HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 4 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 4, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 9 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Planning and Development Library and Meeting Room, 5280 Northwest Drive,
Bellingham.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REVIEW
COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (9:00 -10:30 A.M.); WORK SESSION
WITH FOCUS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (10:30 A.M. -5:00 P.M.) (AB96 -051)
Staff Also Present:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning Services Manager
Carl Batchelor, Planning Services
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Starkenburg stated today =s purpose was to discuss County -Wide Planning Policies
(CWPP) for recommendation to full Council and cover an agenda for remaining issues on
urban growth areas (UGA); the crossroads commercial designation; site specific issues
(involving approximately 41 requests); and agricultural and mineral resource lands.
Starkenburg wanted to deal with two major issues: the existing vs revised policies
and state - mandated actions that require a certain format for the Comprehensive Plan in order
for it to be approved. With these changes are the issues of rural and urban designations;
impact and mitigation fees; retaining industrial areas within County lands; retaining the
County =s option to permit conditional uses outside the UGA (such as for Lynden) for
agriculture- related industries; and some other items. He then asked for comments from staff.
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Manager, responded the
staff reviewed the committee =s concerns, met with cities through the Oversight Committee,
and held discussions with Council members to ensure policy changes were consistent with
state - mandated actions to proceed with growth management planning. The document states
each change made and why it was considered (Amendments, Attachment Al =, page 6). A
public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 11, with adoption by full Council
scheduled for Tuesday, March 11.
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, stated that in reviewing these CWPP, the
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 1
County has the basis for planning; however, there are tensions stemming from the Areal
world_ considerations vs the ideals set within growth management planning. He noted these
policies were revised to accommodate the Areal world= considerations Whatcom County
must address in the course of planning.
Starkenburg asked staff for clarification on several items: if Cherry Point (Policies,
page E4) had received sufficient consideration regarding potential growth toward Birch Bay;
and if review of the UGA every ten years (Policies, page 3, item C.4) is too long a period to
conduct a review of the UGAs.
Sutter asked for clarification on some items. She noted use of the term Aintensive
development= (Policies, page 2, item B.3) might be interpreted by some people as one unit
per five acres and suggested the term be changed to Aurban level of development =. A
discussion ensued; Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services, Planning, clarified
this refers to infilling and cautioned not to choose a term that alludes the area is urban.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Director, commented on intensive development.
Gibson explained the level of infill would be consistent with existing patterns of
parcelization, recognizing a certain momentum of development that could be contained
within a certain area. A discussion ensued about a possible negative reaction by the public to
the word Aintensive= and concluded with Knapp =s suggestion to change the language to
A ... industrial and infill consistent with existing residential development ... = (Policies, page 2,
item B.3). Starkenburg warned such language must be considered appropriate for final
review and that consistency must be maintained throughout. He directed staff to give it
further consideration for change in language or decide whether it is really an issue of
definition.
Sutter requested the word Asha11= be removed from the following sentence: AThe
most current accurate population projections, based upon a range provided to Whatcom
County by the Office of Financial Management, shall be used as a basis for determining
urban growth areas [and] shall include sufficient area to permit urban growth.- (page 2, item
C.3a). Batchelor responded the County is supporting the GMA requirement that UGAs shall
include sufficient area to permit urban growth. Starkenburg requested staff take this change
under consideration.
Starkenburg stated committee should be advised it is agreeing to the use of short- and
long -term boundaries (Policies, page 4, item D.3). Batchelor clarified the language states
short- and long -term boundaries may be used, which gives the option of using them.
Committee had no objections to this language or the indication of using the short- and long-
term boundaries as a tool.
Sutter commented on the deletion of ARural Levels of Service- from the Glossary
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 2
(Policies, page 13) but wondered if this would cause any problems in the future. Gibson
responded there may be rural levels of service in other ways; Batchelor added the Oversight
Committee found no reason to include the term.
Brown inquired regarding the implication of separation in the sentence, AThe County
and the cities shall encourage... separation of Urban Growth Areas through planning ... =
(Policies, page 7, item H.3). Gibson said this refers to the space between cities and UGAs.
Brown asked if the area between Bellingham and Ferndale would then be encouraged to
remain separate, and Gibson concurred but clarified the language AThe County and the cities
shall encourage, to the extent it is feasible to avoid, separation of Urban Growth Areas... =;
this was added to make certain allowances.
Brown raised the issue of whether the County is able to mandate a tribal group to take
action. A discussion then followed regarding the use of the word Asha1L= in binding the
parties to take action. Gibson clarified the CWPP is not a binding document, but it does
establish a policy that interested parties should be involved in matters of regional planning at
an appropriate level. Sjostrom clarified the policy emphasizes the County shall establish a
mechanism to improve information sharing and communication in a coordinated approach.
Gibson suggested amending the wording to read A ... emphasizes the County [ shall] should
establish a mechanism ...= and received agreement from committee to make the change.
Sutter suggested the change be made consistent throughout the document wherever County
and tribal cooperation is identified. Committee found this change acceptable.
Sutter also suggested changing the following policy to AWhatcom County
governments [shetil ] shall communicate with neighboring countries and governments in
B.C. and work cooperatively on growth management issues that cross county and national
borders- (Policies, page 11, item M.2). The suggestion was passed by as the previous
discussion was continued regarding another policy.
The language regarding tribal cooperation was examined in the policies for water
quality and quantity (Policies, page 11, item N.2). Starkenburg noted the Lummis have
asked for cooperation from the County regarding water issues. Further discussion led to re-
writing the policy to reflect the spirit of cooperation and the County as lead agency within
areas of its jurisdiction. Sjostrom suggested the following wording: ACities and the County,
in cooperation with tribal government and other municipal corporations, shall create water
resource protection areas and adopt zoning regulations.= (Policies, page 11, item N.2)
Committee agreed to use this wording as a framework to identify the lead agents and
establish the intent of cooperation throughout the policies.
Brown suggested the following language in the policies on private property rights:
A ... It is not the purpose of this paragraph to expand or reduce the scope of private property
protections already provided in state and federal law ... = (Policies, page 12, item P.1) be
included in the County Charter because there is a specific amendment to include that type of
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 3
language. Batchelor responded the Oversight Committee considered this request but found
the County is afforded adequate protection by its inclusion in the CWPP. Sjostrom asked if
the following policy, AThe county and cities should establish a proactive process to
anticipate potential takings ... = (Policies, page 12, item P.2), is essentially what the Charter
does, noting the first policy includes the state and federal and the second policy addresses the
policy on a local level. Gibson suggested that from a legal standpoint, if one were to insert
the word Alocal= into the policy (P.1) to read AIt is not the purpose of this paragraph to
expand or reduce the scope of private property protection already provided in local, state, and
federal law..., =, to the extent the local law was inconsistent with state and federal law, it
would be superseded. Committee then approved inserting the word Alocal= into the policy
(P.1).
