HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 14 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 14, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Kathy Sutter
Other Council Members Present:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBAREAS:
FOOTHILLS, SOUTH FORK VALLEY, LUMMI ISLAND (AB96 -051H)
Staff Also Present:
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Counsel
Starkenburg announced that from 9 -10 a.m. is a committee work session on the previous
meeting's subarea topics of ag lands, which was in need of clarification. The scheduled hearing
will begin at 10 a.m.
Dan Gibson pointed out the committee is currently looking at an ag zone of just under
90,000 acres. Ag activities are within a larger area of the County -- 120,000- 125,000 acres
currently under ag usage. If there is an erosion of acreage available, it will undermine ag
infrastructure. Currently, outside the ag zone in the rural zones are currently large undivided
parcels zoned rural but of a size matching the needs of long -term commercially viable ag. He
suggested capturing the potential of those undivided parcels by maintaining the usage; that is,
allowing the densities at which they are currently zoned - -but in a smaller portion of the acreage- -
through a clustering situation. The questions that arise are: If there is development, then cluster.
How far down in acreage amounts does one go to protect, and what would be the size of the
parcel in the cluster. When one considers the parcel size of the clustering, issues such as
availability of water and sewer arise.
Starkenburg requested staff study those plans to add extra protection to the ag zone. Staff
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 1
was asked to explore how much acreage is undivided in the R10 and R5 areas. There would be a
possibility of piecemealing the mandatory and voluntary addition of acreage to the ag zone.
Sutter stated she wanted to explore the issue of the economic impacts on landowners
planning to divide their property to children at retirement. Dawson concurred.
David Davidson, city of Sumas consultant and planner, discussed map Urban Growth
Area (UGA) #7. There are three different categories, and Sumas supports all three. One
hundred forty -eight acres are designated industrial with frontage on rail lines, as well as
Highway 9.
Dawson asked Davidson about the soil types. Davidson clarified that none of the
planned expansions will intrude on valuable crop sustainable soils. They are clay soils. There
are some areas that are peat soil, and he pointed out one owner is planning to convert his
property back to wetland. All other UGAs were designated as conditional UGA by the Planning
Commission dependent on flood planning by the city of Sumas, which may be not be completed
until June. Sumas would prefer to not designate areas as a five -year review. Gibson asked to
clarify the meaning of five -year review. Davidson stated Sumas would examine these areas five
years after its UGA has been approved. Gibson noted there is a difference between the previous
use of the term five -year review. Historically, five -year review areas have pertained to five
years after UGA.
Sutter clarified Sumas' concern that if a five -year review area was designated, only the
specific areas designated for review would be allowed for that purpose. According to Davidson,
the city of Sumas prefers to look at every area in five years.
Davidson clarified the acreage south of Garfield Avenue is 98 acres total, 40 of which are
to be designated wetland. A strip along the railroad will remain zoned industrial. Sutter stated
that by declaring 40 acres as wetland, the County loses that acreage in the industrial land supply.
Davidson clarified that that land was never included in Sumas= total industrial planned acreage.
Starkenburg asked about future plans for rail expansion from Sumas to Cherry Point.
Davidson stated a position for or against the Cherry Point - Abbottsford airport linkage has not
been stated. Sumas wants potential for rail - related activity along the spur.
Starkenburg asked about long -term planning and SR9 and whether or not that should be
considered. Is there support for looking at SR9 as an option? Davidson stated that the Comp
Plan does consider the possibility of SR9 being realigned. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) owns a right -of -way along that route. Sumas is supportive of the realignment if DOT
goes that way but can Alive with= the present alignment if necessary.
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, spoke regarding a paper recycling
facility. He asked what the acreage is that industry is using; whether the facility will trigger
satellite or additional demand; and if additional acreage would be needed for dealerships to
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 2
supply industrial lands. Davidson stated that large acreage consumers have come into the area
recently for heavy manufacturing. The other facilities that have arrived are the truck -rail
intermodal facilities that require large acreage.
