HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 30 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning & Development Committee
January 30, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in
the Planning and Development Services Library and Meeting Room, 5280 Northwest Drive.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: WORK
SESSION WITH FOCUS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL COVERING THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONES
URBAN GROWTH AREAS FOR:
Blaine, Birch Bay, Lynden, Nooksack, Everson, Sumas, Ferndale and Bellingham
URBAN GROWTH AREA SUBTOPICS:
Annexation Agreements
Ability to Serve Letters
Boundary Review Processes
Interlocal Agreements
Short -Term Boundaries
Regional and Municipal Transportation Planning
Joint Planning Processes
SPECIAL SITUATIONS - CHERRY POINT
Gateway Industrial Terminal Proposal
SPECIAL SITUATIONS - CUSTER
Major Industrial Intermodal Facility
SPECIAL SITUATION SUBTOPICS
Master Planning Process for Major Users
Contract Rezoning
Identification of an Area Having Unique Features
Environmental Review Processes
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 1
(LAND USE AND CAPITAL FACILITIES, A1396 -051F)
Staff Also 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
Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Council
Starkenburg stated the purpose of this work session is to review questions raised at the
work session on January 28, 1997. He asked Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, and
Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County Legal Council, to give a brief overview of these issues.
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Manager, stated the change in location for
today =s meeting was published.
Mackie clarified the agricultural protection zone, mandatory cluster and the requirements
for resource protection under the Growth Management Act (GMA). He reviewed background on
the Growth Management Hearings Board =s (GMHB) decision for agricultural protection zones,
which found R -5 zoning was inappropriate in areas with significance for agricultural uses. This
actually had an adverse affect on the availability of agricultural lands. Therefore, an agricultural
protection zone is a measure required from a specific ruling to assure the conservation of a
Acritical mass= for agricultural purposes. A solution is mandated by the GMHB, and the public
should be aware that alternatives may be presented at the Comprehensive Plan =s public hearing.
The County must be able to show that any measure to be adopted will have a reasonable degree
of success. The County may also choose to adopt the measure but appoint an agricultural
lands /residential rules task force to examine other alternatives. The issue must be addressed
specifically because until the County establishes a solid agricultural lands base, anything else
planned for the rural areas may all be criticized as having the potential for an adverse impact on
agricultural lands. The GMHB =s underlying assumption is that a voluntary protection program
is not enough - -it must be mandatory.
Starkenburg expressed his concerns over the amount of work that has gone into the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly because Council stands between a constituency that has given
their concerns to Council, as well as the GMHB =s requirements. For the benefit of committee,
he felt a clearer understanding of agricultural resource protection was needed and added that for
committee to give a recommendation to full Council to consider possible alternatives by such a
body as an agricultural lands /residential rules task force, previous court cases and their
determinations were needed.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 2
Sutter stated she would like to appeal to the property owners for their suggestions to
appropriate alternatives and suggested more than one alternative may be needed. Starkenburg
agreed and added that if the areas affected are to be zoned R -5 to R -20, then a clear mapping of
these areas is needed. Sutter thought notification should be given to the property owners
affected by imposing mandatory agricultural protection zones and offered to do this personally.
Some discussion ensued regarding contacting the property owners directly, and this issue
remained unresolved. Mackie clarified that if the property is not platted or if the property owner
can demonstrate the land is not suitable for significant commercial agriculture, the property can
be removed from the protection zone. Mackie agreed to provide a letter that specifically
describes the requirement for mandatory agricultural protection to committee on Tuesday.
Mackie said staff will explore the potential for bonuses that would not adversely affect
agriculture and which, instead of having to segregate parcels, may have to go through a short plat
process and facilitate discussions on wells and development regulations in the event of a
hardship claim. What will not be possible will be segregated R -5s, 600 feet at a time, through
prime agricultural. Sutter brought up the issue of subdividing the family farm, and Mackie
responded there is a mechanism in the agricultural protection zone to address this. Starkenburg
asked staff to narrow what decisions need to be made to include a mandatory agricultural
protection zone in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mackie began discussion of the Blaine Urban Growth Area (UGA) by presenting staff =s
recommendations to committee to be included in the Findings the staff believes full Council can
make. He will give, as pertinent, recommendations for short-term boundaries for undeveloped
areas where there is a risk of sprawl until coordination between city and County plans.