Brown remarked on the need for a study on revenue impact called for in a policy on
fiscal impact, AAn economic analysis on changes in revenue caused by the Growth
Management Act shall be provided ... = (Policies, page 12, item O.1). Brown had only seen a
non - detailed study of such type and wanted to know what degree of detail would be required;
e.g., regarding transfer of taxes, provision of fire protection and other county services. He
noted the statement in the preceding paragraph, A ... if the Growth Management Act and these
policies are implemented to their maximum extent, county government may eventually lose
the tax base needed to operate essential services, including the criminal justice... Offices of
Treasurer... Assessor, etc.= (Policies, pg. 12).
Starkenburg noted an internal study conducted on the potential increase /loss on the
tax base from the interlocal process for the Public Works Department by Bob Woods,
formerly of the Council Office. He admitted that much has happened since this study, and it
may be wise that after this process another study could be done to review the short- and long-
term effects due to these planning policies.
(Clerks Note: Tape 1, side B)
Starkenburg thought the County is protected by applying long- and short-term
boundaries but noted more work needs to be done on interlocal agreements. He noted policy
discussions will continue and other determining factors such as impact /mitigation fees will
influence County revenues. He agreed the impact to revenues is a major consideration but
recommended moving forward in the growth management process to address these issues.
Batchelor said the policy is not a GMA requirement, but when the Oversight
Committee created these policies in 1992 -93, it was agreed that an economic impact analysis
should be developed; the details of who or under what circumstances was not decided. The
intention of the policy is to enable such an analysis be performed. After discussion, it was
agreed the County would bear the task since it is a CWPP. Sutter suggested requiring the
analysis as part of the annexation agreement, and Gibson responded there is the possibility of
requiring the economic analysis prior to adjustment of the short-term boundaries. He
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 4
explained this measure would identify the County as the lead agency, but the cities would
have significant incentive to see that it is done if defined as a prerequisite for annexation.
Batchelor added the study could be included as an element of the Comp Plan within policies
defined for adjustment of short-term boundaries. Starkenburg directed Knapp to give the
matter further consideration and seek advice on language from Gibson.
Concluding the portion of the work session on CWPP, Batchelor handed out the city
of Blaine's submitted changes (on file), and Sjostrom added the city of Ferndale will submit
its suggestions this Friday (February 7). Starkenburg stated the information, as well as the
evidence, will be given consideration at the full Council meeting next Tuesday (February
11). He thanked the Oversight Committee for its good work on the CWPP.
(Clerks Note: A ten - minute break was taken. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal
counsel, joined the meeting at this point)
Starkenburg stated the next portion of the work session will focus on discussion of
issues for UGAs with committee giving final indication of agreement for the UGAs.
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, distributed information for discussion
of changes and concerns that were raised for the UGAs and requested committee consider
these proposed Findings (on file). Staff continues to submit the Findings to committee to
focus on a specific program for full Council's final action. The Findings will also be sent to
the city of Bellingham for its comments for final recommendations. These Findings are also
being submitted for public input and consideration.
Mackie said each of the communities will be asked for confirmation on some key
items: review its land needs analysis to confirm population projections, and an opportunity to
comment on any differences between the cities and the County's recommended UGAs to be
adopted in the Comp Plan. The 50% market factor is not acceptable to the County; therefore,
there must be review and comment on the urban boundary relative to the appropriate market
factors. Staff has received letters from the state regarding each Comp Plan received that
raise areas of concern which warrant further investigation. However, most of these letters
were received before the cities took final action, so some of the state's considerations may
have been responded to in the cities= final plans. Sjostrom noted new lands analysis are
being submitted from Everson, Ferndale, and Blaine.
Starkenburg asked about the source for the cited population projection for the Comp
Plan, and Mackie responded the number was taken from a 1995 Office of Financial
Management estimate. Sjostrom clarified this figure was the last to be agreed upon by the
Oversight Committee.
Mackie requested staff clarify for the public hearing process projected growth figures.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 5
He noted these figures are not for planning UGAs but rather to question how well projected
growth is reflected for the County as a whole and to determine any significant changes.
Mackie began review of Blaine's UGA, noting there were some discussions about
modifications to the Comp Plan to clarify Blaine's position over a water dispute. The water
district has requested that neither it nor the city be permitted to serve the area until the
dispute is resolved. This would preclude new development in this area until the resolution.
The County's philosophy has been to remain impartial in parcel and area specific disputes,
and the Comp Plan directs the use of conflict resolution methods for final decision.
However, the Comp Plan allows the potential for the city of Blaine to extend water lines to
an area within the UGA. If this specific Finding is made, the County may want to place a
building freeze on the area until the dispute is resolved.
Starkenburg requested further comment from staff and committee regarding the
philosophy of having an outside arbitrator settle the dispute. Dawson thought the County has
taken a position in the CWPP. She thought just because an area is designated as a UGA, it
does not preclude the city from working with existing water purveyors. Mackie agreed this
is the County's basic philosophy, but the water district is raising an issue that if the area is
within Blaine's UGA but the city does not have the ability to provide water, the water district
as first provider wants to retain the area within its service base. He added this issue is more
specific than he felt comfortable to provide a recommendation for staff.
Sutter felt an independent mediator was appropriate to settle the issue in the disputed
area. She thought staff and committee should review a letter from Bob Carmichael, attorney,
suggesting language for the Comp Plan that addresses the County's position and role in
facilitating the process.
Gibson stated that the County's way of controlling this type of dispute is by
designating the area within Blaine's boundary or outside. He stated that to clearly place the
area inside or outside Blaine's UGA is one way to handle the issue but asked committee
consider whether the County is in the best position to make this decision or should it be
assigned to an agency with that type of work as its particular focus.
Dawson suggested the CWPP be amended to say "..they shall not extend [urban
services] outside the growth areas without the agreement ". Mackie responded the initial
recommendation was to concur with the boundary but try to let the water dispute continue
toward resolution. The proposal is clearly urban, but the city does not want to serve it.
Starkenburg stated no action can be taken by committee because the issue is too
complicated. He recalled testimony between Blaine and Birch Bay Water and Sewer District
that pointed out both entities are currently inside and outside their own areas by agreement.
Mackie suggested leaving this for the public hearing process as an item to solicit input from
both the Water District and Blaine, as well as others who wish to comment, and allow
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 6
Council to make the final decision.
Starkenburg noted Council member Brenner had joined the work session at this point.
Brenner voiced an objection about the changes in the schedule and felt that would prevent
the public from attending.
Starkenburg requested final agreement on the philosophy to allow a dispute
resolution board to handle this issue and received agreement from committee. He then asked
whether permits should be held up until the dispute is resolved. Sutter suggested a new
policy to state: "Neither Blaine nor Birch Bay Water and Sewer District shall extend services
into their overlapping service areas except by mutual agreement or by resolution pursuant to
a quasi-judicial adjudication =. Mackie responded with alternatives. He commented that if
Sutter's suggested policy language was adopted, there would be no approval of a project until
the dispute is resolved. He clarified that the interpretation of a Aquasi judicial adjudication-
is the conflict resolution process, and Sutter then rectified her suggestion by adding a period
of time could be specified for resolution to occur, after which time the decision would be
made by Council. Mackie asked committee to approve for today--s purposes a sentence to be
added that states: "The Council finds the public's interest would not be served by holding up
processing of the existing projects ". He reminded committee this issue will be addressed
through the public hearing process. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review may
also be used to resolve these disputes.
