HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 16 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 16, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Staff Present-
Absent:
None
Tom Brown, Council member
Ward Nelson, Council member
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Carl Batchelor, Planning Services
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Counsel
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBAREAS:
URBAN FRINGE, LAKE WHATCOM, CHUCKANUT, AND LAKE SAMISH (AB96-
051I)
Starkenburg reviewed the current Comprehensive Plan schedule.
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, addressed the Urban Fringe and Lake
Whatcom subareas. One item identified was a packet, Whatcom County Rural Incentive Zones,
which focused on several specific areas. Mackie said he wanted to focus on Marine Drive, the
Marietta area, Toad Lake (Emerald Lake subdivision area), the North Shore, Lake Whatcom
North, Sudden Valley, Geneva, Strawberry Point, the Denke property, Yew Street, Cain Lake
area (South Lake Whatcom), Chuckanut, and Lake Samish.
(Clerks Note: There was a brief break taken for committee members to gather their
materials.)
Mackie began on page 34 of the Whatcom County Rural Incentive Zones packet with the
map of Marine Drive, which is the westerly portion of the Urban Fringe Subarea. He referred to
page 35, which shows current land uses and allocations. He cited statistics and stated that lands
designated RR1 are developed at less than four units per acres. It was his understanding that this
property is not in the City of Bellingham =s long -term growth boundary, so there is no need to
upgrade this property to a higher density. The alternative is to maintain the status quo. There is
a current pattern of development, which is not likely to revert to a resource use. Public utilities
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 1
are ready for use; it is unlikely the area will redevelop into a significantly higher density.
Mackie said infilling should be encouraged but intense uses that would require extension of
essential services should be discouraged.
Sutter requested clarification whether this area is not in Bellingham's long -term growth
boundary. Carl Batchelor, Planning, stated that under a proposal, a portion of this area (south of
the airport) will come into Bellingham---s growth boundary. Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and
Development Services, stated the city of Bellingham plans to have a final urban growth
boundary by February 4, 1997. Starkenburg stated it is difficult to have a work session on this
area since committee does not have the city's final boundary. Mackie said that today should
focus on highlighting the concerns of major issue areas.
The next area is Emerald Lake Road around Toad Lake at the northeastern area of
Bellingham. The rural ag lands are north along the Kelly Road area. There is no interest or need
in making any modifications. Toad Lake was then discussed (pages 27 -28). This map shows the
areas designated RR2 and UR3 with a significant amount of development. Part of Council =s
responsibility is to deal with existing platted lots. Undeveloped areas are zoned R5. Mackie
asked what the basis is for R2A recommendations in that area -- perhaps an intense ag use area?
Batchelor stated he didn't know why; it is not subdivided. There are currently approximately
211 acres of R2A, of which 82% is not platted. Mackie stated that would be an area to consider
changing.
Starkenburg stated that perhaps Sudden Valley should be raised separately from urban
fringe. Mackie stated the same question is raised: should it be designated urban or rural enclave,
and what are the consequences of that designation. There is potential for sewer and water
facilities to serve a portion of the area. The implications of designating this area urban are that at
some point it ought to become a city, and it ought to become self - sustaining as a city. People
should address whether it should be given the economic base to support a full or a limited urban
sewer and water system or whether the County should acknowledge what is there. Ultimately,
Council will be faced with a decision on these three policy choices.
Mackie stated a similar discussion is appropriate for the Geneva area. Again, this
depends on Bellingham ---s recommendation of whether they wish this area to be in or out of the
Bellingham UGA. The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) stated this was
inappropriate at the interim level. The Denke property is a part of this area. He asked if this area
should be in Bellingham--s long -term urban growth boundary or made a suburban enclave. More
intense zoning is possible.
Mackie then addressed Strawberry Point, on page 26, stating that it is on the west shore
between Geneva and Sudden Valley. That area is influenced by Sudden Valley because of road
service levels and the road connection. The map shows the status of the existing development.
He asked if there are any significant limitations with undeveloped land. Is it large enough or too
large; is it an appropriate size? Dan Gibson, Prosecutor =s Office, listed statistics on
development patterns in the area. Brown stated it would be helpful to have the Assessor's Office
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 2
maps. Gibson stated the pattern of development can be very helpful in determining the direction
of an area.
The next area discussed was the north shore, page 25, north of the Sudden Valley /Geneva
corridor, which shows substantial existing development and R2A zoning. One policy staff is
working with is that Council is not recommending zoning that would create a significant amount
of nonconforming uses. One issue would be a potential for conflict with forestry. The pattern
shows there is not a conflict. From a Capital Facilities viewpoint, this is not likely to build an
urban level of service, as County services can be relied upon.
Mackie then discussed Cain Lake, which is at the south end of Lake Whatcom, pages 15
and 16 and the following maps. Batchelor commented that development around the lake is a
pattern of small lots on septic with a water association at Glenhaven Lakes. Starkenburg stated
that significant time needs to be spent on that area because there is much acreage in that area.