Starkenburg asked for further explanation of short-term boundaries for committee.
Mackie began an explanation of annexation agreements as the second issue to be
considered. He described annexation agreements as being very difficult to accomplish within an
urban boundary, since development typically occurs on non - tangential properties. He explained
that areas within an urban boundary want to be served by cities, and this is a cost - effective way
of handling services. He asserted that in the meantime to avoid a moratorium on development
and to accommodate new development, establish in conjunction with a development or building
permit that adds property, a subdivision or connection to utilities, the staff recommendation is to
sign a Power of Attorney to annex. Over time, these areas may be consolidated and then can
undergo a transfer of jurisdiction. Sutter asked if this would be considered Ano protest,= and
Mackie replied that within a local improvement district (LID), there is a waiver of protest. He
continued that for annexation an affirmative must be received by petition and a Power of
Attorney is enlisted to cast that decision, which is recorded on the title and also serves to inform
that power has been given to the city in exchange for the extension of municipal services and
utilities. This is a logical way to build blocks that can then be annexed; otherwise, development
without these curbs offers property owners urban services while the commercial and industrial
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 3
lands then annex, leaving the County with only the residential areas, which can over time have a
significant economic impact. This tool allows the County to develop an annexation agreement
with each of the cities to balance the scale. A statement is recommended for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan that until the annexation agreement is in place, there be no annexations.
Mackie interjected that the GMHB found a lack of analytical support for the areas
designated as the County =s interim urban growth boundaries (IUGAs). Now that the County =s
next step is to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, more information is available from the various
cities= Comprehensive Plans, which many included land needs analysis, and that none of these
plans were appealed by the state. Staff recommendation is that since the cities= Comprehensive
Plans were based on new and significant information and were not appealed by the state, the
County should view them as valid to be changed for good cause shown. However, the cities
used a 50% growth factor, which the GMHB and County cannot support, but many cities
underestimated land necessary for things like wetland buffers, density of build out, tourist
activity, etc., which reduces the growth factor to a more acceptable 25 -30 %. Staff will ask the
cities to revisit their land needs analyses before the public hearings and, by including these
additional factors, determine the reserve factor.
Mackie began discussion of Blaine =s proposed UGA, which includes an area on the
eastern boundary zoned R -10 that the Planning Commission recommended excluding. He
explained an area within the UGA must be characterized by growth. The western portion
includes existing vested projects (approximately 1,600 units), sewer /water, adequate public
services, and a resort. Development in this area tends to be higher priced development, and there
is no basis for the County to say it should not be urban and, in fact, serves significant tourism
activity and includes a residential retirement component for the community. There is an
underlying dispute regarding sewer and water but asked not to use the Comprehensive Plan to
resolve utility services. He specified that including this area within Blaine =s UGA is without
prejudice to the resolution of this issue and, when resolved, the County will reconsider this area.
For Birch Bay, the Boundary Review Board (BRB) is the appropriate vehicle to make the
decision to be a new city or whether it should be the city of Blaine. He concluded staff
recommendation is for no change to the city of Blaine =s proposed UGA.
Starkenburg asked if the BRB is in place to deal with any contested boundaries, and
Mackie responded that he was not sure if it was handled through the County Board of
Commissioners or a special division of the State Department of Health. Gibson thought there
were two options regarding that - -the Department of Health and under Title RCW 70 where it
runs through local premises. It is not important to the Comprehensive Plan who provides the
service, given that it takes place within an urban area.