Brenner commented she is not comfortable having Council making a decision on
water disputes as opposed to a trained conflict resolution mediator. She felt Council could
make political decisions, but the water dispute also has financial and other concerns that are
outside the political arena.
Starkenburg asked Mackie to put into writing his recommendations to staff for
presentation to committee and full Council.
Mackie continued discussion of Blaine's UGA recommending no changes be made
for the south and east urban area. He reminded committee there is a short-term boundary on
the east side which is designed for aquifer protection and the city's wells.
Starkenburg noted there were a number of parcel requests for changes in zoning that
are scattered throughout the County. He thought that as each UGA is discussed,
consideration may be given to those significant requests for that area. At the end of the
discussion, he suggested identifying a mechanism for making recommendations on the
requests. Mackie agreed that resolving the larger requests will set a precedent for the smaller
projects.
Brenner asked whether a policy for water service falls within CWPP or UGAs, noting
the Oversight Committee delayed making a final decision. The issue focuses on whether
municipalities designated as regional purveyors will be required to supply water to existing
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 7
developed areas in the event the water becomes undrinkable. Mackie thought this would be
an exception in the water supply area and added a staff person has summarized water supply
issues, which point to inconsistencies in recently adopted service areas and the UGA. He
noted communities have agreed to extension of water service for public necessity, such as
emergency or environmental uses. Further discussion followed.
Mackie noted for the UGAs, it is appropriate to permit a municipality to extend
public services beyond the urban growth boundary to solve necessary public health or
environmental concerns. It is also not the policy of the County to have annexation outside
the UGA. He directed Sjostrom to ensure language is included in the utilities and
environment section so that cities can serve under such conditions as above. Brenner asked
if the language could state "will serve "; Mackie replied that would be considered a public
health issue which would be covered under rules set for the Health Department.
(Clerks Note: Tape 2, side A)
Mackie explained staffs actions taken to review services throughout the County.
During the next review process, these utilities plans will need to be reviewed for issues
involving inconsistent service; efforts should be made to harmonize them. Some of the staff
conclusions regarding services, such as water, are supported through this process and may be
referenced in these Findings.
Mackie began discussion of Birch Bay stating there is the ability to serve. There are
ongoing discussions about water sources and water allocation between PUDs, cities and
water districts which are currently unresolved. There is a reasonable process in place to
resolve the disputes. The use of short-term boundaries are recommended to manage growth
until the water plans are in place.
Starkenburg asked if the issue involving PUD #1 is covered by this proposal. Mackie
concurred, adding the parties involved in the dispute may approach Council for its
consideration, giving full details from both sides. However, Mackie does not recommend the
County try giving more specifics.
Sutter mentioned the CWPP that direct the County to keep space between UGAs and
cities and asked if the County must include a justification of the current abutting growth
areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Mackie responded these areas have been identified in the
Findings as existing developments, and a recommendation will be made for annexation or
incorporation with local control. He directed Sjostrom to include a Finding that (particularly
applying to Birch Bay) identifies areas where the County does not want to preempt either
choice but rather allows the designated choice process (the Boundary Review Board) to
make the final conclusion. The County's policies should maintain a neutrality regarding an
outcome or decision.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 8
Brenner asked whether the historical pattern of development should be included.
Mackie responded it has been, adding staff has identified all urban areas, and there are no
UGAs that are not part of urban cities, except Cherry Point and possibly Custer. He
explained the area either to be called Blaine or Birch Bay will be decided through the
Boundary Review Board's process.
Mackie described Lynden's UGA as having proposed short-term boundaries in newly
developed areas. He noted a correction in the memo should state the "...loss of lands for long
term agriculture will not affect the overall productivity of the county resource areas and
provides areas facilities for expansion of agriculture industry ". He pointed out that
agriculture businesses consume large blocks of land and as this land is used, agriculture land
shrinks; unless there is land for processing, the economic livelihood will be compromised.
Therefore, no changes are recommended for Lynden.
A brief discussion revisited Cherry Point. Dawson asked why Cherry Point will not
have any future annexation, and Mackie replied it would be difficult to include urban
residential components and incorporate UR4 or higher zoning up to the industrial boundaries.
Over time, Birch Bay, Ferndale, Cherry Point, and North Bellingham may need resolution to
handle future growth toward each others= boundaries.
Mackie began discussion of Nooksack's UGA. He stated staff agreed with the
Planning Commission's recommendations to remove the five -year review area to the south
and include 108 acres. David Davidson, planning consultant for the city of Nooksack,
verified Nooksack's request for an additional 35 acres to be included from the southeast to
South Pass Road. The addition of this acreage leaves an irregular boundary, so staff
recommended including an additional 40 acres that would square the boundary to complete a
logical service area. The northeast portion of South Pass Road is eliminated, as well as the
five -year study area. The short-term boundary is on the new materials from the Planning
Commission that apply to the new area to be included. He noted the mechanism for
resolution of the short-term boundary is the County's agreement with the city regarding
utilities, extension and service, annexation policies, and a phasing plan.
Starkenburg asked if there was any new information about a small piece to the west
of the railroad tracks, and Davidson responded the Boundary Review Board made a
recommendation last summer that the city of Nooksack include this piece through
annexation. He stated the request for including this property was not contested by Everson
this summer when it was reviewed, but they did protest over that area a year ago. Mackie
suggested making a note to draw all of the UGBs to the far side of the street and have the
mappers include all land abutting the street. This would avoid splitting the street.
Brenner asked if there was specific discussion from the Growth Management
Hearings Board (GMHB) about Nooksack and Everson abutting each other, such as
comments on how to prevent urban growth from stretching toward different UGAs. Mackie
replied the problem may stem from setting a policy that is overly broad for the objective. He
clarified the Board is required to examine logical service areas, preserve logical
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 9
neighborhoods, and have a criteria designed to resolve these type of neighboring issues.
Dawson commented that when the boundaries for Nooksack were squared, perhaps
too much land was given for industrial uses; only 30 acres may be used as such. Mackie
replied the rational basis for Nooksack to include this land is that Nooksack, rather than the
County, is the logical provider for services from a cost -of- service view.
Starkenburg requested agreement by committee for Nooksack's UGA, and all
approved moving forward with the current proposal.
Mackie described Everson's UGA as having no changes to the city's adopted plan. At
a previous meeting, committee considered extension of the urban boundary to include a
developed area located west of the city (see Mechlam Road) that was thought to be adjacent
to the urban boundary. Since that meeting, staff has found there are a number of
undeveloped parcels separating this area, and there is not sufficient reason to extend the
UGA to include this area.