Nelson asked what the estimate is for the total working force employed by potential
incoming manufacturers. Davidson replied that the paper and shingle mills will produce 240
jobs. Other manufacturers also are employing. The city of Sumas does not have the labor force
to fill all these jobs; these are being filled by other County residents.
Nelson then asked what the plans are for people relocating to the area in response to these
new manufacturers and transportation facilities. Davidson replied that each potential facility
does traffic impact analyses before being developed. These plans are reviewed by DOT for their
approval. Nelson stated that there are 26 people planned for the Sumas UGA.
Starkenburg asked for a definition for ag and if it were different from the Growth
Management Act (GMA) definition. Mackie stated that he will have some recommendations
soon regarding those definitions.
Starkenburg stated that there also needs to be some issues discussed regarding mineral
resource lands (MRL). Committee requested staff return for discussion on these issues. Dawson
stated that elevation of soils needs to be discussed as well. Mackie stated what the County is
looking for are policy -based impacts for the Comprehensive Plan.
Starkenburg discussed recommendations regarding soil ratings. Sutter stated that staff
should look at all of the factors that go into a viable ag. Staff was requested to examine the
LESA rating. Dawson concurred.
Starkenburg moved the discussion to the Guide Meridian corridor. Committee concurred
that they are not looking at expansion in the area. Starkenburg asked how the area that is there
can be serviced regarding fire protection. They are not looking for higher densities than what is
currently there. Mackie stated that this is an area that has grown off across an international
corridor. He does not project much residential density in the area because it is not a UGA. He
noted there is a design to protect and maintain the integrity and viability that is there. It would
not be designated as an urban area, as it is potentially urban reserve and an area where services
will be provided. This will not encourage more growth but will fill with compatible uses.
Nelson stated a concern is the gridlock within the urban areas. He asked what the
impacts are that rural areas have on that. Transportation issues regarding the state levels of
service versus the County levels of service can be in conflict. Mackie addressed the Guide
Corridor. Reducing the potential of residential development reduces the trips. Most trips are
pass - through. The designation of levels of service has not been discussed yet. Concurrency will
be a recommended policy. State agencies are required to be in conformance with various county
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 3
comprehensive plans. The county sets the guidelines; the state provides the money.
Gibson stated that Guide frontage roads paralleling the Guide need to be used as an
alternative, which cut into land supply. He suggested considering reducing the access points
along the Guide through the development regulations, which provide for greater traffic safety.
Starkenburg stated that there will be discussion with the Council of Governments (COG)
regarding that issue.
Starkenburg adjourned the work session.
(Clerks Note: A 10- minute break was taken.)
Starkenburg opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. The Lummi Island area
was addressed first. He requested new information only or a possible solution; earlier testimony
is still on the record.
LUMMI ISLAND
Alex Edelstein, 1258 Island Drive, Lummi Island (submitted written testimony): Scenic
Island Estates does not want Everett Rock Overlay. He urged Council examine page 25
regarding mining parameters, which have been exceeded by Everett Rock. The previous Plan
did not foresee or encourage rock expansion. If Council opts for expansion, Awe will be forced
to seek remedies =. Eleven acres are currently permitted. The distance is 600 feet from the I 1
acres to the reservoir. He spoke also for Jerry McRory and submitted and read a letter from
McRory into the record, which states Lummi Island Scenic Estates Association is unanimously
against the quarry expansion. There has been no evidence that the increased need for mineral
rock exists. Everett Rock is seeking broader markets. The Comp Plan is supposed to address the
needs of Whatcom County, not other areas. He asked if the County keeps accurate records of the
output of Everett Rock and what the rate of output of Everett Rock has been. The County must
determine if this is needed by Whatcom County. Without validated statistics, any decision made
by Council will be subjected to great scrutiny.
Mackie addressed broader markets vs Whatcom County only.