Sutter asked who the current service provider is for the disputed area, and Mackie replied
water and power are provided by the city and the sewer by another entity. Sutter suggested that
if both areas will be included within a UGA boundary, the County should try to get a revenue -
sharing agreement. Mackie replied there is a process that they must undergo, which may set the
stage for the district and the city of Blaine to resolve their differences. A mechanism to appeal
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 4
any decisions will be based on the merits of the case without tipping the Comprehensive
Plan. The way staff are writing the Findings will draw no judgments toward either party in the
dispute. The boundary is independent of the Finding and once it is made, the County will revisit
the issue based on all factors. Mackie reminded committee that Birch Bay will be included
within an urban boundary, so the entire area will be included within an urban boundary. No
decision will be made as to jurisdiction.
Mackie continued by looking at the southern portion of Blaine =s proposed UGA. A point
communicated to the city manager was that any annexation will involve annexing Drayton
Harbor, which includes over the water boundary. Two vested projects, Harbor Lights (150 units)
and Loomis Trail (178 units and a golf course) currently running through the County are
included in this area and are served by urban services, including transportation. Since it is
clearly characterized by urban growth and does not serve or adversely affect any resource lands,
it should be included in the UGA. The UR4 near the athletic fields is east of a R10 area and is
characterized by extensive parcelization, including Boblett Street, Pipeline Road, Sweet Road
with a large school tract, and part of the Loomis Trail project. By including this area within the
UGA, the County =s agricultural resources are not adversely affected. The Planning Commission
recommended changing the UGA by drawing the boundary line at the city limit line. The city--s
wellfield is also in this vicinity. Recent discussion identified the city =s ability to annex non-
contiguous properties along wellfields. Staff recommended the city annex its wellfields and
discuss an aquifer protection area. Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Manager,
made the correction that the Planning Commission did recommend annexation of the city =s
wellfields and stated the map should reflect that. Mackie concurred that with the Planning
Commission =s recommendation it is the city wellfield, and staff suggested modifying the
boundary to include the city =s entire wellfield.
Gibson asked Mackie about agricultural resources in that area, and Mackie stated the area
has virtually no viable agricultural lands, but there may be some other resource uses in that area.
He then asked what would constitute inclusion in the UGA of a resource land. Mackie
responded it would be a non - conforming use, and the city could permit it or the resource activity
could continue on its current property. Staff recommends retaining the existing R -10 zoning but
curbed by a short-term boundary for this area with the agreement there should be a joint plan,
and the city should give consideration then to aquifer protection. Thus, the short-term boundary
would be moved by an act of a joint planning and zoning change, and then the annexation issues
would need to be resolved. Blaine =s city planner will provide staff with an updated land needs
analysis, which should further support the UGA. staff recommends no change here except for
good cause shown.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Director, noted the customs site in this area is
very difficult for the County to serve and should not be left out of the UGA. Mackie agreed that
the border should be included as a point of policy but stated it may be subject to an annexation
agreement. Gibson raised the issue that in terms of short-term boundaries, is it appropriate to
consider the largely undeveloped nature of the residential area north of H Street to Valley View,
recognizing that it has already been annexed. Mackie replied the short-term boundary only
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 5
applies to R -10 County lands and does not apply to the UR4 because the area is developed with
existing services. The city =s plan is for expansion from the center radius outward, and the joint
plan will address how both of these areas can grow in tandem.
Mackie began discussion of Birch Bay, describing it as the unincorporated area located
south of Blaine and north of Cherry Point. He cited a Whatcom County population projection
distribution (1995 OFM estimate) and Lummi Nation background document (April 1996) as his
source, which have different numbers from other sources he consulted. He directed staff to
publish and disseminate these numbers so that everyone works from the same numbers.
Continuing, he stated the area is characterized by urban growth with a significant new
development proposed between Birch Bay and Semiahmoo Parkway (Beacon Studios ) and
commercial /residential development occurring on the Point and all along Birch Bay Drive. He
reiterated the County essentially will act as a trustee until incorporation as a new city or
inclusion with the city of Blaine =s UGA.