Mackie described the Sumas UGA as having no changes to the text, but a map change
will drop out the conditional area, the five -year review, and the five -year review west of
SR9. Mackie clarified for the record the furthest most extension along Garfield projecting
beyond the newly incorporated area is a city well field, and it is appropriate for cities to
annex their well fields where they can.
Starkenburg requested agreement by committee for Sumas' UGA, and all approved
moving forward with the current proposal.
Brenner asked about the removal of five -year review areas, and Mackie responded
that, as a general matter, staff is removing them from the UGAs because the County did not
want to institutionalize the process for review. Mackie clarified short- and long -term
boundaries located inside an UGA allow for flexibility to address technical issues, utilities or
coordinated planning efforts and avoid inappropriate planning inside the urban boundary.
The five -year review areas outside the urban boundaries were identified by the Planning
Commission as potential growth areas that are logically next for consideration, but the
County's policy will be to leave review of these areas to an appropriate period of time as
determined by economic activity and growth as it occurs.
Mackie described the Ferndale UGA as being characterized by two major issues.
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation to include the area south of
Mountain View Road in the UGA, which was based on utilities and existing demand. The
Commission recommended deletion of all property along Vista Drive to Brown Road and
Grandview Road from the UGA, but this creates a very irregular boundary. Staff
recommended including all property along Grandview Road, which is zoned R -5A, and place
a short-term boundary that would not allow the zoning to change until a joint plan, facilities
plan and annexation plan are in place.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 10
Sutter asked how future R -5A development that is not compatible with urban
development would be managed in this area, and Mackie replied the area has potential to be
included in an agricultural protection zone, which would then require clustered development.
A brief discussion ensued regarding whether agricultural protection zones will, in fact, be
designated. Mackie pointed out the term AagriculturaL— could be interchanged with
Aresource= because the large acreages found in this area are also suitable for many other
public uses. Discussion followed.
Brown asked if the "shadow platting" concept will be used on these types of areas,
and Mackie replied this alternative requires a maximum lot size. Starkenburg interjected the
issue is whether to call it an urban reserve or resource area. Mackie suggested that since the
area is within an urban boundary, it should be termed an urban reserve because a resource
area implies it is outside the urban environment. Before development occurs beyond the
urban reserve levels, joint planning needs to be done; perhaps include a requirement for
clustering as is used in resource areas. The criteria will be similar but has a different focus.
Starkenburg requested agreement to use two different terms: "urban reserve" to be
used inside urban boundaries with a cluster limit until joint planning occurs, and "resource
protection areas" if outside the UGA. Agreement was received to use this terminology.
Brenner asked if the County has any stipulations regarding development patterns for
five acre tracts zoned urban reserve areas that will help prevent future urbanization. Mackie
responded this will be addressed in amendments to the development regulations. Sutter
interjected clustering is not always appropriate for five acre parcels, noting a single owner
should not be prevented from building on his five acres within an urban reserve.
Starkenburg said Council will get into the issue of set asides when the agricultural
protection zones are addressed. He felt the committee's actions should have consistency and
are moving in the right direction by defining the two terms, setting general criteria, and
identifying additional criteria regarding resource protection.
Brenner stated property owners need to be made aware of the urban reserve
designation, and in view that the County may not require building, perhaps offer a financial
incentive to build. Mackie responded the need for additional development regulations
outside short-term boundaries has been identified. The County will use the URN zoning but
new regulations should be created to deal with several issues. To the extent that the County
thinks the area ought to be a city, the development regulations need to ensure that objective
is accomplished, otherwise an area platted out in five acre tracts may inappropriately be
included in the urban boundary. Mackie explained that as growth occurs, the County can
make certain it will not unfairly tax the other citizens of the County because the type and
style of location is not cost effective and thus imposes these costs on the County.
Mackie continued with considerations for Ferndale's UGA. He stated the city's
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 11
general market factor of 50% used in its land needs analysis needs to be more clear before its
proposed UGA is considered appropriate. Ferndale will have the opportunity to demonstrate
the reasoning for using that factor at the public hearing; generally, an acceptable factor
would be between 25 -35% with anything higher requiring reasonable cause be shown.
Mackie's review of Ferndale's UGA is broken into segments, and Area #1 extends
short-term boundaries along the northern projection and continues the urban boundary to the
west of the city and east of I -5. The issues behind these boundaries include annexation,
utilities and the number of areas that have the potential to be annexed. The County needs to
be certain short-term boundaries cover all the entire northern projection so that quick
annexation does not occur between the railroad and I -5 and thus lose the benefits of joint
planning. Sutter asked if the five -year review area would be included, and Mackie replied
the area is brought into the UGA starting at Imhof and extending to Church Road because it
is across the road from Mountain View Road. The floodplain area is included and sets a
logical service line by squaring off that southern boundary.
Mackie noted Area #1 is located west of the County shops into the five -year reserve
area and also to the north. This essentially incorporates the high ground and leaves the
County with the floodplain. Squaring off boundaries in this area makes a logical service area
and does not significantly increase developable land within the city, but the area ought to be
served by the city.
Brenner stated the County had been encouraged to leave areas in the floodplain
outside UGAs and give the city more highlands. Mackie explained that if the land stays in
the County, then it stays undeveloped. Cities can have lakes and other critical areas
incorporated within their boundaries, and for all these reasons the County should establish a
logical service area.
Mackie returned to consideration of Ferndale's UGA area (area #2). He noted Sutter
had expressed the desire to eliminate an "island" of UGA that extends into North Bellingham
that is a high level development and added the area will be zoned as a vested use. Brenner
commented this agreement was made between Ferndale and the County, and a great deal of
protest was received because the boundary is totally irregular. Mackie responded the other
side, having taken out an irregularity, leaves a triangular piece just north of that area, a gravel
pit, that should be a park designated as open space within the UGA. Discussion ensued as to
whether the park should be included within the city or County line. Starkenburg suggested
committee hold its agreement on this area until the public process but asked for agreement on
Map #1 and Map #2, which includes the western section, removing the "island," and address
specific issues, such as the open space area, during the public hearing. All agreed to move
the proposals forward in this manner. Sjostrom added the city's comments are forthcoming.
(Clerks Note: Tape 2, side B)
Mackie began discussion of the five -year review area south of Slater Road,
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 12
identifying this area as part of Bellingham's UGA. Sjostrom read from a letter submitted by
the city of Ferndale, dated November 12, 1996, regarding the Slater Road 70 acres proposed
to be removed from the five -year review area and included in the UGA.
Starkenburg concluded committee is trying to include an area that north of I -5 on
Slater Road should be in Ferndale =s UGA and south of I -5 should be in Bellingham's UGA.
Mackie suggested it is more important to draw a boundary in between the two urban areas
rather than leave an amount of acreage that would be subject to future conflict. Ferndale's
boundary should be designated short-term because it is an extension that is characterized by
urban growth. Defining the boundary asks for clarification of the Planning Commission's
line through the public hearing process before making a recommendation.