Mackie asked if residents support the current zoning. He also asked if residents want the
County to consider utility service, specifically septic tank maintenance districts, or a package
treatment center. Council needs to make a policy decision on these enclave areas regarding the
provision of utilities. Also, from Capital Facilities point of view, if these areas are built out to
planned, traffic impacts must be considered.
Dawson asked to have clarified the difference in acreage for Commercial Forestry (CF)
and Rural Forestry (RF). Gibson stated the minimum lot size is 40 acres on CF. Batchelor
stated one house for 360 acres is allowed for CF; RF allows one home on 20 acres. Dawson
asked what other counties are doing in CF, to which Gibson stated that the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) has submitted information on that issue. Mackie noted the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) has that information and
will provide it later. Brown stated timber counties have submitted that information. Most other
counties have one unit per eighty acres. Starkenburg said this needs to be dealt with at the final
work session.
Mackie then addressed Yew Street, pages 47 -48, noting that this area is part of the
Bellingham urban boundary. The pattern of existing development is shown on the map.
There is currently an application for a development called Summit View. The density is
one per acre and is vested under the old zoning rules. This would be either a potential suburban
enclave or included in Bellingham---s urban growth boundary. The criteria for zoning from the
GMHB is four units per acre and up as urban. Sutter asked about the south Yew Street Road
regarding platted lots in rural and commercial forestry zones. Gibson stated those are for
practical consideration and will not be developed because of steep slopes. Batchelor said that
even though there are plat lines, most have been consolidated. Starkenburg stated that one
consideration could be Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) for certain areas, which can be
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 3
examined on a limited basis.
Chuckanut, page 17, was discussed, which is the area around Chuckanut Bay. There is a
question whether this is an area suitable for more intensive development at urban levels. There
are physical limitations to obtain four units per acre and above kinds of utilities. This is an area
to examine for maintaining the status quo in serving what is there but not building more. Gibson
agreed, stating that people want the availability of environmentally sensitive water and sewer at
an urban level of service. Mackie noted that, as people build outside cities, the response of
police, EMTs and the fire department is slower. He stated an appropriate rural level of service
for these enclaves needs to be examined. One of the issues of growth management is whether
there is a portion that should be developed more intensely and become part of Bellingham.
According to Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, the actual density
for the Summit View property is 1.5 units per acre. This is a pending application. Batchelor
stated there are two other maps of this area on page 35 and page 52 (Governor's Point). The
issues are the same, but the present zoning is different.
Mackie then discussed Lake Samish, which is detached from the Bellingham growth
boundary. There is substantial existing development (map on page 40). Water quality is an
important issue. The County is likely to be the urban service provider; however, one of the
questions is whether it would develop at a sufficient density to ultimately become a city. He
asked if this were where the County is going to accommodate the present development, infilling
to the extent it is acceptable regarding sewer, water and service provision. As the distance from
Bellingham increases, solicitation from the school district should be obtained, as this is one of
the potentially impacted services. He then asked if there were a school facility of adequate size
to serve the contemplated growth. Mackie stated it would be helpful to have the school =s
comprehensive plan on hand. Council must deal with the limited rural levels of service.
Batchelor pointed out the R2A acre area map is on page 24. Gibson noted that area is largely
unplatted and not much development there. Only 40 potential new lots are there in terms of
water, which would be in Water District #12.
Mackie stated that one item to address inside urban boundaries would be to hold service
levels where services are currently available and would be allowed to expand when adequate
sewer and water are available. The local utility district must be supported.
Sutter stated she assumed the school district discussed is located in Skagit County.
Batchelor stated it is in Bellingham (page 4 is a school district map). There was discussion as to
which school district number and its location.
Starkenburg then concluded the work session and discussed the process for the open
public hearing, noting that dialogue will occur with the city of Bellingham, Water District #10,
and other service providers.
(Clerks Note: A short break was taken)
Starkenburg opened the public hearing and commented regarding its process, stating that
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 4
Bellingham would give an overview of its recent work completed. Committee would then begin
walking through each area.
Patricia Decker, Planning Director, city of Bellingham (handouts provided, which
summarized a November 19, 1996 packet): Bellingham adopted the Comp Plan in January 1996.
They have been working since 1990 on the Northern Urban Fringe Plan, which is a joint effort
between city and County to identify those areas already zoned in the County for urban zoning
and those areas appropriate for additional urban zoning. The final urban growth plan and the
urban fringe plan have been reviewed together with final recommendations. The final action is
scheduled before the City Council on February 10, 1997. Today's submission is staff direction
and general City Council directions.
Mackie stated it was appropriate that staff recommendation is coming from the County
Council now. Both City and Council are responsible for planning these areas. This is a joint
venture. He encouraged people to take their information to both City and County Council.