Mackie urged committee to consider how to avoid urban sprawl inside Birch Bay and yet
create a viable urban area. He noted some choices to encourage the urbanization of this area:
For areas zoned UR6 (characterized by denser populations) with sewer, water, power and roads
available, the County should ensure preservation of the ability for developers to build out at
program density. For the UR4 zone, he noted that without setting a minimum density, a balance
of two to three units per acre is needed and suggested using such mechanisms as public utility
districts (PUDs) and density bonuses for developing larger lots so overall density is greater than
urban sprawl. He described the alternative of adopting a County zone which mirrors a Blaine
zone, noting that Blaine has a mixed use zoning profile that, considering the development
regulation process, may bear the most similarity to accomplish citification of this area. With this
alternative, it would be good to receive testimony from the public that addresses how to lay out
the potential new urban area.
Mackie cautioned committee that since there is no city entity implementing road plans for
the Birch Bay area, the County still needs to be on a responsive basis, although there are capital
facilities plans for sewer, water, and power. He noted a water district may not be able to project
growth trends and calculate whether it can serve the area in question 20 years from now and
added very few communities have been able to accurately plan services to accommodate growth.
Also, there are shorter term plans and additional facilities may be brought in, but for
accountability the County needs to receive the Ability to Serve Letters. He added that through
the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and the County =s development regulations, new
development in growth areas needs to provide adequate facilities for water, power, sewer, fire
suppression, and road safety. He stated the County needs to take into account that once an area
is developed and services are available, how does the County get these property owners to vote
to become a new city. Mackie continued that Gibson and he both agreed there is enough of a
policy base in growth management that says these UGAs must be within a city, and the County
can require a Power of Attorney in connection with any development permit that allows the
County to cast votes in blocks toward annexation or incorporation. He stated that while typically
a BRB would make the decision to allow for incorporation or annexation, the County should
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 6
encourage through the Comp Plan that the decision be made. By requiring the Power of
Attorney, the County will also not hinder new development.
Starkenburg stated this is another fairly large decision, noting that Birch Bay has been
pointing in the direction of an urban area. He asked that, as the Planning Commission did its
work and created this map from its work, did they have this thought in mind and constrain the
boundaries because they were struggling with the issue of whether to designate this area as
urban? If it was urban, would the lines have been adjusted appropriately? He suggested
response over time would be needed on these questions. Mackie responded that by looking at
the parcelization map, there are fairly intensive developed plats, but the area along Kickerville
Road was omitted. He pointed out areas that include agricultural activities, and noted the APZ
will allow larger parcels to be left behind as urbanization proceeds in these types of areas,
reminding committee that these large tracts will be necessary for such developments as schools.
Sjostrom commented another factor taken into consideration was Birch Bay =s Water /Sewer
District =s ability to serve the area. Mackie felt more consideration for this area is needed, saying
there may not be a logical basis for extending the boundaries to include the potential APZ;
however, its inclusion can also be viewed as an interim holding zone to the extent that it
becomes more appropriate to become an independent city or part of Blaine. Starkenburg agreed
this decision needs to be dealt with carefully and stated that committee does view the Birch Bay
area as urban and to impose short- and long -term boundaries that will help indicate future growth
is appropriate for this area. He requested committee keep in mind the need to create a balance
between designating urban and growth areas and allow for the protection of lands and resources
that will be approved by the GMHB.
Knapp showed Birch Bay =s UGA and noted the pattern of growth that occurred within
that boundary influenced the Planning Commission =s decision. Mackie stated that a number of
people have tried to contact him individually to discuss their properties, but he must clarify the
nature of his work is to provide counsel to Council and committee.
(Clerks Note: A ten - minute break was taken. Jeff Griffin, Planning & Development,
joined the session at this point.)