Dawson asked if the line needs impose a boundary rather than define a service line,
and Mackie responded that the dividing line between the critical area water service
boundaries forms the basis for drawing a boundary that reflects existing utility and service
plans.
Sutter asked if both sides of the railroad should be included in the urban boundary;
Mackie asked Batchelor to footnote the UGA line is the west boundary of the BN Railroad.
Mackie introduced discussion of Bellingham ---s UGA by stating staff will prepare
updated maps as an exhibit for the public hearing. He requested staff put together a map that
reflects Bellingham ---s proposed recommendations and overlay this information with the old
Comprehensive Plan and recommendations from the Planning Commission. One problem is
that Bellingham based its plan on a variety of studies. County Planning staff has adopted the
Easton study for planning and suggested to Bellingham this new information be reviewed;
however, Bellingham and the County =s numbers may not be that inconsistent.
Mackie stated that Geneva is included in Bellingham---s UGA because it is
characterized by services and growth in excess of units per acre, and there is also a
forthcoming EIS that should address the needs for utilities and services. Staff feels this
provides a rational solution to the problems as identified; therefore, Geneva is recommended
for inclusion in the UGA.
He continued with a discussion of Summit View. The vested project at Summit View
was at less than 1.5 units per acre, and the city does not want to be included in the UGA;
however, the developers would like to be included in the UGA. Staff has not received any
additional information to support excluding the area from the UGA and, as far as a rational
boundary, it sits astride the UGA. He mentioned the following considerations regarding
Summit View:
# Summit View has sewer and water and city road access, but the zoning
density should be increased. He recommended inclusion in the UGA but
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 13
zoned URM with a short-term boundary that requires joint planning;
# Exclude it from the UGA and leave the zoning URM while encouraging
the owner to develop at a higher density;
# Committee has the study of the corridor between the Dinke property and
Sudden Valley, which is an issue that the Whatcom County Council of
Governments (WCCOG) will be asked to review in conjunction with the
study of Sudden Valley as a potential city. Current plans are for Sudden
Valley to be held at its current status. In this alternative, the Sudden
Valley and Summit View areas could both be held at their current status,
which would leave zoning for the latter at R -2;
# Zone Summit View URM but deal with it as a disputed area in which the
County recommends the area may ultimately be urban; the dispute is to be
settled between the property owner and the city because the property
could also be included in the County =s jurisdiction; and
# Treat Summit View as a suburban enclave since it is already a vested
project zoned R1 -5 and is similar in treatment to Toad Lake, Chuckanut
and North Bellingham, and other areas that abut a city but the
development is below urban densities. It is not likely they will achieve
urban densities.
Mackie suggested Summit View fits all of the above criteria, and committee may
either make a decision on this as a legislative policy matter now or following further
testimony from property owners. He added that none of the zoning changes mentioned
would change the current vested development application.
Starkenburg requested committee indicate a direction for staff. Brenner stated it
should be included. She was under the impression this particular property should be
considered urban because it has vested sewer and water, where other areas included in
Bellingham =s UGA do not have such services and cannot get them because of a development
moratorium. Mackie replied the district Brenner is referring to has published a proposed
amendment to its Comprehensive Plan with a draft EIS currently circulating. The
development restrictions imposed are pending this planning process and, since this is an
effort in process, Bellingham is not planning to exclude Geneva (within the district) from the
UGA; the County supports this proposal.
Dawson asked if the County decides to allow the city and the developer resolve the
issue, part of the Lake Whatcom Connector road could be financed as a result of allowing a
higher level of density in this area. Mackie replied this is true, and that while the developer
wants to be included in the UGA yet maintain low density development, the two are
dissimilar goals of urbanization. Inclusion in a city area offers greater densities and a
corresponding higher level of services. The connector road passes through the property but
is not mandated by the development and relates more to a transportation corridor providing
access from Sudden Valley, Summit View and Bellingham.
Starkenburg noted more work needs to be done on how other properties will be
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 14
affected by a connector road. He suggested contacting the WCCOG to study the connector.
He asked for opinions, and Dawson responded she supports including the Yew Street
Corridor and the Summit View area with UR -4 zoning. Starkenburg later concurred with this
alternative.
Knapp clarified the developer does not currently have approval for sewer and water
for the additional units, but they do have approvals for existing development. Mackie
suggested that from a planning perspective, the property is in the service area, and the subject
of the EIS has given consideration to lifting the moratorium so that all properties will be
included in the service area with access to the utilities through the district =s plan. This
suggestion looks beyond the immediate vested right that they secured through a court signing
to the larger planning issue that this area is within that sewer /water district =s service area
and, as facilities are developed and financed, the moratorium is rescinded and overtaken by a
more rational pattern of development.
Mackie added the UGA has been reviewed for minor adjustments to make the
boundary regular. Committee examined some maps, and questions were raised regarding the
suitability of the terrain outside Summit View for development.
(Clerks Note: A lunch break was taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:20 p.m)
Starkenburg asked for additional committee comments on the Summit View area.
Sutter asked for clarification of the alternatives, and Mackie responded one alternative
denotes it as an area for inclusion in the UGA with a provisional increase in density and
requires joint planning with Bellingham to determine the boundary. The other alternative
considers whether it is appropriate to round off the boundaries to create a logical service
area, which includes the Yew Street corridor zoned R2A and Summit View zoned RR2.
Knapp clarified inclusion of the Yew Street corridor was recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Gibson commented that if the choice for UR4 zoning is made -- assuming that the area
is urban infill- -then there will be high density residential adjacent to commercial forestry
areas. On the other hand, the area is significantly different from the more internal urban
areas to justify a step down. Batchelor agreed, noting Geneva is recommended for UR3 due
to its proximity to the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
Mackie and Knapp clarified for Sutter that the current plat at Summit View is vested
for 1.5 units per acre, which is a lower density than the current RR -2 zoning. Dawson added
higher densities would subject the area to increased services and joint planning. Mackie
noted the Lake Whatcom Connector would also serve municipal transportation needs.
Mackie illustrated the three alternatives discussed to make recommendations for the
Summit View area:
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 15
# Include in the UGA (and service area), zoned UR4;
# Remains outside the UGA, zoned UR4, and includes a provisional for joint
planning; or
# Remains outside the UGA, zoned RR2.
He continued that if alternative #2 is chosen, the County =s annexation policy may not
necessarily apply. The current situation is reflected in alternative #3 and recommended by
both the Planning Commission and the city of Bellingham. Under all three options, the
property will still remain vested at 1.5 units per acre; however, if the area is included in the
UGA, the property will be designated UR -4 with a short-term boundary.
Starkenburg concluded the suggestion is to give consideration to alternative #2,
which acknowledges both existing and potential development and encourages the city to
review the area more favorably.