Decker has taken and closed written testimony; the city is in the process of digesting
testimony and developing recommendations. She reviewed population estimates, which is the
revised OFM number of 220,366. Bellingham---s share of the allocated population is 95,640 by
2015, which represents approximately 43% of the County population. This information was
detailed in the November 19, 1996 packet provided to County Council. Based on demand,
approximately 12,962 new dwelling units are needed by 2015. Land supply information was
then provided. Residential demand was accommodated in part through identification of which
areas are zoned for residential and the kind of density they can accommodate, and in part
through expansion of the urban growth area. The city is in the process of adopting
recommendations for an urban residential mixed zoning district. They have attempted to
establish single family neighborhoods and allow insertion of 25% of multi - family in those
neighborhoods. There has been concern by neighborhoods that areas that are blanket multi-
family zoned areas are less stable, such as lower income and more crime. In the urban fringe, a
UR mix zone district is recommended - -a two acre or larger parcel - -with no more than 25% of the
allowed density be taken for multi - family within that zoning district. The city has also
responded to the interest in neighborhood commercial centers going into an area; however, they
first must go through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. They also decided not to allow
industrial in the mix zoning because industrial zoning was recommended through the urban
fringe process in sufficient locations throughout so people are close to places of employment and
to alleviate the concern in single family neighborhoods about who might locate next door.
Sutter questioned Decker regarding the amount of industrial land needed in relation to
rural population and industrial jobs, which will be in Bellingham.
Decker pointed out on maps areas already inside the Bellingham interim urban growth
area (UGA). Areas added to interim included a portion off Mt. Baker Highway, King Mountain
area, the area west of James, the area north of East Bakerview, and the area between Northwest
and Aldrich. All these areas are being recommended for urban residential mix zoning. Areas
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 5
outside the urban fringe include Geneva, which was invalidated by the GMHB; however, the
City Council may incorporate it into the area anyway. Geneva is characterized by urban
development, and it is an area of undeveloped platted lots, along with being part of the Lake
Whatcom Watershed, all concerned with the impacts of water supply. One issue is how to
protect the watershed and adopt a water resources protection area. A second issue is the areas
along Yew Street that are already in the Bellingham interim UGA. East of Yew Street is zoned
RR2. The additional RR2 area can be served and have incorporated that area into the 20,000
units that the city can accommodate. One of the items being recommended is that the
Chuckanut -Lake Samish subarea plan go through joint planning process for discussion of the
appropriateness of increasing densities in that area. The Denke property is not being added to
the plan at this time. The city does not want to encourage any more development in the Lake
Whatcom area other than what is platted.
Sutter asked how, in the Geneva area, the boundary is determined. Decker replied it is
based on several factors: an interlocal agreement for service levels; the residents have had
expectations to urban service levels; and urban services can be provided at an urban level.
Mackie asked if the Denke property regional transportation corridor is still planned.
Decker responded by stating it is included in the five -year review area because of questions
about being more significantly over the capacity needed to meet the demand for residential
development if this area is included; also, the ability of the city and County to build that facility
is in question financially. There is also an impact on various services. According to Mackie, the
County can impose district impact fees, which does not have to be County -wide. Decker stated
the city will provide information on impact fees.
Decker then moved to page 4, industrial and commercial land supply. She gave land
supply statistics. Starkenburg asked if these were permittable properties, and Decker replied
they do contain wetlands. Regarding the examination of land demand, there are two methods
for accomplishing this: determine the number of acres absorbed based on population growth (this
gives a demand for 996 acres needed of the city and the urban growth area); and use of a variety
of land studies done for the County (there is an average of three studies, so assume Bellingham
needs to provide 33% of County -wide projections, which gives a demand of approximately 1,000
acres over the next 20 years - -33% represents the percentage of the County -wide share of
commercial and industrial land located today in Bellingham and its urban growth area).
Sutter asked what the demand studies were based on. Decker replied they were based on
an economist looking at a variety of economic factors influencing the County.
Decker stated the city is proposing UGAs for Bellingham with commercial and industrial
zoning as shown on page 4. Also referenced was the specific zoning recommendations for each
of these areas. As there may be future question regarding the sufficiency of supply, etc., the
city- recommended five -year reviews are specifically for industrial development. She then
referenced the supply and demand handout. The most difficult issue being dealt with by the city
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 6
is the establishment of the appropriate relationship between supply of and demand for industrial
land using the two methodologies as above. The city examined the issue of the present
relationship between Bellingham--s zoned commercial and industrial land and Bellingham--s
developed commercial and industrial land. Decker stated the city attempted to separate the
commercial and industrial in the packet, which was done with reluctance and has caused them
much grief. Demand projections are based on standard industrial classification codes regarding
various jobs. What is not known, of course, is whether those jobs will Aland= on commercial or
industrial land. Also, Bellingham--s zoning districts are not defined specifically to industry or
commerce. Considerable crossover is allowed in the city as well as the County. Retail is
currently the Abig= issue as to location and extent. She inquired if land should be Areserved-
for specific job markets. The City Council is still grappling with this question.
There is an existing relationship between zoned and developed land, which is a ratio of
1.82 of developed and vacant land. Another issue is how much of the County industrial land
supply will Bellingham absorb. Perhaps the 33% is too low. Some firms are locating in already
developed vacated property. Staff is not recommending including all acres that have been
requested for industrial development because of two reasons: five areas have been identified to
be evaluated in their supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)- -
Bakerview/Hannegan; area #3, west of Northwest; Northwest Avenue/I -5 area; and the extension
of Slater Road, which will be essential for additional industrial development in this corridor.