Knapp showed Birch Bay =s UGA and noted the pattern of growth that occurred within
that boundary influenced the Planning Board =s decision. Sutter asked about a request committee
received for inclusion of a 39 acre parcel in that area, and Batchelor clarified this as being the
Wayne Allen property, which was in a June 1996 recommendation from the Planning
Commission to include the property in the UGA. Sutter also brought up a submission from
Mr. Carmichael regarding the wording used by the Planning Commission. Mackie requested this
be included with other similar requests that staff has received that will be reviewed together.
Mackie introduced this portion of the meeting with a review of Lynden, Nooksack and
Sumas =s proposed UGAs. He reiterated that in order to manage the mass of information used in
putting together the Comprehensive Plan, staff will compile a notebook for each individual area
that will include that area =s Comprehensive Plan, land needs analysis and all of the factors that
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 7
were important in the decision making process for major determinations affecting that area.
Mackie stated the notebook will be useful during the public hearing process and subsequently
will be amended to reflect further decisions in the Comprehensive Plan process. Individual
copies of the notebook will not be available, but it may be reviewed at key locations throughout
the County.
Mackie said the recommendation for Lynden is fairly short, since the Comprehensive Plan
for the city of Lynden was adopted by the Planning Commission and was not appealed by the
state. He continued that staff recommends adoption of Lynden =s Comprehensive Plan and
proposed UGA without reason to make change. He noted the residential areas west of Flynn
Road and the residential areas to the east of the city would be appropriate for short-term
boundaries to ensure there are consistent plans in place that will prevent urban sprawl. Sjostrom
interjected that Lynden has a policy stating they do not provide any services or utilities to an area
until it is annexed, and annexation is not extended until a three -year residential land supply that
has been designated for development. Gibson responded the intent for Lynden is to include
areas that are currently within Lynden--s boundaries with areas under the County--s jurisdiction
to further an integrated planning process. Mackie defined this as a joint plan and stated the issue
of short-term boundaries may be fairly simple for Lynden. He recommended the County may
need to modify the URM zone in this area to make sure that sewer and water is available, plans
for annexation are consistent, and the Power of Attorney provision is in place.
Mackie stated there will be some amount of urban growth lands used for the expansion of
agricultural processing and related industries which will project into the APZs. He continued
that as the UGA expands into the heart of Lynden--s agricultural lands, there may be a loss of
approximately 10 %, but this is a necessary balance to allow both industry and agriculture to
continue to function.
Starkenburg asked Gibson and Batchelor about testimony given at a public hearing for the
Nooksack/Everson areas regarding the Benson Road. He noted for Lynden--s proposed UGA,
half of Benson Road to the west side was included and wanted to know if the Planning
Commission added this because he was under the impression this area was not to be included.
Gibson responded he recalled the debate was that Lynden wanted to take the boundary to the
Double Ditch Road and perhaps even to the Guide, and the boundary as currently drawn was a
matter of holding the line in that area and that the area between Benson and Double Ditch was a
subtraction from what Lynden wanted. Starkenburg noted the compromise would reduce the
boundary equal to about a 40 acre spread and expressed surprise the boundary extends to the east
as far as it does. He wondered what the Planning Commission =s basis was for its decision.
Mackie noted committee =s previous discussions on the Guide Meridian will certainly affect this
and posed a question as to whether the area should be considered urban or rural; i.e., residential
versus commercial. Sutter replied that as the Guide becomes more developed, it would be more
sensible for Lynden to expand to the northwest. Mackie restated that unless there is good cause
shown, staff recommends going with the adopted plan for the city of Lynden, which was not
contested by the Planning Commission. He recommended committee note that the County is in
the process of designating the Guide as a major corridor and Lynden may take this into
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 8
consideration for future planning. Sutter asked what their reason was for extending toward the
east, and Gibson responded there exists heavier parcelization in the eastern portion, the soil there
perks better, and there is currently a R/UR zoning. He explained the northwest corner is
characterized by larger parcels and active commercial dairy farms that have some problems with
drainage issues.
