HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 6 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning & Development Committee
February 6, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Planning and Development Services Library Meeting Room, 5280 Northwest Drive.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Tom Brown, Council member
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Manager
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services
Starkenburg began by stating the purpose of the meeting was to work through the request
by record on the Growth Management Act (GMA) process. He stated committee would first
review the most straightforward items and noted this was to be an informal work session. The
point of order will be to treat everyone fairly and equally. He asked committee for agreement,
and all agreed.
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services, said he has not been able to review
all requests to be discussed today.
Starkenburg asked Brown for comment, who said he would like to see people who have
been waiting a long time have their requests resolved. An outcome should be set in motion
today. Starkenburg responded by stating that the difficult regulations may not be resolved until
the GMA review in 1998. Batchelor said there is a yearly review for Comprehensive Plan
changes, and there is a backlog. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director,
pointed out if the zone is consistent with the Comp Plan, a rezone can be done more often.
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated rezones are considered
twice a year but presently only once this year with the Comp Plan process underway. Discussion
followed.
Starkenburg stated that some people will not have to come back for a rezone - -if it is a
mapping problem or within an urban growth area (UGA), then it will become automatic. Knapp
pointed out an ordinance will need to be approved. Discussion followed.
Starkenburg began by recognizing Mr. Golds, who owns property on the southwest
corner of Smith Road and Guide. Jack Swanson, representing Mr. Golds, was also present to
represent a client who owns property on the southeast corner. Committee is moving this
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 1
proposal forward. Discussion followed regarding the distance from the road. Starkenburg
requested staff feedback regarding 330 or 660 ft and asked if it made a difference to those
individuals concerned. Batchelor noted the Planning Commission recommended 660 ft to
existing uses on the west side of the street. Swanson agreed 660 ft is fine. The Planning
Commission was clear it wanted only to take in existing uses. This creates only about 20 acres;
most of the property is under Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power lines. Starkenburg
noted committee will take that intersection, draw a circle around it, and recommend moving this
forward. Sutter noted there is objection to this that was included in the packet. Brown agreed to
the action.
The next property discussed was Laura Stroebel =s, who was interested in all for the
Custer rezone -46 and #11. Committee will look at the whole for Custer; this is ongoing work,
so there will be no intention to address Custer further. This is on the west side. Committee
needs to consider today whether the northeast corner (the old theater, across the road) should be
discussed. Starkenburg inquired of staff what the Planning Commission recommended ( #40 on
the table). Batchelor was unsure. Swanson noted this is Gateway Industrial property and has
freeway frontage- -the access is across to the north. The owners are asking the UGA be
expanded to include the area along the freeway. If the property is added to the UGA, it will help
bring utilities across the freeway. The owners would like to construct a hotel across from the
Flying J Truck Stop. Peter Spencer, project manager, Gold Star Resort, spoke briefly of his
presentation to the Planning Commission. Starkenburg suggested committee accept the Planning
Commission =s recommendation unless there are any objections, especially regarding the
additional 32 acres north of this area. There was consensus. Starkenburg stated the Master Plan
for Custer is a separate issue and will be discussed later.
Bill Grant said the 32 acres interrelates with the other property in consideration of
services. Exhaustive studies have been done on the economics of this section. He spoke to the
history of the area. It is critical for land mass to bring services to the site. It is more than water
and sewer; the road access should be moved to service that area. Swanson said this property
stands independently of the Custer issue. Knapp was not sure this has been addressed in the
Comp Plan designation; Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, needs to give direction.
In order for the County to be in compliance with the GMA, designation must be within one of
these categories. Starkenburg noted these types of things will be cleared up later.
Bill Grant then spoke to the 60 acre parcel attached to the presentation regarding Arnie
and Blaine Roads ( #40). Starkenburg inquired of the Planning Commission =s recommendation.
Batchelor stated he had not reviewed it, but it is currently UR4, and the request is to retain that.