(Clerks Note: Tape 3, side A)
Mackie added that alternative #1 is the choice for setting a logical service boundary. He
continued that alternative #1 was used in Ferndale, where for public service reasons the
County recommends inclusion in the UGA. Alternative #2 was chosen because Summit
View is a unique area, and #3 implies not enough is known; the County should complete
efforts for Sudden Valley and revisit Summit View in one year. He noted the Lake Whatcom
Connector road is independent of these alternatives.
Starkenburg stated his preference for alternative #2 and willingness to consider #1.
Sutter preferred #2.
Brown commented that transportation access is through the city and services may be
provided by the city, so it seems best to include it in the UGA. He asked if there has been
any consideration of the Cedar Hills area. Mackie responded that one of the issues for
Bellingham is the connector. However, this area should be at urban densities inside the city
rather than at urban densities outside the city. There are approximately 160 acres in this
area.
After further discussion, committee was in agreement to go forward without a
decision.
Discussion followed regarding the maps not in agreement, to which Batchelor gave
explanation for the platting pattern. More discussion followed, specifically to the boundary
line areas between Ferndale and Bellingham.
Mackie requested focus on the Urban Fringe Map to review areas #1 and #2. Area #1
is the proposed LI, five -year review; area #2 is Guide commercial. Areas #3 and #4 protect
the airport; all concurred. Mackie noted that areas #3, #4, and #5 square off the boundaries;
again, all concurred.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 16
Discussion followed regarding the definition of an Aexpansion area =. Knapp stated it
means the line is from the original boundary, which is different from Planning
Commission =s boundary.
Starkenburg stated that in general, committee is tracking those five areas but
wondered why some areas are left in with jagged lines. There needs to be some consistency
in what is being taken in. If good logic is not used for this, more information is needed.
Mackie further noted that coming from the railroad tracks to the north which goes to
the Ferndale corner, the area east of the railroad track will have Ferndale on the north and
Bellingham on the east, which is a rounding off that will require a joint agreement.
Batchelor stated there is an area of 10 -20 acres that people have expressed interest in the
UGA. The Curtis Road would acknowledge past planning efforts. The quadrant east of the
railroad tracks is predominantly developed at a residential five units per acre pattern.
Residents there do not want to be included in the UGA. Noise contours do not extend into
that area. The area (runway) is used occasionally when winds are excessive. There are some
existing plats, as well as some steep slopes. The Planning Commission was balancing
topography, water and sewer availability; Bellingham continues working at justifying
acreage. The cross hatched area is a corridor on the other side of Guide Meridian. There
was further discussion.
Sutter stated committee did not examine the area between Northwest and Aldrich
Road (Bear Creek area). Mackie pointed out there are two decisions - -one to the east and a
larger area to the west. Knapp stated that part of this had to do with the lands needs
assessment - -some of these areas were purposely left out because the acreage could not be
justified. Batchelor noted that some property owners requested to be included in the area
between Aldrich Road and the proposed urban growth boundary to the east. Mackie asked
committee to consider logical service boundaries to warrant minor adjustments. According
to Batchelor, another item to consider was the reason for this particular map, as areas 1
through 5 are under City Council discussion. Legal advice was given to supplement the EIS
because of the magnitude of change in the proposal.
Sutter inquired why the area east of Aldrich Road was not included in the UGA
boundary instead of a five -year review. Batchelor replied the city did not have sufficient
information for justification. Mackie noted this is a logical service area.
Sutter then questioned the area on the south city limits, just north of I -5, which was a
notch. Knapp and Batchelor stated it does not show up on aerial maps. Mackie stated the
recommendation would be to include it. Starkenburg requested staff do further work on this.
Mackie stated it must be included, as one cannot get to the area without getting through the
city.
Mackie noted there is a AJ= on the urban area section (page 7). This is on a tribal
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 17
area with commercial development in the community center area. At this time, there is no
resolution on the issue of water availability, so this must be revisited next year. This is also
identified as an area for further review as tribal and County plans develop. Discussion
followed. Mackie recommended staff examine the reservation areas and recommend for
public hearing purposes either small town or crossroad commercial as most appropriate.
Brenner suggested asking the tribe to see how well this reflects its visions for the area.
Mackie then discussed the Cherry Point industrial area, noting it is generally the
policy not to have general light industrial zoning (LII) outside urban areas. This LII is
incorporated into the Cherry Point zone. He stated the recommendation will be no change in
the status quo.
(Clerks Note: Tape 3, side B)
Mackie stated he will move the tribal areas to crossroad commercial and small town
and remove them from the UGAs. There was consensus.
Small crossroads communities and small towns were the next topic of discussion.
The Guide was included as part of these communities. For the hearing, some mapping work
is included that will pick up greater metropolitan Vancouver, Abbotsford, etc., to put the
Guide in context. This is a regional and international gateway - -the development regulations
need to focus on this. The alternative land uses should be identified as a low density
residential along the Guide to reduce the potential for conflict with state and international
plans. The most compatible land use is infill. Development regulations will be used which
will focus on this area. Commercial development will be encouraged. Wiser Lake is an area
that needs to be examined, but Mackie has no recommendation. This is an issue for
development regulations - -it is R2 and not a significant growth area.
Starkenburg noted this was really agreeing to what was heard on the Guide Meridian
at a previous meeting. There was consensus for agreement.
Mackie then marked areas for crossroads commercial. He stated these zoned areas
should be kept as existing until such time as the Guide is recognized to be a
state /international priority road. A Guide commercial designation is a uniform setback line.
Starkenburg pointed out this is what was considered during existing meetings.
Mackie listed the items Council needs to examine: development regulations; frontage
roads; super setbacks; larger incurred costs; combined accesses; and uses more appropriate
than residential outside the urban area. The County needs to work with local fire authorities
to ensure the ability to serve.
The next topic was the crossroad communities and small towns. There was only one
significant change. In the small towns, Mackie identified a percentage in allocation of
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 18
population of small towns and rural areas (page 2, approximately 8,000 people or 3% of the
total county population growth, moving into all the rural areas over the next 20 years). This
is non -city. Council =s planning threshold is for 14,176 people to locate outside the cities and
designated urban areas. Committee needs to determine whether this is an appropriate
number. The object is to identify what the population alternatives are. The language will be
changed to AThe county envisions a percent of the total population moving into the rural
areas over the next 20 years ... =. Gibson further explained that 3% of the total county
population in the year 2015 is 8,000. Eight thousand people are expected to move into the
rural areas over the next twenty years. The assumption is that each of these areas will retain
their small town characteristics, but the County is trying to provide an increased economic
base and increased tourist services. There is a population growth projection of 54,000 with
40,000 going to cities and urban areas. This is the planning assumption going into the urban
area analysis.
Sutter noted that for the last 10 years, 40% of the population has lived in
unincorporated areas (Glacier, Maple Falls and Kendall). Mackie commented that people
will be able to address where the communities are during the public hearing process. People
may be in the process of acquiring water rights, upgrading public facilities, transfers of
public rights, etc. The County needs to state this is a predetermining factor for development.