Starkenburg asked Mackie for clarification on a short-term boundary, marking the eastern
side of the map extending to the western side. Mackie responded he calls this the Flynn Road
extension. He explained that a short-term boundary does not preclude development on an
existing lot but does imply that one unit per acre is not platted out if four units are planned until
services are available. He cautioned committee to remember that Lynden has a strong policy on
extension of utilities, so staff is adding a note that the County supports Lynden =s annexation
utility policy that prevents development outside the city until development in the area is
intensified to warrant expansion.
Mackie began a review of the Nooksack UGA by amending the map in the materials
presented to committee. The property now included within the new line drawn has recently been
annexed to Nooksack and is already inside the city limits; to the south marks the Everson UGA.
Mackie stated the Planning Commission and the city of Nooksack recommended the 108 acre
property located on the east side of the city should be included in the UGA. However, the
Planning Commission recommended the area to the south be deleted from the UGB because of
flood and other development constraints. He added that removing this area from the UGB does
not preclude the city =s ability to make road improvements for connection with Oat Coles Road.
Staff =s recommendation is to notify the cities that their five -year review areas should be
considered for potential urban growth in due time but not to specify and mandate a process for
growth in these areas. He concluded staff supports the Planning Commission =s recommendation
for the Nooksack UGA, which appears to be supported by all work done.
Sutter asked about the city =s request for the eastern portion of the five -year study area to
be zoned light industrial. Sjostrom responded it is a small portion that has been requested for
light industrial zoning because it is important to the infrastructure and that it may have been
included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Nooksack. David Davidson, Municipal
Assistant (planning consultant for the cities of Everson, Nooksack and Sumas), was asked to
describe the area for committee, which he noted is primarily shoreline with wetlands and a
floodplain to the west.
Mackie responded that from the viewpoint of a logical service area, rather than having the
County issue building permits or provide sheriff service there, it would be better to block it from
the industrial lands; this measure does not affect the residential needs. He posed the question
that by squaring of the boundaries and bringing the balance of this portion in (minus the sensitive
lands), what will that do to the city =s overall urban boundary? Davidson noted that with its
present agricultural zoning, there already is a limit to development. He stated the city would like
to zone it for low density residential clustering, but the Planning Commission recommended that
if the area is all within residential, then there is too much room for growth. Sutter asked why not
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 9
have some of this area be designated with a short-term boundary and some a long -term boundary
instead of redesignating it as a five -year study area. Mackie responded this can be viewed
similarly to what staff recommends for Blaine in that the new area will be brought in (although it
is currently zoned agricultural), put a short-term boundary around it, include it in the city =s
UGA zoned R10, and then the County can work with the city over future uses. He continued this
measure preserves its present use and does not create density issues. Since it is surrounded by
cities on three and one -half sides, over time it has potential for inclusion in the city -s UGA.
This measure also allows the city to connect with its industrial core and gives the advantage of
requiring the city to take both the industrial and the low- density area associated with it, which
would support the County =s annexation policy. Davidson clarified the area in question is
included in the adopted Nooksack Plan, but the land needs analysis does not support its
inclusion, and Mackie responded this is the good cause shown why the County should agree to
designate this portion to be a study area. Sutter reminded committee the presence of wetlands
will preclude high density development there. Starkenburg agreed and requested Mackie to be
clear about the recommendation for including the area. Mackie responded the balance of the
area north of South Pass Road will be included for logical service areas and retained as R10 to
promote current uses until designated with a short-term boundary to permit appropriate joint
planning. Starkenburg asked if the piece on the upper northeast corner is mostly located in a
mineral area. Davidson replied it is not yet, but there has been a request from landowner
Brandorff to designate it a portion of the area as MRL. There is mineral resource (MR) located
in the area. The city of Nooksack had received prior testimony opposing the area proposed for
MRL. Sutter commented she understands that gravel mining is conducive to future development
in that the mining materials can go into the building of houses. She also mentioned GMA =s
directive to protect mineral resources. Mackie recommended the mineral resources could be
viewed as a transitional use but cautioned to be aware of the potential for conflict - -if housing
grows up around the mine, that would be considered incompatible uses. Starkenburg was
concerned there would be one portion of South Pass Road designated in Nooksack =s UGA while
an adjoining portion of the same road would be in Everson--s. Mackie replied the two cities have
agreed to this arrangement. Sutter asked if the small piece on the west side of Nooksack Road
was annexed, and Mackie asked staff to include in the notebook maps for Everson and Nooksack
showing this boundary.