Knapp reminded all that the status of the Comp Plan must be checked, as consistency with the
Comp Plan designation must be maintained; otherwise, the decisions could potentially be
challenged. Batchelor noted this area is within the Planning Commission =s proposed UGA for
Birch Bay. Swanson confirmed the Commission included this area in the UGA and
recommended UR4 zoning, which also includes some commercial. Ultimately, there will be
substantial development in this area, both residential and industrial. Grant also commented
briefly about plans for affordable housing on that property. Starkenburg stated committee will
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 2
try to see how these will fit for what is known on the Comp Plan without being out of
compliance. There is flexibility because of Birch Bay =s direction. Further, if committee is
agreeable, he would like to move this item forward pending ongoing dialogue to ensure
compliance. Committee and staff agreed. Knapp commented that where parcels do not fit the
Comp Plan designations, committee and staff may wish to explore where boundaries may be
expanded. The interchange was not included but is a good location; that boundary may need to
be expanded.
Swanson pointed out the third area is on Birch Bay Drive in the center and should be
included in Birch Bay =s UGA. He stated the Resort/Commercial will stay there and noted there
is no problem; he only wanted to clarify.
Swanson was also concerned with agenda #8, which is by the airport on Wynn Road.
Batchelor stated this is in the urban fringe subarea and did not go before the Planning
Commission; however, this is at the Bellingham City Council level for decision of whether to
make an industrial area within the UGA. Swanson addressed the history of this issue with the
city of Bellingham; neighbors; and Dean Foods. Discussion followed regarding proposed
expanded use.
(Clerks Note: Tape 1, side B. Dawson is now present.)
Swanson recognized it was a big bite in the proceeding to add 50 -60 acres to
Bellingham =s UGA without more dialogue. It was suggested by staff to go forward with this
request only. This type of change can be justified by existing use, access available, utilities, and
acreage to act as a buffer for residential activity. Starkenburg noted committee needs to examine
the existing facility to see if its continued use can be complemented. Knapp commented the
dilemma is the development Findings that would change Bellingham =s overall UGA. The
smaller it is, the easier it is to justify the change. If it would be a large change, then an area from
another place would have to be taken away. Bellingham was not aware of the existing uses; they
thought it was six residential units. Committee agreed with Starkenburg--s suggestion to move
this forward.
Starkenburg then addressed the Feathers property. He asked Brown if he could
participate, to which he replied he lives in this area (the Foothills) and will only participate as
committee allows. Starkenburg requested Brown continue but cautioned him that in any
decision making, he would have to abstain in the interest of conflict. Brown reported that Mr.
Feathers owns 30 acres, which was originally zoned R5; interim zoning is general protection. It
was rezoned to R10. The problem is the parcel subdivision met the criteria for zoning to R5 as
described on page 24 of Foothills area subplan. The majority of the parcels are 9.5 acres in that
area, which means the area should have gone to R5 zoning. Feathers hired a geologist and spent
much money without resolve. Almost all the neighbors think it should be zoned R5 - -it is not an
agricultural use, unsuitable for ag, forestry, or minerals. Soil maps say it is good for housing; a
consult says at six units per acre. This seems to be a zoning error. Batchelor spoke to the history
of this issue. The comments indicated there is interest in changing all R10 in Foothills to R5 and
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 3
in this area between Kendall and Maple Falls along the Mt. Baker Highway.
Starkenburg then inquired if the Planning Commission has spent time on this. Batchelor
replied that regarding the Comp Plan, the Commission was not in the mode of changing
densities. The Commission =s recommendation did not address either R5 or R10 (at least on the
map) but was added in the individual rezone area. He stated he will give committee a summary
of this. This item went before Council. Mr. Feathers then spoke to his property situation, stating
the rezone for his parcel to the Planning Commission had been scheduled for full Council, but he
requested a two -month delay, which was three years ago. Batchelor replied Mr. Feathers is
frequently away for work and requested the hearing be held when he is available. Starkenburg
wondered why committee is dealing with this in so large a mass or is it just the 30 acres.