Looking at the present time for industrial zoning in area #3 is premature until an agreement takes
place on the timing of the extension and how resources can be combined to achieve this goal.
Area #4 is the final area, which is located north of the airport at the southwest corner of Slater
and I -5. Bellingham and Ferndale are discussing an area north of the area Bellingham analyzed,
which is in Ferndale UGA.
Finally, Decker discussed the city =s approach used for these zoning decisions. The
density would be UR mix. The city thought this would be more suitable for residential because
that doesn't require footprints -- clustering can occur and open space can be left. The approach
City Council used for these decisions was to take 25% of supply off for environmental
constraints and infrastructure and add a 50% market factor for industrial land. These
recommendations are consistent with adding the rezones recommended in the urban fringe.
Infrastructure requirements for industrial land are usually less land consumptive because large
parcels get developed industrially. For the SEIS areas, already 17 -33% of the land for
environmental constraints has been taken out. Mackie inquired if the industrial land includes
Port lands. Decker replied that this did not include the airport lands. Airport operations -
designated land, already owned by the airport operations, was not included in Bellingham =s land
supply.
Mackie asked a policy question regarding industrial land served by oversized roads, etc.,
and wondered if Bellingham is looking to keep this land in present nodes or look to fill up nodes
beyond the 20 -year horizon. Decker replied that Bellingham believes it can make better use of
the present industrial land even inside the city and also believes that some of those sites may not
be appropriate for some of the industrial development wishing to locate here. The city of
Bellingham is currently going through the Comp Plan process and experiencing some rezones to
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 7
industrial use inside the city around existing industries to expansion of those industries.
Brown was concerned that the County will be impacted by intensified land uses in the
city. No mineral resource lands were designated in the city. As a result, the County must then
designate resource lands to serve these industrial and building needs. All- weather roads need to
be built. He also spoke to the impact on County roads by the general population; e.g., a Sunday
drive.
Starkenburg asked committee to hear Dick Olsen from the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), as he is on time constraints. Olsen would speak on the timber situation along
Chuckanut Drive and Governor's Bay. Starkenburg inquired if this area has significant
commercial resources.
Dick Olsen, DNR, manages state lands in Whatcom and Skagit Counties. He stated there
is little significance from the point of commercial forestry in this area because the County
requested DNR enter into an exchange with Trillium Corp. in 1992, in which the state acquired a
number of parcels, some of which have been distributed to the city and County for park
purposes. He stated there is a small land base that is privately owned adjacent to Chuckanut
Drive and directly behind that is a significant holding dedicated to park purposes.
Starkenburg focused the discussion on Marine Drive; however, there was no discussion.
Toad Lake area was then discussed. Bob Tull, Attorney, 1616 Cornwall Avenue,
representing Elite Developments (the area around Toad Lake): This land is located in an area
designated as a five -year review area. The Council faces the dilemma that existing development
requires more than a five -year review element. The suburban enclave approach may be a good
solution. It cannot be just left out. It must be considered presently for UGA presentation
because the present culmination of residential land supply analysis is not going to address
Bellingham future residential development needs. When the need to accommodate 4,000 more
residences was recognized, Bellingham did not add to the land supply but changed the
methodology. Taking into account all constraints, recommendations and goals of growth
management, he cautioned Council to be careful about land supply. The methodology adopted
by the city of Bellingham produced the least number of predicted units. He urged Council be
wary when there is a last minute shift in methodology and expressed great concern about the
adequacy of land supply. He requested Council ensure existing urban development does not get
thrown out and also ensure these contiguous areas where Bellingham is growing are dealt with in
a manner than prevents them from going into five acre lots; e.g., when they would be better
preserved as part of the housing supply.
Mackie requested Tull clarify a specific map question and asked for the utility provider in
this area. Tull replied he thought it would be city sewer and water rather than district. There
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 8
was discussion regarding the traffic to Mt. Baker Highway and onto Bakerview. Decker stated
for the record there is no sewer service available in the area; water comes from Water District
#7, which buys water from the city. Also, the Geneva area was eliminated because of
methodology questions regarding residential land supply. Bellingham has added to the interim
UGA and were concerned that additional areas beyond that may be invalidated. Tull commented
that he did not mean to imply sewer and water was in this area currently. The potential was
there. It was his understanding that all the restraints must be removed to arrive at the market
factor.
Starkenburg then focused on the Sudden Valley area.
Brian Hanson, Water District #10's attorney, gave an overview of the district and its
planning function. It is a combined water and sewer district. The three main service areas are
Geneva, North Shore, and Sudden Valley. In April 1995, the Comp Plan amendment was
adopted to provide sewer service to Sudden Valley and the remainder of the south shore of Lake
Whatcom. The State Department Of Ecology (DOE) and Department Of Health (DOH)
approved the amendment last year. Recently, approval from the DOH was obtained for gallons
per residential use requirement to be lowered, which allows full development of Sudden Valley
with water service. The Geneva study area should be part of the urban growth boundary for the
city of Bellingham. The district, by settlement agreement in litigation with Summit View
( Denke) and Cedar Hills West plats, has agreed to provide sewer and water services if these plats
are allowed to develop under zoning and planning.