Sutter stated that there are different types of mineral resources and asked if they have
been evaluated individually. Gibson stated that there has been some differentiation between
various types of rock and activity. Sutter then stated the County needs to determine how much
hard rock is going to be needed and where the supplies are. She wondered how Lummi Island
fits into that. Gibson stated Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, would have that
information.
Ray Stewart, 6167 Maureen Drive, Ferndale, property owner on Lummi Island
(submitted written testimony): He protested any expansion of the quarry, which has lowered his
property values. Everett Rock should have a large enough performance bond to restore the mess
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 4
when the company completes its project. Also, Everett Rock should have a liability bond.
Gibson clarified that securing bonds is more of a regulation policy that will be dealt with after
the Comp Plan policies have been approved.
Albert W. Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island (submitted written
testimony): In June 1976 a steering committee was established and a state grant obtained to
assist in Island planning. The Lummi Island Plan is a locally developed plan having wide
community support. Much attention was given to every detail. Water resources were studied by
consulting groundwater geologists. He urged Council retain the Lummi Island Plan. The
Lummi Island report of June 1978 became the Lummi Island Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
Charles Evans, 3883 Centerview Road, Lummi Island (submitted written testimony): He
supported the Lummi Island Plan. The basic goal of the Plan is to allow growth preserving the
Island =s rural character and community.
Joy Krell, 1078 Island Drive, Lummi Island: She lives within 300 feet of the potential
expansion of the quarry. She asked the owners to return to and stay in the original quarry and
compensate landowners for their losses.
Kathryn Kennard - Galvin, 1248 Jamison Street, Scenic Estates: The Lummi Island plan
is sometimes not being looked at by the County when people are dealing with land use issues on
the island. The plan is there; the residents do not want it changed. All these issues should
always be viewed through the land use plan. She urged Council follow the land use plan. The
quarry has been on the Island since 1964. No one objects to the quarry if it is contained;
residents object to the expansion.
Brown asked if residents were satisfied with the current zoning and other land use issues.
Galvin responded that occasionally people receive permits for questionable shoreline activities.
Sheila Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island: She spoke to uses in addition to
forestry, watershed management, single family dwellings and accessory buildings, mining on the
existing quarry operations and living quarters for crew.
Joanne Hammerburg, P.O. Box 113, Lummi Island: She stated the current quarry owners
have gone beyond the allowed 11 acres for mining. Council should not consider allowing them
to expand.
Jean Walden Kirschner, 3417 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island: She would like to hold to the
Lummi Island Plan. The County is looking at what is economic, not what will be the quality of
life in the future.
Bruce Livingson, 1166 Beach Avenue, Lummi Island: He stated Lummi Island would
like the expansion to be under County control.
Starkenburg reported the need for clarification regarding the MRL. The committee is not
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 5
ready to recommend regarding this issue at this time. He inquired of Mackie what granting an
MRL means.
Mackie responded by stating there has been confusion historically over regulation of
mining. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had issued these permits. With the recent
law changes, the DNR controls reclamation. The source, scope and nature of activity regarding
mining is now given to County control. The recommendation forthcoming is that a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) is required. Concerns include: noise control; blasting; and five -year review,
as a permit is not granted for life. Heightened scrutiny and control are part of the recommended
permit process. Recommendations will be coming regarding specifics in the permit process.
Mineral resources are a state -wide priority.
Discussion followed between Mackie and Brown regarding forestry vs mineral resources
as a state -wide priority.
Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island Land Company: He referenced maps #26 and #27. The
recommendations for his property are mostly recreation and have been included in the Heritage
Plan. The corporation intends to use land as agricultural and forestry. People have been
trespassing into the property because they see it as zoned recreation. He requested a zone
change, as he owns several portions of that designation. The company is a holding company.
These areas are being published in recreation guides as destination spots. Starkenburg stated that
issue was discussed earlier in committee. Staff needs to find a way to address those concerns.