Starkenburg noted the entire area is being examined and not just the Feathers= property. The
zoning should preserve the rural character as it stands. Discussion followed about whether to
move this forward. Starkenburg noted more information is needed before making a final
decision regarding the area south and north of the highway and staff justifications for not having
it an R -5 zone.
Dawson inquired of the proposals that were brought forward about closure for minerals
discussion of last Thursday. As the proposals were not considered, she wondered when they
would be discussed. Starkenburg stated that must be scheduled for later. Discussion followed.
Mapping issues were also briefly discussed; Batchelor pointed out these would be dealt with as a
group with Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel. There were a dozen requests for
mapping problems. Starkenburg stated today committee should be looking at land mapping
issues.
Brown addressed the Silver Lake issue, which is currently zoned RE This was a private
rezoning request to the Planning Commission. Mr. Feathers stated this was the split vote for full
Council. He was the only property owner to get RF20 -- everyone else got R5. The Commission
voted favorably. Feathers stated the property is east of Silver Lake; east is Trillium; north is the
Boy Scouts; everything south is R5; west is 16 acres private R5. Discussion briefly followed on
ag protection area and clustering requirement. Committee agreed to move this forward with
recommendation for inclusion in R -5.
Knapp called attention to Roger Almskaar =s request, which is #21. The request is to
square the boundary. Batchelor noted the Commission recommended keeping the ag designation
and asked if committee wished to remove anything from the ag designation. Starkenburg stated
the question is whether this should be zoned R5, to which Batchelor replied that this should be
balanced against the resource protection. If residential protection overlay is opted, then there
will be some flexibility for taking some parcels out of ag. If not, then it will be more difficult to
take parcels out of ag. Starkenburg stated all committee =s work over the past months has shown
that mandatory ag protection zones will be allowed. Batchelor pointed out there is much
discussion to maintain this critical ag base - -if something is taken out of ag, then it is necessary to
take property for ag elsewhere. Sutter inquired why zoning was so Achopped up= in this area.
Batchelor was requested to investigate why the 33 acre site was left out of adjacent R5 zoning
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 4
when the area was rezoned. Roger Almskaar, representing the Giles family, replied.
Starkenburg noted it seemed the 26 acres left adjacent to R5 zoning may create a conflict of use,
which would be well designated for the ag protection zone. Discussion followed on this issue.
Starkenburg requested moving this forward with an understanding of the ag protection zone so
the cause and effect is minimal and current land uses would not be changed much. Committee
agreed to move it to R5 zoning.
(Clerks Note: Tape 2, side A)
Starkenburg then directed the discussion to the Sietsma (sp ?) property, which has been
kept within the Bellingham UGA. Bill Geyer was present to speak to this property to determine
if it were located in Ferndale or Bellingham =s UGA ( 0). Some extensive work has been done
by committee, and it was found to be within the Bellingham UGA. Geyer of Geyer and
Associates represented the property owners and noted the northern portion of the parcel along
Slater Road is within Ferndale =s UGA. Ferndale City Council approved the northern portion
with its UGA; Bellingham has approved the southern portion within its UGA. In its
recommendations, Ferndale acknowledged the need for interlocal service agreements to provide
industrial sites for family -based jobs. Ferndale zoned the property highway commercial;
Bellingham zoned it LII.
(Clerks Note: Proceedings were interrupted by afire drill)
Starkenburg continued the above discussion with Geyer continuing to speak. Geyer
stated he did not anticipate any problems with the proposed zoning and recognized the
opportunities for water /sewer services available from both cities. There is potential need for an
interlocal agreement with the water districts. After discussion regarding the boundary,
Starkenburg requested committee approval to move this forward to full Council. Committee
agreed. Geyer pointed out that Item #9 is repeated as Item #31.