Mackie inquired if the 1995 Comp Plan was based on zoning currently considered by the
County or an increase or decrease in zoning. Hanson replied the Plan was built upon existing
zoning. During the Growth Management Act (GMA) review, most of the capacity relates to
existing platted lots that would be allowed to be developed through either a downzone or
incentive zone. There is no service area south of The Firs. The area between Sudden Valley and
Geneva does have hookups.
Brown asked that since Water District #10 is under court order to supply water to Cedar
Hills West and Summit View, if they must hold a certain number of hookups aside. Hanson
stated two different flow areas are within the district. One portion of the district is served by a
south shore interceptor (not yet built) or some other means. Denke and Cedar Hills West will be
going into an area of the interceptor that currently must pass the end of the line.
Margaret Curtis, Wilson Engineering, Water District #10's engineer, called attention to
the discrepancies in population projections, which can be summarized by three main points: the
County and city would like to depend on voluntary lot consolidations; a density count using
assessors maps parcel by parcel, identifying what can be developed even without further
subdivision; and a longer planning horizon is needed. The district is not limited with the
agreement with Bellingham on the sewage treatment contract. The city has stated it has
sufficient water rights to serve Geneva and the near north shore areas. Sutter inquired if
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 9
Geneva's inclusion or exclusion as an UGA would have an effect to put in the improved sewer
line to Sudden Valley. Curtis replied in the negative. This would still be within the district =s
service area. For clarification, Gibson asked if there are currently any provisions for storm
drainage detention or treatment in the Geneva area. Curtis replied that the storm drainage is a
County function and in Sudden Valley, it is its Community Association function, not Water
District #10. She further noted the district does not have a role in storm water management at
this time. A brief discussion followed regarding clarification of storm water and sewer.
Hanson commented he was requested by Gibson to clarify concurrency of the sewer in
Sudden Valley, stating there is a collector sewer system in place to every lot. The only issue is
getting sewage from Sudden Valley into town. The draft EIS has been issued, and the comment
period is open for another week on this issue.
Starkenburg opened the section regarding discussion of Geneva and Strawberry Point.
Connie Hoag, 2633 Halverstick Road, Lynden: She was unclear as to the timing of the
committee =s recommendation to Council and the public =s response time to those
recommendations.
Jack Swanson, representing the southeast corner of Smith and Guide Meridian: There are
three existing businesses. The Planning Commission recommended commercial zoning, which
seems to float in limbo because UGA is needed. The UGA adjacent to this small area is on the
other side of Smith Road. Nothing in the written materials supports the rezone. A UGA needs
to be found that corresponds to this area. He suggested pushing the UGA immediately north of
Smith Road across Smith Road or at least far enough to encompass these properties already
zoned commercial.
There was discussion on this issue with Starkenburg noting this is a concern. Mackie
recalled the similarity to the Sumas / Lynden subarea, noting it is almost an urban reserve area.
He inquired if this area presently has city services and spoke to the need for adequate fire flow
for any future development. One of the issues staff is examining along the Guide is dealing with
the existing development, as well as looking beyond 20 years. Another issue is that to the extent
this property is zoned commercial until it urbanizes, he asked what the impact would be on
businesses adversely affected by the expansion of commercial uses. Swanson stated his
understanding was that staff =s position was 600 feet deep from the Guide, which is the
recommendation that is currently on the table, which would encompass the existing buildings
and might permit some additional development at the rear of those sites.
Starkenburg reminded all that fire flow in the area was addressed last week with the fire
marshall. Swanson thought the Deer Creek Water Association is serving the area he was
discussing.
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 10
(Clerks Note: A lunch break was taken at 11:56 a.m.)
The meeting was reconvened at 1:05 p.m. with Council members Tom Brown, Kathy
Sutter, Marlene Dawson, and Alvin Starkenburg present. Starkenburg began at the Summit
View or Cedar Hills projects, as he thought further dialogue for information is needed regarding
the city =s point of view as to why these projects are not included vs will be included vs a five -
year area. He wondered if there was any correlation to the road under present controversy
regarding costs. Mackie stated he thought the city =s presentation today was complete regarding
its recommendations. Staff requested the city look specifically at this area. Mackie considered it
appropriate to hear from the representatives from Summit View and Cedar Hills in order to
provide any additional information.
Starkenburg first requested input from the city regarding the Samish and the Whatcom
Connector. Decker responded that the Yew /Samish Connector is west of Yew Street, which
takes traffic up Yew Street to the Samish interchange. The Lake Whatcom Connector is further
to the east. These could intertie. The Lake Whatcom Connector is not in Bellingham =s Capital
Facilities Plan.