Brown stated that this problem of publication and distribution of recreation guides listing areas
not intended for recreational use is not exclusive to Lummi Island.
(Clerks Note: A 10- minute break was taken.)
Mackie stated for clarification that mineral resource lands (MRL) designation does not
automatically give someone the permit to mine. There is another permitting process envisioned
to accompany the MRL designation.
SOUTHFORK AND FOOTHILLS SUBAREAS
Starkenburg requested background information from staff regarding these subareas.
Mackie stated that the issues on pages 261 -263 of the Comp Plan are the rural hamlets. The
issue was whether these areas are urban or rural. The urban areas have complete municipal
water and sewer systems, certain densities, incorporation, and full city services. Also, the
purpose of
the area served must be identified. The ideal size of the areas need to be established, and the
kinds of uses and utility services need to be identified. He asked if the County is going to
support a package system to support existing needs but not encourage existing growth.
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 6
Gibson added that the resource questions need to be examined in the Foothills section.
Conflicts arise between uses. He asked how the County should structure things to avoid conflict
in the future.
Jon Sitkin, Langabeer, Tull and Cuillier, 1616 Cornwall Avenue, on behalf of Maple
Falls Water Cooperative: He submitted a map showing service boundaries, service facilities and
other information. The Cooperative serves a variety of uses and land designations, including
apartments, homes, gas stations, and school which supports the current zoning. The Service
Area Amendment in 1996 allowed construction of group B water system near the borders of the
Co -op, which has the capacity to serve current land uses. There are pending water right transfers
that are based on hydraulic continuity theories which are expected to be issued when DOE
begins issuing water permits in the County. He stated that should it expand, as the Co -op has the
ability to provide water to Maple Falls.
Sitkin also spoke for individual property owners, Albert McMillen Hay and Zender
Bros., adjacent to the Peaceful Valley Development: The property has been subject to a zoning
application since 1992. They have a water permit issued by the DOE to establish a well with a
capacity to serve over an estimated 1,000 residential equivalencies. There is a proposal for this
property for industrial clusters. The valley floor should be consistent with existing services and
given full water and sewer services. This property should be included in that type of
designation.
Mackie asked Sitkin for the breakdown between long -term or permanent residents and
vacation homes and permanent housing vs pads for travel trailers. Mackie noted the allocation
of population is an issue being dealt with. Regarding 300 acres, Mackie asked if this would be
more of an RV park, more permanent homes or a mix. Sitkin stated that the proposal is
approximately 100 acres as permanent residences with larger lot sizes of up to five acre sizes.
From the proposed plan for the area, there is a breakdown for the planned development.
Gibson asked Sitkin what the plans were for the adequacy for law enforcement in the
area, since there was the proposal for an additional 90 homes in the area. This is a question that
needs to be addressed, along with fire suppression and school services. Sitkin stated the tax
based questions are critical. Policies should be set up within the plan. There are existing
processes for that. Sutter stated that there are more and more permanent residences in the area,
creating more and more burden without provisions for the increased population.
Nela Stewart, 6483 Mt. Baker Highway: She was concerned with services in the area
and noted the concern for the lack of law enforcement; the availability of commercial facilities;
highway maintenance and improvements; land use zoning; and industrial area for jobs and taxes.
Recreational housing has become permanent housing. No consideration has been given to
providing commercial and industrial lands to support the increased usage. All lands on both
sides of the highway should be zoned commercial. To allow for a variety for commercial
services, she suggested extending one - quarter of a mile on either side of the highway to allow
commercial services such as hotels, stores, and restaurants and provide jobs for the area. Mt.
Baker School District is lacking funds. The school does not have an industrial base from which
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 7
to draw taxes. It is in the best interest of the County and the school district to have an industrial
land base to support a tax base for schools. Deming/Nugents Corner area, where there is a rail
service, natural gas, and closer proximity to the interstate highway, would be a good choice for
this.