Starkenburg then moved the discussion to Item #10, Point Roberts, and requested a staff
report. Batchelor spoke briefly to the history of the area; the plat was never approved.
Discussion followed regarding the subarea plan; residential expansion; additional development
served by the water district; economic viability; wildlife habitat; the area as a potential city; plat
approval; distribution lines constructed; water lines completed; and the processing of the LID for
Water District #4. Geyer continued by pointing out the district has a contract for 550,000
gallons per day. On an average, the peak has been 350- 355,000 gallons per day during the
summer (other times it is roughly 40% of that number). Also discussed was the district =s policy
of guaranteeing domestic service; the future road alignment; and a 100 ft extension of Johnson
Road to the east of the southern boundary. Starkenburg inquired what precludes clients from
further plat application, to which Geyer replied that the clients are involved in several different
projects regarding residential development and were not aware of this change to the R5
designation in the Point Roberts subarea plan. Documents show the water lines existed, which
means the area was identified for residential. Wildlife habitat was a key issue but, since that
time, acquisition of the heron rookery (which is west and north of the property) has mitigated
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 5
that. Batchelor clarified the issue of water supply by stating the question is whether there is
sufficient water supply not only for this project, but also for all the projected growth.
Starkenburg reminded all they are not here to consider these smaller issues but to look at the
larger picture. The move is to change from rural designation to R5A.
Sutter asked what the future of Point Roberts is, whether it will be an incorporated city as
Birch Bay, or a commercial /tourist suburban enclave. Starkenburg replied it should be accepted
for what is existing. Discussion followed regarding this as a suburban enclave or a portion of
same; the relationship to the GMA; zoning; and water issues. Starkenburg stated he thought it
was committee =s place to give it a definite sweep in all matters (wildlife, water, infill) to give it
a designation of suburban enclave. He recommended moving it forward with a few questions
about technical issues. Starkenburg noted committee reserves the right to revisit as issues are
examined further. The hearing on the Comp Plan is scheduled for March 25. Lines would be
drawn by that time to indicate what is being suggested. Language and map changes would be
completed by that time.
Starkenburg then turned committee attention to John Sitkin--s area of concern, Rolling
Hills, which has an existing water association. He requested staff respond regarding the golf
course being in an R -5 zoning, which would be a stand alone. Sitkin replied the golf course has
been approved. Batchelor noted golf courses are allowed within the rural zone as a conditional
use. Sitkin also noted there is also a proposal for a cluster development; the EIS has not been
done. There would be more than one house per five acres. Knapp pointed out that would be a
problem in terms of compliance, which would require a legislative change. Brown inquired if
golf courses were allowed in the ag zone. Starkenburg asked what would the status be for that in
two years. Batchelor stated his understanding of what Mackie said is this would be a resource
protection overlay, and the protection is for multiple purposes not only to protect the resource
value but to prevent small lot parcelization to include future urbanization. No discussion has
advanced as to what types of conditional uses could go in there. Starkenburg stated that for
today =s purpose, committee has nothing to do with whether property may qualify for cluster
housing. Sitkin noted that clustering in the rural areas and the bonus are the issues here.
Committee agreed.
Sitkin spoke to his other concerns, which included Lillian Unger, who applied for a
recreational vehicle facility. Batchelor replied there was no time limit on this and stated it was a
vested permit, although it took nine years to develop it. No expiration on the permit was seen.
Starkenburg stated that no action was needed. Sitkin =s next concern was #25, which was
Peaceful Valley. Sutter noted the rezone petition was submitted in 1991 to change it to R2 from
Rural Forestry.
(Clerks Note: Tape 2, side B is blank; tape 3, side A)
Batchelor noted it should be treated it as an urban resort area and not as
tourist/residential. He inquired if Council wished to provide for more residential growth in this
area. Memos from Mackie indicated the area was already designated UR4. Since 1980, this area
has about 90 services committed to it. Batchelor stated this was originally intended to be
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 6
seasonal occupation but instead is affordable housing for the County, noting there is a lack of job
opportunity and commercial /industrial services here. Batchelor asked if Council wished to
promote more residential development in this area given the current stress on the school district.