In central communities, the ability to serve is the key. This includes Deming,
Newhalem and Diablo. Council requested a zoning recommendation to be brought forth for
an industrial zone. This would be small town/crossroads commercial AC =. It was
recommended tourist /commercial designation for small towns would be MU; for Foothills
and South Fork subareas, it was recommended to permit a rural industrial classification,
allowing up to 50 (which is an arbitrary number) employees by conditional use to permit
local industrial growth. Discussion followed regarding the number of employees.
Mackie stated that development regulations are needed to have each service entity
meet together to determine that adequate resources are available as a prerequisite to the
development.
Crossroad commercial centers should be located within 1,500 ft of existing
crossroads. The object is to keep them compact and prevent sprawl. Mackie inquired if
committee would like to make a decision on 660 or 330 ft of existing crossroads (page 4 in
handout). Starkenburg replied this is to be undecided until further checking by staff.
Mackie then spoke to deletion of specific parcels zoned red, which is the commercial
zone. This came from the Planning Commission. Most of these parcels are included in small
towns, crossroad commercial.
Resort and recreational subdivisions was the next topic. Mackie noted the philosophy
is to retain the nearest zone to what it presently is but create a holding zone that gives it a
design of Resort/Recreational but is zoned R1 or R2. Brenner inquired about Point Roberts.
Knapp noted its intent was originally for vacationing Canadians.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 19
According to Mackie, several areas have population implications which could
warrant incorporation status. They could have a fully- developed population larger than
5,000, could warrant sewer systems, support small incorporated city with an added
economic base, etc. Sjostrom stated COG is interested in assisting the County with planning
Sudden Valley and Kendall to incorporate consideration of the transportation issues.
In Sudden Valley, the only change is to consider Cain Lake. It should be zoned it for
what it is without growth.
Point Roberts fits a criteria for a stand -alone resort community, and the
recommendation allows for this potential but creates a holding zone to allow it to remain
until such time as it changes.
Discussion followed on Birch Bay, which has a greater potential to annex into a city
than does Point Roberts. Point Roberts does not have an economic base, tourism, or a school
sufficient to warrant annexation.
(Clerks Note: A five- minute break was taken)
Mackie then discussed suburban enclaves. These are large residential areas which are
near cities but not urban or likely to develop into urban areas (see handout). These areas are
Chuckanut, North Bellingham and Lake Samish. Following were the recommendations:
# Maintain Chuckanut as it is currently zoned. Steep slopes and other physical
limitations will keep this area from greater levels of development.
# Regarding North Bellingham, the air photo gives a clear visual of large
parcelization in this area. There was discussion of the boundaries of this area.
# The balance of the property in the Lake Samish area should be R5A to be
consistent with the rural character. The intent is to keep the large parcels and
avoid projecting the growth at other than R5. New development would be at a
rural density.
There are existing suburban developments in an area less than 1% of the County rural
land area with the population potential well under 2 -1 %. Mackie concluded to deal with
these areas as a group. An effort has been made to confine the development to areas of
existing development. There is no impact on resource lands, and there will be a small
incremental growth in the County as these areas build out.
(Clerks Note: Tape 4, side A)
Further, there is a need to look at services, roads, traffic, schools, and ensure the area is not
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 20
overloaded. Sprawl prevention is through the ability to serve.
Mackie then referenced special situations, Cherry Point. He called attention to the
north segment just above a squared boundary identifying Cherry Point that should be zoned
for light industrial and used for general purposes. A mechanism needs to be included in the
development regulations to ensure zoning of this area as such. It may be appropriate to
protect this area for general uses by easement and covenant, but industrial standards as to
noise, dust, and traffic may also apply.
Sutter asked about small areas zoned R -5 between Cherry Point industrial area and
Lake Terrell. Mackie replied it is otherwise surrounded by park; if there is residential
development within the park, then residential standards are projected into the industrial zone.
It is logical to zone this also light industrial for general purposes. Starkenburg requested
staff look at these areas in question; committee will then make its recommendation.
The second special situation discussed was Custer. The case has been made for the
suitability of an intermodal site in this area. Therefore, a floating zone has been created for
the master planning process. The object is not to reinvent that which has been done, but
allow that which has been done to proceed in an orderly review. Development regulation is
needed to identify and facilitate the master plan review. Through this review, the zoning
becomes permanent and attached to the site. Committee has the tools necessary to get there;
it is processed rather than substantive. The master plan process essentially tailors the
applications to fit the uses.
Starkenburg led the discussion on the topic of parcel specific requests. To give
consideration to the 41 parcel rezoning requests, he requested agreement to the format to
follow, discuss maps, and review the new zoning recommendations. Committee agreed to
work Thursday on these requests.
Sjostrom stated she has recently reviewed a box of materials collected since the
Planning Commission =s recommendations and given to Council from the beginning of these
meetings. She reviewed the contents for requests regarding rezones and pulled the major
ones. Batchelor made evaluations; Elizabeth Olsen, Planning Services, gave mapping. She
distributed these to members. Starkenburg commented, noting a consistent format is needed
to handle these requests. Staff concurred with the format created by Batchelor. Discussion
followed regarding the list and the information provided. Starkenburg noted committee will
meet Thursday, February 6, at 9 a.m.
Mackie noted that the Comp Plan designates properties to be inside or outside a
commercial zone, as well as inside and outside a UGA. He urged caution, stating that
because Council is reviewing the Planning Commission =s zoning recommendations, parcels
should be reviewed individually only if they are largely impacted by these recommendations.
Overall, he stated the process does Amake sense =.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 21
Continuing, Mackie noted the numbers of the acres inside the ag protection zone have
been revised. Of 45,000 acres, more than 40,000 will be included inside the resource
protection zone of parcels more than 20 acres in size -- probably more than 1,300 parcels total
inside the ag protection zone. The biggest risk found in five acre tracts where there was
farming activity was conflict between farming segmentation and resource activities. Two
purposes are served: larger parcels are clearly set for at or above 100,000 acres identified as
necessary to meet the legislative criteria to conserve resource lands for long -term
commercially significant agricultural use; and the availability for alternative uses in
residential clustered lots, which ensures for a supply of larger parcels. The ag protection
zone is not dedicated open space; it is for ag uses over time. It does appear to be appropriate
for a density bonus, taking in account small water systems, and to ensure not putting an
undue regulatory requirement for these properties.
Mackie responded to a question regarding dwelling units by replying that there is an
affirmative finding required to deal with this issue.
Category III is not, from an acreage point of view, necessary in order for the Plan to
be validated. Farms in urban areas need additional protection. Mackie pointed out that in
any agricultural zone, by definition, an owner wishing to develop next to his neighbor must
accommodate the agricultural uses. Additional criteria can be identified through
development regulations. Discussion followed.
