to adopt language as written on page 2 -29, handout page 15. Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 18 Brenner moved to delete language on page 2 -36, section 6.4 1, Ferndale, handout page 17. Dawson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner moved to delete language on page 2 -36, section 6.42. Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Dawson moved approval of language changes in section 6.43, page 2 -37, as written. Brenner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Dawson moved approval of language changes in section 6.44, page 2 -37, as written. Brenner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sutter pointed out that Lummi Island, Eliza Island, and the Lake Whatcom Connector have not yet been done. Starkenburg stated he believed there are two completely different issues on the Lummi Island Subarea Plan, section 2.11, Policy 2L -2: maintaining this subarea plan vs using all the subarea plans as an interim development regulation. Council needs to be sure of the other subarea plans, which are present only for the purpose of an interim development regulation until Council approaches the regulations. There was much discussion. Dawson moved to delete this. After discussion, Dawson then moved to table. Sutter suggested a policy stating the subarea plans are consistent with the Comp Plan with that prevailing in case of conflict with the subarea plans. Knapp pointed out this is a policy. Starkenburg requested verbiage from both attorneys. Mackie responded that Sutter requested this section be put back into the Comp Plan regarding the Lummi Island description, as well as Goal 2 -SS. Staff is to clarify this issue for Tuesday's meeting. Starkenburg moved approval to accept the language as written on section 2.3, page 2 -76, regarding Eliza Island. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 19 Nelson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Dawson moved approval of the language on page 7, section 4. 1, regarding the Lake Whatcom Connector. Knapp noted it is not a committed improvement and has not been supported by Bellingham. Brown seconded. Discussion followed. Motion carried unanimously. Mackie noted that sections 7.1 and 7.2, page 13, suburban enclaves and transportation corridors, will be done Tuesday, as well as Cherry Point, section 9.2. Gibson addressed rezones by reviewing all the listed requests (see Gibson's handout at the back of the Final Comprehensive Plan Addendum Items, Requested Changes to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, dated April 1, 1997). There was discussion, to some degree, on each request. Brenner moved to postpone adoption of the Comp Plan until the work session has been completed. Nelson responded. (Clerk's Note: At this point, Brenner left the meeting.) Nelson requested consensus by Council members regarding R10 overlay on #35, Korthuis. Gibson spoke to R10 v R5 and recommended revisiting this at a later time. Starkenburg moved to include #37, Beech, into the general commercial area of the Comp Plan. Gibson stated that if Maple Falls is given a small town designation as is proposed, this would be included and dealt with in the implementation phase regarding which zonings would be appropriate within the small town designations. Nelson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Gibson stated #46, Zender for Ed Drabb, is affected by the Comp Plan, which would be a rural designation. Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 20 Brown moved to move this property into Rural zoning. Sutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Gibson stated that on #48, Dennis Feathers, had two requests. The first was requested zoning change from Rural Forestry to R5A. Planning and Development Committee recommended a Comp Plan designation change from Forestry to Rural. Brown moved to include this area in the Rural. Starkenburg pointed out this is a Comp Plan issue and no action needs to be taken. Knapp said staff will batch the rezones into one large package. Sutter stated she wanted to know about the area at the corner of Badger and the Guide Meridian. It is supposed to be Crossroads Commercial, but is not on the map. Starkenburg noted it was on the Corridor Study. Sutter stated there was no question in her mind they agreed to designate that area Crossroads Commercial. There was agreement on that. Council needs more information on this item. Nelson stated next Tuesday, April 8, Council would address various areas and issues. The meeting would be from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. The next meeting will be Friday, April 4, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m. Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary These minutes were approved by Council on January 11, 2000. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Special COTW Minutes, 4/1/97, Page 21