Starkenburg stated some light industrial uses need to be brought to the Kendall area and asked if
overall any improvement can be seen in time for that area or if it should continue as it has been.
It needs to be improved; the question is how to do this. Sitkin noted that already 60 lots have
been committed. Starkenburg noted it is not a high priority to create more development here and
stated it would be better to move it to Kendall, even though services are available. Batchelor
replied that some services are available, but police, fire and schools are short. Brown asked if
this qualified for a percentage being used under a resource protect zone. Starkenburg replied that
only the ag section allows a percentage of use. Discussion followed. Sutter wondered if there
were any mining. Starkenburg replied in the affirmative, but the quality varies drastically.
Sitkin stated he was willing to look at a mix of commercial /residential uses; the water district
commissioner suggested residential designation. There is a proposal for the area which would be
for permanent homes. Two county roads meander through there. Knapp asked if
commercial /industrial should be taken through residential areas. After further discussion
regarding this area, Starkenburg noted the agreement was to not move this forward but look at it
after the next review period. There was committee consensus. It was pointed out there is a
meeting on February 10 at 1 pm to discuss the land issues dealing with mining. Gibson will be
requested to attend.
Starkenburg then directed committee to Parcel #20 and requested staff input. Serge
Slagle was present to represent the Townsend Group property. Batchelor noted the Townsend
Group property is about approximately 4.5 acres, zoned R10, and wants to be included in the
Gateway Industrial. Staff did a land use analysis; most parcels are in large lot rural or ag open
space. This particular parcel is on both sides of the freeway, and there are homes scattered
throughout. The surrounding area is zoned R5 despite ag use there. This did not come before
Planning Commission. Batchelor asked if the Gateway Industrial area should be expanded;
Knapp replied that it has not specifically been dealt with, and it may be necessary to revisit this.
Further, whatever the decision, it needs to relate to the UGA, suburban enclave, or something
that brings it into compliance with the Comp Plan. Batchelor noted that Mackie suggested
policy language to suggest non - residential rural development in areas that have lost their rural
character due to changes in surrounding use. Starkenburg stated he would like to move it
forward to point it to the direction of a gateway corridor with mixed uses and determine how it
fits within the Comp Plan. Sutter clarified for Knapp that RI OA is inappropriate for this strip.
She suggested squaring the northern boundary off and including that in the urban growth
boundary; between the UGA and Gateway Industrial, zone it perhaps suburban enclave. Serge
pointed out that squaring off would have an impact on the heartland boundary to the south.
Knapp stated it must be tied to a category so it is not challenged. Discussion followed regarding
the area. Starkenburg wanted to move it forward in light of what has been discussed, pulling
together as much today as possible. Brown pointed out that in trying to make this property fit
the GMA, there will be a few isolated places in the County that will face noise factors, etc, and
will not be able to be made to fit. Starkenburg stated these certain identifications should be
noted to be presented to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Zoning regs must
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 7
be checked to keep uses to non - interfering levels. A general discussion of non - conforming uses
ensued.
(Clerks note: Lunch break.)
Starkenburg opened the afternoon session by beginning with the Foothills. Batchelor
addressed the following issues:
Henry Hall is a logical minor boundary adjustment for the industrial area.
Committee approved.
2. Robin Hitz requested to go from UR to LII. Committee approved. Sutter
identified an area on the map as LII that should be general manufacturing.
Batchelor will see if that is to be corrected.
3. Kay Albert, South Pass Road. Batchelor noted the owners wanted to go
from CF to R5. He questioned the need to make this change, as he was
not sure about access for this parcel; there may be topography issues.