Gibson asked Ms. Steward about the water supply for that area. She replied that almost
everyone is on private wells. If there were more commercial and industrial zoning, there would
be a base for more sheriff officers for protection.
Jeff Margolis, 5455 Potter Road, Deming: He requested Council support cottage
industries. There are over 300 family businesses in the eastern part of the County. A way must
be found to help existing businesses grow, which will enhance the tax base. He noted the people
in the eastern County are interested in more earnings and more savings, stating there are three
priorities: water quality; education and youth activities; and tourism. Enhancing the tax base and
finding new tax sources are slightly different. He suggested Council consider reallocating
constrained acreage and finding an area for technology campuses. There are three considerations
regarding tourism: maintain naturalism to expand resorts and B &Bs; eschew heavy industry in
order to maintain what is currently there, in particular, transportation from Cherry Point and
Abbottsford and traffic from the northeast to the southwest portion of the County- -keep this
north and move it to I -5 - -do not use SR9 into Skagit County; new recreation venues; and smart
transportation, which means safe highways. Tourist amenities need to be on the roads. The
County needs to do a much better job with public transportation.
Mackie asked Margolis the number of tourists that come into the area to enjoy the area =s
recreational activities. Margolis stated that Atens of thousands= of people visit this County from
May through October. The tourist business is not reserved for those months. Skiing season
begins in October. During the high volume months, business doubles.
Mackie asked if the County were to intensify the Deming area services, would the
community support a septic tank maintenance district. Margolis stated that there needs to be
"green" ways to develop the area. Water supply limitation in the Deming area should not be
addressed by building a dam on one of the forks of the Nooksack.
Brown pointed out for the record that there is a mandatory law coming into effect that all
septic tanks will be coming under inspections.
Art Anderson, Building Industry Association, 5326 Williams Road: He addressed the
geographic diversity issue on pages 7 -10. He was concerned with the tax base makeup of the
Mt. Baker School District. The County should examine business and rezone opportunities for
the area. Natural gas and rail opportunities are there. In the past, this has been a flood area. The
Flood Advisory Board - -of which he is a member -- recommends building a diking system in that
area. He urged Council create jobs for the area and consider rezones in the Kendall area as well.
(Clerk's Note: The meeting was recessed for lunch at 12:20 p.m for one hour)
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 8
Starkenburg reconvened the meeting at 1:17 p.m. Also present were Nelson, Dawson,
Sutter, Brown and Brenner.
Jerry Hunter, Mt. Baker School District Superintendent, 5531 Knight Road: He
addressed the hamlets, stating he was in agreement with what was said this morning. Section
1013-5 was one of his concerns. He urged Council consider adding language regarding school
locations relative to hamlets. Mackie responded to lacking language in citing schools in rural
areas and spoke to concurrency regarding fire protection/suppression. Hunter spoke to Kendall,
Peaceful Valley and Paradise Lakes and was in favor of locating schools in those areas. The
immediate concerns were fire flow, water supply and sewer that needs to be available. He noted
that in the draft Plan, 50% of the homes are seasonal. Regarding the tax base, the school is in the
lowest per capita area. There is certainly an interest in flood control in the school district. He
addressed briefly the subject of the process of subarea planning by Mackie. The intent is a single
Comp Plan. Knapp explained the process, speaking to the amendment process and the economic
development briefly. Gibson stated that the process has not been finalized. Knapp stated a video
for presentation is available. Starkenburg noted this process would be pointed in the right
direction; the steps are large and many, so further review is needed at a later date.
Hunter stated the water system improvements have been authorized in the Glenhaven
area regarding the increased housing units. He asked about taxable properties regarding a dollar
figure. He suggested school districts should be informed of this issue. Knapp responded that his
staff could identify parcels and get him that information. He thought it was more appropriate for
citizens to become involved in the Comp Plan process; his main job is the schools.