Lee Denke, 601 North 4th Street, Mt. Vernon 98273 -2827, speaking for Summit View:
He stated that the connectors (Samish and Whatcom) are planned to intertie. He said one issue
not clear is that San Juan Boulevard, already completed as part of the Connector, is mainly in the
County. Depending on the amount of access the County gives to the Denkes, they are not
willing to construct it as an arterial for the benefit of others unless they are able to utilize it fully
as a street in the plat. The city maintains that they have a 1985 urban services area easement; the
reason they give for Cedar Hills West being in the city service area is because it is within their
service area; Summit View is not. Denke stated neither project is serviced directly by the city;
both are served directly by Water District #10, which then gives its sewage to the city for
treatment and takes its water from the city to supply its residents. Further, a new map was drawn
in 1989 when the Post Point sewage plant was upgraded, which placed Summit View inside the
city sewer service area. The 1985 map then needs to be updated.
Starkenburg asked Denke if they could still use their property by other road systems if
the Whatcom Connector is not built for a period of time. Denke stated yes, just not to full usage.
He further responded with information regarding the sewage treatment plant; the Lake Whatcom
Connector location; the water /sewer lease; the completion of San Juan Boulevard; and traffic
impact fees. Denke stated that the 1989 map is not a 50 -year projection, only to 2013.
Discussion followed among Denke, Decker and Council members regarding city growth other
than the Lake Whatcom Watershed; Geneva area water quality /drainage; the need for and ability
to handle additional land and adequate urban services; the above - mentioned court order
regarding Water District #10; and the planning of urban growth.
Starkenburg recapped some of the concerns of the city, the County, and Denke.
Mackie asked Denke about his development plans. Sutter clarified if Denke =s
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 11
development were approved at its current density, would it matter if Denke were or were not
included in a UGA. Denke replied in the negative. Denke stated either one is in a UGA or
downzoned to one unit per acre, which would not be acceptable to him.
Mackie asked if there were specific areas regarding Bellingham =s land needs analysis
that Denke disagrees with and if he had any further information. Denke said the sewer
moratorium would have an affect on the number of units that can be built. He also spoke to
upzoning. Mackie stated there is a moratorium as a result of the South Shore Interconnector.
This moratorium would be lifted when the plans for specific plan and facilities are implemented.
The planning is under way for utilities to that area.
Brown stated he understood Water District #10 said it had unlimited sewer capacity.
Mackie clarified that it has service to its present planned intensity. Brown stated that no matter
when the Denke development is approved, the district would have capacity for that. He
wondered if development were going to be held up somewhere else. If this were to be upzoned
to meet city standards, he asked if the sewer would be available to meet that option or if the
sewer would provide current zoning. Curtis stated that these two properties and the entire
western edge of Water District #10 does not flow to the South Shore Interceptor which is under
moratorium. There are no constraints to these developments. The district has assumed them at
241 lots based on their plat applications. If they were upzoned, the district would probably be
able to serve them under the current city contract for sewage treatment.
Denke stated that if Council upzones his property to the city, then the city can keep its
current growth boundaries where they are, but the housing needs of those not wishing to live in
an apartment will not be met. Regarding the question of whether Denke would be willing to
accept a non -UGA method for getting them through their plat, he could see no reason why they
cannot be put into the UGA.
Sutter asked Kurt Denke (Lee Denke =s son, 3030 -35th Avenue West, Seattle, 98199) if
there was a way to get approval for the Denke plat without bringing it into the UGA, would that
be acceptable. Kurt Denke stated Ano= because planning staff s position is that if they are
vested, they do not need to be in the UGA. There are many concerns, limitations, and arguments
that can be used against vesting. They are still in discussions with planning staff regarding
SEPA requirements, which will take some time. The project has not reached an approval stage.
The private opponents have a right to challenge the vesting, although that is unlikely. Also,
there is a non sequitur in the staff position; that is, if growth that is inconsistent with the GMA
goals is inevitable, then this property should be excluded from the urban growth perspective.
There is no way to proceed to plat approval within this GMA process. The city recommends
exclusion from the UGAs relying on previous County's exclusions and vice versa. The property
is suited for urban growth. The Denkes have not received a reasoned analysis from planning
staff. Sutter stated GMHB ruled 1.5 units per acre is not an urban density. Mackie clarified the
GMHB ruled four units per acre and up are urban. Left out from the GMHB are in- between
lands not suited for rural and not high density of four per acre.
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 12
Denke stated there is a definition of urban growth, which is anything inconsistent with
forestry, farming and mining. Four units per acre is not a definition but a standard by the
GMHB. The GMA states there should be a range of urban densities in urban areas. The
GMHB's standard of four units per acre will not likely hold up in court. The GMA does not
establish the Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections as a ceiling to the
size of UGAs.
Decker stated that they have not been using population projections as a ceiling. The city
is attempting to provide for growth and conform with GMA's direction to not develop land use
patterns that contribute to sprawl and not having impacts on natural resources. The Plan for the
sewage treatment plant was a 20 -year plan and did not assume all the areas are developed. If
they were developed, it would be two or three times the plant's capacity for 20 years.
Lee Denke stated if Council is concerned about GMHB =s thought of two units per acre,
the Central Board said two units per acre is urban, not rural.