Brown suggested perhaps putting this into same vicinity as the Sitkin
property. Batchelor replied there are no services. Starkenburg suggested
putting a hold on this for later review by committee in more detail. It may
be necessary to address this at a work session, if possible, at next
Tuesday =s meeting.
4. Sitkin has been dealt with as being in Blaine--s proposed UGA.
5. Doug Johnson. Batchelor was not clear what was requested. Sutter stated
the owner was addressing a specific piece of property in the Kendall
Crossroads area. Starkenburg stated committee will put this item toward
positive testimony for support of the Kendall issue (same for #12).
Starkenburg noted committee was in agreement that those items dealing with the Kendall
area will be held for consideration of this as a total.
6. Batchelor noted Custer will be dealt with separately, as it was in the
original Custer rezone. Starkenburg stated this item moves forward with a
favorable note dealing with the Custer rezone.
7. Mark Anderson. Road realignment on Mt. Baker Highway. Committee
approved moving this forward.
8. Sutter noted #8, #9, and #10 had already been approved.
11. This item was included in the Custer rezone.
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 8
12. Committee agreed that this item is approved for moving forward.
13. This has already been dealt with, as #14, #15, and #16 also have.
17. Mark Weinberg. This is a request for consolidation of all his property into
the five -year review area. Committee approved for moving forward.
18. Sizemore. This owner has issues with proposed language changes, which
may need to be dealt with elsewhere. Starkenburg suggested pulling this
out and requesting staff review for merit if there is a validated need for the
language change.
19. This has been approved, along with #20, 21, and 22.
23. Jeri Kennedy. This is related to the Foothills issue. Starkenburg stated
committee approved that action.
24. This and #25 have been dealt with.
26. This is an MRL, which is to be discussed Monday afternoon.
27. This is a letter in opposition to Sevener rezone to R2A, which is being
held for years. Starkenburg stated it will be removed from the list.
28. Freeman/Croft. Batchelor asked if the Birch Bay UGA needed to
encompass all the service area. The request is to be included in the UGA
because water service comes to that area; however, this is not a good
reason to be included. On lot 3 of the offshore plat is probably a cluster
shore plat, and the small lots are probably clusters. The overall density is
consistent with zoning, but the lots are smaller. Starkenburg felt since
there was no communication with the owners, a good judgment call was
unable to be made. Knapp spoke to this area also. Starkenburg
recommended this item not be included in Birch Bay =s UGA. Committee
agreed.
29. This item has been dealt with.
30. Batchelor stated the key factor is it has been used for very low value
agriculture. The owner, who is adjacent to R10, wants to go from ag to
R5. If he is bumped out, then the property is surrounded by ag on three
sides. LESA says soils drop out entirely. Starkenburg agreed it is
marginal ag land but was not sure about the potential for improvement. If
it is moved to R10, he would still be in the mandatory ag protection zone
but would have the opportunity regarding the road to see what could be
gained. Knapp stated if the property is in the ag protection zone, he could
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 9
cluster. Once adopted, there is an option he may not know. Starkenburg
stated that if the property is in ag, he cannot do anything; if it is in ag
protection, he has the option to develop 20% of the property. Batchelor
pointed out 80% would not be available for residential use, whereupon
Sutter replied it could be used for something that would not destroy ag
resources. Batchelor stated it would create an island of R5 surrounded by
ag. If R10, six homes could be clustered. Starkenburg recommended
moving this forward with a strong indication for R10 with the
understanding that if Asomething goes wrong= with the ag protection, he
could be rolled back out.
31. This has been dealt with.
32. Rodney Hanson. This is inside the urban fringe and an existing R2A area.
Committee agreed to move this item forward.
33. This is a change mapping, a request for R5A inside the R10. Brown stated
this is the R10 that Feathers is requesting. Starkenburg noted that this
falls in the same category as the previously discussed Feathers property;
as that goes, so goes the rest.