(Clerks Note: Tape 4, side B)
Mackie stated that 20 years is the voluntary ag. As the pattern of use changes, it may
be determined that there are certain areas that will drop out. There is a mechanism to review
less than 20 acres if the property is clearly not valuable for agricultural protection. There is
no minimum lot size here because of the cluster; also, there is a method of segregation to
preserve the family parcels.
Mackie stated that clustering and no minimum lot size allows people to drop below
one acre, as long as services can be adequately provided, perhaps by common wells and
septics.
Starkenburg inquired if it were appropriate to try to protect additional farming
activities as long as they are in fairly large parcels. There was discussion regarding this.
Mackie suggested another alternative would be to take Category IV and poll people
regarding this as a good idea but not necessary recommend it. Starkenburg noted if
Mandatory Category III were not approved, the County may be considered out of
compliance. Mackie responded that what would be said would be that unless a cap is placed
on all R -5 development, then there is insufficient protection of the agricultural lands
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 22
resources. A criticism of the RR zone is that is will cause loss of significant resource lands,
but with these protection zones, unrestrained development will be kept from Achewing up=
resources. Some testimony from the ag community has been that residential development
makes it hard to maintain the property for ag uses. Only R5 and R10 will be targeted for this
protection. If the property is not commercially viable, then it is treated as R5 or R10.
Mackie urged caution with variances, as it must be shown that the property will not
be productive for long -term commercial ag use. He suggested over the course of the next
year, it would be good to establish a farm/ag committee to address issues that need to be
clarified by the development regulations.
The text in the section entitled AThe Council specifically finds ... = can be a basis for
final action on the Plan. Council may prioritize this information. Mackie then inquired if
Category IV is needed. Starkenburg replied that it had already been decided that it would be
a question for the hearing process. As to minerals, Gibson has been requested to walk
through areas that may need correction. Starkenburg further noted on areas where it may
have a direct effect on his business, he would abstain from voting.
Gibson then spoke to Map #25, which is in the Comp Plan under the Resource Lands
Chapter. He suggested utilizing the classification of mineral resources in Map 25 or a further
refined version of that to locate mineral resource supplies that may be commercially
significant for future use. This serves as a basic planning tool to overlay significant requests.
The question to be asked would be: Given the presence of a rich mineral resource, is the
proposed use compatible with long -term protection of this resource? The designation criteria
for mineral resource lands are of significance, a number of which are in particular conflict.
He stated he wished to focus on three areas: locational criteria; siting of MRL in ag areas;
and aquifer and wellhead protection areas.
Locational criteria are currently addressed within Goal 8P of the Comp Plan, which is
a very general goal regarding locational criteria. He then spoke to the background of this
item. Proper locational criteria should look for ways to diffuse the location and impact and
create a greater variety of mineral resource types.
How the process can be assisted by locational criteria has a direct bearing on the
siting of MRL in ag areas. Designation criteria 13 indicates no mineral resource designation
within ag land where prime soils are present. In terms of locational criteria, this runs counter
to the idea of diffusion of impact. To strike the balance regarding mineral resource
designations in ag areas would be through designation criteria 14, which examines the
quality of soil type and mineral resource, impact on surrounding areas, etc.
Speaking to aquifer and wellhead protection areas, Gibson stated the Planning
Commission recommended no MRL designations within the five -year zone of contribution
and within the ten -year zone of contribution and maintain a 10 foot setback from the average
seasonable high water table.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 23
Gibson then noted if criteria is being examined and modified, it may be appropriate to
revisit MRL designations in light of these criteria.
He then asked what was meant by an MRL designation - -is it a license to mine? It is a
presumption that mineral extraction, if properly conditioned, is appropriate within a
designated area. In order to commence mining within a new MRL designation, discretionary
approval by Administration must be obtained, which would require an environmental review;
application for appropriate conditions of operation (varies due to the underlying zone) must
be made; if the area were in an area of special concern would also be a factor; the type of
mining activity making up the criteria is a matter for concern; an applicant must obtain and
comply with necessary state and federal permits; and notice to neighboring property owners
would be required prior to commencement of mining prior to obtaining the permit to mine to
ensure opportunity for public input as well as appeal. Regarding appeal, if Administrative
discretionary approval were granted or denied, there would be access to de novo review by
Hearing Examiner. Subsequent requests for new MRL designations would be available
through the Comp Plan amendment process, available on an annual basis. A five -year study
appears to be appropriate and necessary. There are significant issues of whether there are
adequate quantities and quality of material within current MRL designations or those
proposed for inclusion. A five -year study would be commissioned by the County to address
issues of quality and quantity and these results would be used to refine Map #25 and
designation and operational criteria within the various zones. Discussion followed on the
point process.
Brenner requested the basic differences between an Administrative and Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). Gibson replied in an Administrative permit, an administrator reviews
materials submitted, applying criteria contained within the Development Regulations and
making a determination.
Brenner then asked why a CUP would not be used. Gibson explained where there is
obvious conflict, it can be examined through the Hearing Examiner process. If the MRL
designation process has already been completed, either an Administrative approval process
or a Hearing Examiner is used. Then an appeal process may be used.
Knapp suggested building into the Administrative process the notification procedures.
Adequate public notice needs to be defined. Batchelor commented the Administrative
approval process requires mailing notice to property owners within 300 ft of the proposal. If
it is appealed, it will go to the Hearing Examiner.
Mackie stressed the importance this would be de novo, which means this is an issue
of larger public importance. There is authority under SEPA to condition, mitigate or deny if
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 24
a flaw in the proposal is found. The presumption of guilt is on the person applying for the
permit.
Gibson returned to the locational criteria to encourage diffusion of impact, greater
efficiency of transport, and greater variation in mineral resource types.
(Clerks Note: Tape 5, side A)
Continuing, Gibson spoke to enforcement and control of the permit. There is also
potential for violation of uses of the permit, as well as the ability to revoke. The MRL
designation gives the County some level of control over this.
Gibson then spoke to the five -year study. The primary idea from staff perspective is
to objectify the data as much as possible. A study, without the pressure of seeking
designation at the moment, would put the County ahead of that curve. Discussion continued
with Brenner over this issue.
Sutter commented on the need for the study. It offers an opportunity to establish
some predictability. The County will be evaluating the potential MRL based on the
suggested criteria. Gibson pointed out one thing the study will do is help refine designation
criteria. If there is a variety of mineral locations and materials available, then its best use can
be directed. Brown pointed out the larger the pit, the more likely it will be to go to export.
The diffusion criteria helps reduce impact and traffic and will discourage export of materials.
Gibson noted this is for recommendation to and consideration by the full Council.
Mackie stated this should go forward to full Council for public hearing recognizing this as a
complicated issue with many pieces.
Starkenburg commented there was no one thing to make a decision by. There are
many causes and for each a different effect.
Mackie stated the recommendation is to review the proposed changes to the Comp
Plan. Each will be published as proposed Findings and recommendations for Council and
will be available in a public hearing draft. These documents will be distributed to the
Executive =s Office, as well as for public availability, on February 14.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 25
Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 2/4/97, Page 26