Nelson questioned Hunter for his suggestions regarding the funding mechanisms to the
schools available for the generation of revenue. Hunter responded by mentioning taxes and
mitigation fees; also, the school district is a community center. He had no suggestions for other
revenues. Hunter stated that at some point if there is no mechanism to increase the tax base at
least as fast as the student population is growing, the school board might need to approach
Council to request suggestions for further financial resources. Mackie spoke to areas not having
an impact fee program and its processes (portables, e.g.). He asked if the school district would
be able to deal with further needs. Hunter replied he could not foresee sufficient new housing
development in the near future. He noted the fine line between maintenance of the status quo
and the need for further funding.
Sutter asked the rate of growth; Hunter replied he can obtain those figures, which he
thought was approximately 12% in Bellingham, 15% in the County and 18% in his school
district (1990- 1995). He confirmed Brown's question regarding Mt. Baker School District being
penalized for bringing in additional revenue (timber industry). This is no longer a resource -
based option for revenue. Nelson asked about evaluation of the senior students regarding
employment in the area. Hunter stated it is being done through the career counselors, and he will
obtain that information for Council. In the past four years, the high school population has grown
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 9
and will continue to do so. Approximately 62% of high school seniors attend college.
Starkenburg inquired of Hunter regarding tourism, who replied it is an important part that
needs to be available, although it will not establish a job -based economy. Regarding cottage
industries, he did not think there was the potential for an increase in either the tax base or the job
base.
Walt Humphrey, 4296 Valley Highway, Deming: He addressed the South Fork Valley,
stating that many acres are idle. Tourism is a destination point from wherever to Mt. Baker.
Industry would be nice to have in the area to decrease the mileage to Bellingham.
Sutter pointed out the agricultural issue needs to be discussed, to which Starkenburg
agreed. Gibson pointed out there is some dynamic which recognizes and responds to the
fluctuating ag economy in other sectors. Dawson noted poplar trees are an agricultural product.
Herman Shawn, Manager of the Glen Community Association, spoke to his area, giving
background information. This association is 90% Canadian owned. He estimated the property
owners spend $0.75 million in the community. The rural area is extremely important to
everyone. He addressed the criminal element in the area, noting security has been increased. He
spoke highly of the Kendall Fire Department. There is sufficient well water. His community is
close and has a close relationship with the Maple Falls community.
Brown inquired about Shawn--s response to the Kendall pit, to which Shawn replied he
had no objections to the pit being in use. Mackie asked about tourism. Shawn replied there was
the need for commercial tourism and thought Kendall would be a good location. He then spoke
to Snowline. He suggested block watches in these kind of areas, noting law enforcement's
distance. Brown followed up with a question regarding lots in Snowline (approximately 320),
which are 50% full -time residences. Dawson asked about the monies spent on private security,
which is $200,000 per year. Sutter asked about the demographics. Shawn stated there are
younger families buying in the Glen. He stated the Glen does not impact the school district. The
elderly have two to three aid calls every two weeks; the response time has been very good.
Jon Sitkin, attorney, 1616 Cornwall Avenue, spoke on behalf of Lillian Brown (handout
provided and on file). He gave thoughts and observations on various areas in the County and
encouraged Council support the small economic enterprises.
Preston Schiller, 1120 Island Drive, Lummi Island, spoke to mineral resources in general
and on Lummi Island. He spoke to the overlay designation regarding the quarry, reading from a
handout on file requesting removal of MRL designation.
Ben Croft, 3550 Alm Road, Everson, inquired about public notification of these
meetings. He also was concerned about changing the residential areas, stating this may directly
interfere with the Glen. He was not in favor of mining in residential areas. Also, he was
concerned regarding commercial viability on Criteria #14, farming and ag uses and urged
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 10
Council delete both these criteria numbers. Dawson was also concerned about those definitions.
Maribeth Hardmeyer, 1120 Island Drive, Lummi Island, read from her letter on file
regarding the quarry, to which she was opposed.