34. Hecht, Ten Mile and Guide. The owner indicated a history of ag use and
is the only commercial use on that corner. The land has been leased, and
the owners want to put in a Texas barbeque smokehouse restaurant.
Sutter inquired if the property has long -term ag significance. Starkenburg
noted this will cause continuing a commercial strip into inappropriate
areas if it is stretched further and further north. Batchelor read a section
from the letter from the owner stating that the land was previously rented
as grassland, but the farmer claimed it was not viable based on location
and size. Starkenburg recommended denial. Committee agreed.
35. Ken and Esther Korthuis. The area is zoned R2A, but the request is
largely agriculture. Sutter noted it was general protection when it was
purchased, and the owner thought it would have the zoning changed to
R2A, but then it went to ag zoning. The property itself has a hill that
makes it difficult to farm. Starkenburg pointed out this property may be
caught in the ag protection zone change and wondered if there were any
merit in looking at the rest of the home sites in between that may lend
itself to infill. Batchelor noted it would be putting ag on three sides of this
property. He stated he would research this property further. Starkenburg
recommended final consideration at Monday =s meeting.
36. Paul and Candy Isaacson. Batchelor inquired about the interchanges,
stating they weren =t great for residential and asking about commercial.
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 10
Starkenburg asked what was the best and highest use of land for the total
County population. If it can serve that area, let it do so. Knapp pointed
out that increasing the intensity of the enclave may not be desirable.
Starkenburg recommended Mackie =s advice. Committee agreed.
37. Beech, zoned R5A and wants GC in Maple Falls. Starkenburg
recommended moving this forward to either commercial or something
with a different impact, as it fits the neighborhood. Batchelor noted that
family residential is allowed. Knapp stated that residential use usually
falls out because of the value of the land for other purposes. Brown noted
it is suitable for commercial. Knapp stated a transition that is typical is a
higher intensity commercial use; mixed use could work on that site.
Starkenburg recommended moving it from R5A to GC or a more fitting
zone, and requested staff advise committee as to what would be more
fitting. Committee agreed.
38. Head. This one has been done.
39. Okay as is.
40. This one has been done.
(Clerks Note: Tape 4, side A)
41. Steve Reimer. Sutter stated changes are requested to the Comp Plan
language regarding Cain Lake goals and policies. Starkenburg
recommended taking this under advisement; if staff thinks there is merit to
the request, it will then be considered at the end of the Comp Plan
hearings.
Batchelor stated there are more requests that have recently come in. Starkenburg
requested reviewing these now. Knapp pointed out some of the decisions he hoped to get he
does not yet have. He wanted staff to make a recommendation for committee review because
there are several items he did not know how to proceed, particularly regarding all issues Mackay
outlined for him. Starkenburg then proceeded.
Batchelor began with Mr. Drabb in the South Fork Valley subareas, a lot consolidation
which will be done after the Comp Plan is completed. Sutter said she talked with Mr. Drabb,
who understands that is the way it will work. Brown stated this is a commercial forestry issue,
which Batchelor confirmed. Starkenburg recommended holding this for further consideration.
Bill Sygitowicz, whose property is next to Northwest Road, was discussed next.
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 11
Batchelor stated he needs to review this. Brown pointed out this is in the airport protection zone.
Starkenburg requested Batchelor check with Bellingham =s recommendation on this.
Bob Hansen, whose property involves the John Boerhave Dairy Farm, has much housing
activity. Central Road nearby has many residences scattered there. The request is for R10 to R5.
Starkenburg recommended holding this for further consideration.
Robin Hicks= property is on both sides of Hannegan Road, north of Ross Road.
Batchelor supported the city =s zoning. It was noted the owners have a chipping operation that
will not allow expansion if not within an LII zone. Batchelor stated a creek runs through it but is
developable for industrial. Starkenburg recommended moving forward with this on Monday.
Batchelor stated the owners are asking for GM, which should be cross - referenced with the city =s
recommendation.