Bob Tull stated that he represents Cedar Hills West and its owners. He clarified that he
agrees with both Denke and Mackie. Mackie asked for the density for Cedar Hills West, which
has 91 lots of 40 acres, according to Lee Denke.
Sutter requested Decker explain justification on the area south of the city limits as being
included in the UGA. Decker replied the County has not placed this area in a recommended
UGA. There was discussion on a discrepancy of Bellingham's intent to include that area as a
UGA. Knapp stated the County Planning Commission recommended that this area be included
in the UGA; however, the city did not agree. Starkenburg stated that there are still many gray
areas in this matter, and it bears further work for all involved. Lee Denke stated that he
approves this method of procedure. This ability to dialogue is the only way to resolve issues.
Kurt Denke stated Council needs to have Findings in its ordinance ensuring ample supply
of land available to be developed at urban densities in an effort to suppress sprawl. Let the
market - guided development work. If the private sector is allowed to build in an economically
configured way, sprawl will not happen. Sprawl is the result of land use planning.
Starkenburg directed the topic to Strawberry Point. This area is served by Water District
#10 and has sufficient service. Transportation may be lacking, however. Gibson stated that
another issue is fire suppression and law enforcement.
Bob Tull, on behalf of the Sudden Valley Community Association, stated that rapid
completion of the water district =s commitment is to provide water services. Bellingham did a
good analysis which addressed water quality issues. He was supportive of what the district is
trying to accomplish, as well as the city and County =s recommendations.
Starkenburg stated he supports Water District #10 and the Sudden Valley Association in
their attempts at improvement.
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 13
He then moved the topic to Cain Lake, which is on septic tanks. The issue is build -out
and also how they are serviced for water. He asked if there were any information on Water
District #12's future plans for that area.
Curtis stated Water District #12 is in the process of updating its sewer comp plan, which
is to be adopted February 7 and then submitted to the County for approval. They would serve
Glenhaven Lakes, if it is the community's desire. Sutter asked if Glenhaven Lakes has doubled
their allocations. Curtis stated that they have approximately 1,200 total platted lots, of which
40 -50% have been developed. The closest sewer connection is a campground. Water District
#12 has always considered they might be the purveyors of sewer for that area.
Nelson asked if the build -out were to go up would there be a certain number of residents
needed to do a sewer expansion to make it a viable option. If so, he wondered what that would
be. Curtis stated that would be to install a collection system from Glenhaven Lakes to Water
District #12, which currently sends its sewage to the Burlington treatment plant. The district is
preparing to purchase more capacity. Actual flows are below what the district owns. It is
balancing its actual flows vs commitments.
Mackie asked if the service contemplates anything east of the Glenhaven Lakes. Curtis
responded that they had not.
Gibson noted that Cain Lake Road West, page 16 and following, has 574.6 total acres
and 0% undivided. Cain Lake west is essentially a "done deal ". Cain Lake Road East has 1,209
acres - -921 acres subject to further division; 151 existing parcels; and 340 potential new lots.
These are the planning issues which would impact school, transportation, fire, and police.
Starkenburg asked if staff had considered a potential for transfer of development rights
(TDRs) if these other services cannot be put in place. Sjostrom stated staff wanted to show
Council the areas that have been highlighted for the rural incentive zones, as well as show what
was currently platted and the services available.
Brown stated there may be need to locate an elementary school in that area if the build -
out goes forward. There is a need for affordable housing in the County. Sjostrom stated the
topic of impact fees for further development in that area would have to be addressed.
Starkenburg would like to discourage affordable housing in this area and instead see
recreational permanent housing. Nelson stated that the County should refrain from using this
area for affordable housing, as it is subject to septic seepage. Also, a mechanism is needed to
deal with the already - platted lands. Many roads in the area are not up to standards.
Chet Lackey, attorney, addressed gravel pit #103 (handout on file). He noted the pit is
located at the south end of Lake Whatcom. Lackey pointed out the importance of focusing the
discussion on planning and MRL as a planning tool. The GMA does not prioritize forestry, ag,
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 14
and mineral lands. The theory is to protect these assets from urban sprawl. In passing the GMA,
CTED defined what criteria is used when designating MRL. This particular deposit meets a
significant number of criteria: a significant amount of gravel; above water table gravel; also, the
availability of utilities are provided. The road system is not perfect. The important factor of
MRL designation is a proximity to the urban areas. There is no gravel in south Bellingham.
Lackey discussed procedures for the permitting processes. He requested Council examine the pit
from a resource standpoint. The gravel pit contains quality gravel. Studies indicated fears of
water quality effects from gravel pits are exaggerated. Finally, he noted there is an established
gravel pit located within this gravel deposit, functioning as a preexisting non - conforming use.
There is an advantage to designating this area MRL. He recommended Council include the
property in question as an MRL.
Dawson asked if the surrounding area has neighbors. Lackey stated there is a gravel pit
nearby, and Lake Whatcom is across the road. Behind the property there are small and large
ownerships. The excavation goes straight back into the mountain.