Ed Drabb commented about the classification of his property and also his family. He is
not happy about the reclassification, as he does not meet the criteria regarding his property (in
Van Zandt). Starkenburg requested staff look at this issue and respond.
Connie Hogue, 2633 Halverstick Road, Lynden: She asked if the public record were still
open. Gibson responded the record is open, stating Council is obligated to review it. She also
had questions regarding letters to Council members. She referred to this morning's testimony
regarding the need for gravel. She does not want the County as Athe pit of the area =. Hogue
also addressed other issues, including liability bonding policy.
Dennis Feathers, 6858 Mt. Baker Highway: He had two maps as handouts (on file) and
spoke to parcel size, dwellings, and density in the Foothills subarea. He stated his land in the
Maple Falls /Kendall area should be zoned R5 and requested Council examine this parcel again.
He requested his property in the Silver Lake area also be zoned R5.
Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island, representing the Lummi Island Land Company: He spoke
to the southern portion of Lummi Island and is concerned about the quarry access road and the
water going into the bay, which is a recreational area. He does not want either of these areas
impacted.
Starkenburg closed the public hearing at 3:05 p.m.
(Clerk's Note: A brief break was taken)
Starkenburg reconvened the meeting in the Committee Room. He stated it was now a
work session with committee (and Council) members and staff. Present were: Dan Gibson,
Sandy Mackie, Carl Batchelor, Elizabeth Sjostrom, and Michael Knapp, along with Council
members Nelson, Brown and Brenner. All committee members were present.
The Foothills hamlet was discussed regarding density. Mackie focused on the water
system being sufficient, as well as fire flow. Many outsiders are served by this area. There is
demand for additional commercial facilities. He did note that the school district is a separate
entity; the impact may or may not be present. Mackie stated there needs to be a mechanism of
improvement regarding police coverage, which is a large issue. The septic tank district provides
another layer of oversight. He also noted the disparity between what GMA requires and what
the state requires (e.g., GMA requires a school be built first, while the state does not provide
funding until the children are registered for school).
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 11
Nelson requested a definition of Ahamlet =, suggesting further work on the language.
Brenner suggested looking at hamlets by what they provide instead of the number of dwellings.
Mackie thought a functional description would be best. There was discussion on school and fire
district impacts and funding mechanisms, as well as Ahamlet= vs Arural service center =.
Carl Batchelor, Planning Services, requested direction regarding area maps and the
information Council wants put on them regarding zoning, existing land usage and acreage, etc.
Sutter was concerned with the potential population and their needs. Brenner suggested the
information should be functional. Gibson asked if it were a problem regarding significant
residential developments on small acreages without accompanying commercial and industrial
development and, if so, he asked what the solution would be relative to the Comp Plan.
Mackie spoke to a series of small towns with their needs and asked how to deal with
monoculture sites. The GMA says to include water service areas and economic base. Brenner
thought the first obligation should be to examine historic patterns with recreational areas.
Interlocal agreements were discussed regarding law enforcement and fire protection.
Brown spoke to Glacier regarding resort designation and recreational uses in Maple Falls.
Brenner noted the historic development may change in the future and requested maintenance of
present sites. Starkenburg gave direction to staff regarding mapping.
Gibson wondered how Council would look back on this time in 30 -40 years regarding the
protection of the aquifer and MRL. He suggested Council examine current zoning patterns.
Sutter spoke to the ag situation, asking what the Comp Plan says about designating ag
lands. Mackie noted that in the ag land areas, there is a series of uses. When designating ag, a
viable economic base must be created in ag lands. Farmland must be protected.
Brenner stated gravel is not precious to her; resources are different and unequal. Gibson
explained his earlier statement regarding gravel protection.
Brown noted rezone inequities were addressed today. He also spoke to the farming
industry and ag protective zones.
Mackie will bring forward a recommendation that provides an option to protect ag zone
designed to optimize farmland.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 12
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 1/14/97, Page 13