Sutter called attention to the Don Dyke property on I -5, north of Slater, east of I -5, and
zoned R5A. Starkenburg stated that all those that may have been missed from the records will
be considered at Monday =s meeting.
Brown mentioned the Heron parcel and recommended referring this to the Feathers
request because there is quite a difference in the mapping of parcelization. There are people who
have given written testimony whose comments have not been brought forth.
Starkenburg then discussed the Jack Holzheimer property. There are 15 acres in the R10,
and they want to separate five acres for the R5 zone. Sutter noted the surrounding parcels are
five acres, so there is compatibility. Starkenburg stated committee was in favor of this but
requested staff ask Mackie his opinion on the greater issue of whether the zoning should be
extended to the R5 zoning around that area.
Knapp requested committee direction regarding boundaries for small town crossroads
commercial, suburban enclaves, etc. Starkenburg asked committee for its approval to allow staff
to work with Mackie on these issues. Committee agreed to review this after staff has completed
their part. Sjostrom stated the MRL packet is being worked on (Jeff Griffin has). She related
Mackie said the criteria for MRLs will push the property requests aside until this issue is
addressed. The summary of major changes prepared by Mackie at the last meeting (January 31,
1997) listed 13 areas of major summary changes, which included the Resource Conservation
Plan; Custer; Cherry Point; and sprawl prevention.
Starkenburg noted that short- and long -term boundaries need to be communicated now,
as it is critical for giving facts first so the public hearings will not be dominated by questions on
this measure. Sutter was concerned with Bellingham and the interlocal agreements with special
districts.
Sjostrom continued by listing the areas that continue to be worked on or those which
have not yet been worked on. She asked committee the timeline for Land Use regarding editorial
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 12
issues; also, the CAO is available for committee review.
Starkenburg then discussed the meeting format, noting that a criteria has to be developed.
Answers need to be given as soon as possible to the Lummi and south end of Lake Whatcom
issues. The criteria is already there. He requested committee and staff be prepared for
Monday =s meeting so decisions can be made at that time. He and Sjostrom reviewed briefly the
meeting schedules. Discussion followed on the public hearing process and public notice.
(Clerks Note: Tape 4, side B)
Starkenburg wanted to give closure to the Design chapter, maps, goals and objectives.
Committee agreed he could answer staff =s questions in the meantime. Starkenburg suggested
that anything committee or Council does not agree to must be written and submitted to staff in
one week (of February 25) so staff can complete their work to allow sufficient time to get the
information to the public hearing. Committee and staff agreed. Sjostrom noted that after
February 25, Council /committee members need to synthesize the information received from the
public and make written comments for staff to review and put forward for the March 11 final
action on the Comp Plan by Council.
Sutter stated she felt it was necessary to serve notice to property owners in R5 or R10A
zoning with 20 acres or larger in the ag protection zones. This was agreed to be done, obtaining
parcel information on diskette from Sjostrom and giving it to a mailing house. Specific notice
must be given to these parcels. Starkenburg pointed out this is a difficult issue because certain
parcels are then being singled out. Knapp further noted that if one group is singled out by
notification and the remainder do not get the notice, due process can be a disaster. There was
discussion regarding public notice in The Bellingham Herald. Starkenburg suggested Sutter and
Knapp have further discussion and stated there is no legal obligation to notify these property
owners. Sjostrom stated that when the package for the public hearing has been completed, the
information will be distributed to all media. Starkenburg recommended an agricultural resources
committee be formed for further study of this issue. The study can then be reviewed in one year.
Sjostrom inquired if committee anticipated staff completing the word for word changes in
the Comp Plan by the next meeting, to which Starkenburg replied in the affirmative. What was
most important regarding the Comp Plan is the larger substantive changes; the language changes
can be on hold as the Plan is refined.
Brown, Starkenburg and committee recognized Sjostrom=s tremendous work on the
Comp Plan to date and expressed their regret that she is now leaving.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 13
Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 2/6/97, Page 14