Nelson had questions on the work that has been done at the pit and if there are other
locations in the area that are extracting gravel, to which Lackey replied in the negative. Sutter
clarified if it is not designated as an MRL it would work as it does now, but if designated as an
MRL, it would operate under more stringent regulations. Lackey responded that there is a higher
degree of control if it is designated as an MRL because the pit must have a DNR permit and the
pit owner =s application. Nelson asked if this is a pit with conditional uses. Lackey stated no, it
is a non - conforming permit. Also, the proposed policy 8P -4 on page 8 -26 is confusing, which
implies every pit would need a CUP. Starkenburg has heard several different interpretations of
that policy but is not in a position today to answer to that proposed policy.
Nelson requested clarification if Lackey is asking what is Council's interpretation or
whatever comes out applies equally to all sites. Lackey stated it is a mistake making these things
conditionally permitted. Conditions should be solved at a staff level. Uniform conditions for all
sites could be developed. Knapp stated that currently the process for expansion is a CUP one
which allows for differing conditions in different parts of the County. Lackey stated if currently
MRL, a permit to extract is not needed. A policy change would make a CUP necessary before
extracting.
Michael Waite, 3433 S. Bay Drive, Sedro Woolley, represented area homeowners who
are opposed to this pit in the area. He has evidence that Planning and Development Department
granted an expansion in error. He urged Council retain designation criteria giving homeowners a
voice and recourse against the inappropriate intrusion of commercial mining in the sensitive
watersheds, farming and residential areas. The information given Council by the pit owners and
the attorneys is incorrect. The figures of quantity of gravel available does not take into account
what has already been mined and the slope of the property. Also, there are discrepancies
regarding the gravel quality. Lastly, the Samish Concrete Northwest pit is closer in driving
distance via I -5 than the city of Bellingham.
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 15
Nelson asked Waite and Lackey how they came to the figure of availability and if it were
included in the MRL calculations. Lackey responded it was a gross calculation. Also, available
resources in Skagit County need to be identified. Waite stated that the amount of gravel allowed
to be extracted in the past year has not been sold. Sutter asked Waite if he is asking to not
designate as an MRL or shut down altogether. Waite stated the matter is before the Hearing
Examiner. He stated they are asking it be maintained as it was.
Starkenburg directed the topic to North Shore. Curtis noted the sewage intercepter was
constructed under a ULID, not a UGA. Nelson asked why the well site on the Agate Bay Lane is
not being used. Curtis responded there currently is a developer working on a developer
extension agreement with the district. The water rights situation is complex, and Curtis
explained it. Curtis reiterated the adequacy of the physical capacity to handle future
development.
Starkenburg noted committee will extend the hearing time by one -half hour. He then
directed the topic to Chuckanut, which has three areas: Chuckanut Drive, Chuckanut Bay and
Governor's Point. If the area is not sustainable for forestry or mineral, then maintain the current
use. Committee will discuss Chuckanut Drive first, next Chuckanut Bay, and then Governor's
Point.
Monte McIntyre, 585 Pleasant Bay: Many people use Chuckanut Drive for recreation.
Logging is too steep on Chuckanut Drive. Many road closures occur due to the weather. He
referred to Item B -4 regarding appropriate land uses and self - sufficient settlement infill and
stated Chuckanut Drive is not a self - sufficient settlement. If the road is closed, there is no access
to food or fuels, and he wondered why Item B -4 was included. He encouraged Council strike
that from the document. Also, there is a history of attempted development on Governor's Point.
The zoning is inappropriate. Map #17 regarding water service area identified Governor's Point
as a city service area, which it is not. Although it is zoned RR3, it is not characterized as urban
or rural but as a natural environment.
Sharon Schayes (sp ?), 599 Pleasant Bay Road: Governor's Point does not have sewer or
water. This is a rural area designed for parks. There is only one access road with landslides on
the roads.
Robert Tull, attorney, representing the Governor's Point Development Company: On
May 10, 1994, he submitted information regarding the Chuckanut area, to which he referred. He
requested Council review that material. He urged Council make all Chuckanut a UGA. In his
opinion, a suburban enclave approach will serve all the people on Chuckanut, as well as
Governor =s Point. Tull noted zoning was in place in 1975. He questioned the five -year review
on Governor's Point. Approximately 140 lots are proposed. Dawson asked if preliminary plat
approval had been done. Brown requested clarification of Aseptic =. Tull explained the systems
are on site community, not individual fields. Nelson asked about traffic concerns. Tull
explained County engineering will identify certain intersections requiring improvements. The
state park does impact the traffic. Nelson asked if the school district has communicated any
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 16
impact. Tull replied yes, under certain circumstances. Mackie asked if there is a pending plat
application. Tull stated it was submitted in 1992. Discussion followed between Mackie and Tull
regarding non - conforming issues.
(Clerks Note: A short break was taken)
Starkenburg asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding Lake Samish.
Larry Willman, 214 North Commercial: He questioned rural incentive areas.
Starkenburg suggested Willman meet with staff for dialogue.
The next meeting will be January 21 at 9 a.m.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
W1 ATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 1/16/97, Page 17