Mackie began discussion by stating the Comprehensive Plan for the city of Everson was
adopted by the Planning Commission, but its lands needs analysis was based on a 50% growth
factor. Staff recalculated some areas using a 25% factor and made allowance using large scale
mapping for areas projected to build out at full density. For example, there was one area with
20 -30 houses, each of which would be retained, which does not make for a wholly efficient
block and grid and allowances may be made for subdivision at about one unit per acre. He
continued such an adjustment could affect certain areas, citing the property between Stickney
Island Road and the river where from a 35 -acre parcel only four to five acres may be useful for
development, with a portion already developed. So, instead of calculating 40 acres x 4 units per
acre, the property will only be able to provide a fraction of new housing. He identified the city
of Everson =s urban area as totaling about 570 acres and making those adjustments, the land
needs analysis comes within V 40 acres. Staff feels the range of accuracy is within 10% of a
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 10
fully compliant plan and therefore recommends no need for short-term boundaries. Sutter asked
if maintaining low residential densities will allow efficient extension of services to areas.
Mackie responded the city has agreed to extend some services to these areas and other services
may be extended as density increases. Sutter then asked about the anticipated density once the
area is included in the city =s UGA. She noted in Bellingham water has been extended to some
areas but not sewer service because it is cost prohibitive. Mackie replied this is not the only
consideration for an urban boundary with the pattern of development influencing whether these
areas do or do not want sewer, adding there are alternative options for connecting to the main
sewage pipeline. In the staff =s analysis, the city stated it is cost effective for this area to be
included within its UGA, and the County will need to show good cause to remove it. He
conceded the land needs analysis may support this area for a short-term boundary, perhaps
because the County will have a Comprehensive Plan policy that does not allow annexation until
an annexation agreement is in place, but the issue here is not one of providing utility service.
Starkenburg noted committee had received testimony about an area east to the South Pass
Road and asked if this property is slated for agricultural protection. He wanted to know if this
action is consistent with testimony received. Gibson replied the area is characterized by
flooding, and Sutter wanted clarification as to whether this area has been annexed by Nooksack.
Mackie replied a map will be provided at the next meeting that reflects the current boundaries.
Starkenburg wanted to clarify that staff did meet with the city and verified these boundaries,
noting an area at the southernmost point of the boundary on the east side of Mission Road that is
included in the UGA. He recalled testimony was received on this area and committee discussed
leaving this out of the UGA. Mackie replied the area in question is all built out and platted into
one to two acre lots, so Everson =s proposed UGA recognizes an existing development. From the
staff =s viewpoint, the proximity of the area makes it convenient for all services to be provided
by the city. Starkenburg expressed concern over some area along Mecklam Road that was left
out that he believed to have fairly high density development, adding testimony was received for
the area to be left out of Everson--s UGA. However, he felt this created a discrepancy by not
using the same criteria for both areas. Sutter agreed, saying the Mecklam Road area is platted
and has been built out all the way to Pole Road. Mackie replied staff will review the maps and
development pattern for that area for the February 11 meeting. Davidson interjected that the area
Starkenburg had indicated as being highly developed is actually just south of Bend Road, and
this is an old County gravel pit. Davidson added the area in question is further down. Mackie
responded there is a gap between this area and the city of Everson, and there are no plans to
extend sewer to this area. He did not recommend stretching Everson =s UGA to include this
area. Brown wanted the area stipulated for wellfield protection to be identified, and Starkenburg
showed a circled area to indicate the various sweeps for five- and ten -year zones of contribution
designating wellhead protection.
Mackie began the discussion of Sumas by stating he has asked the County to add to the
mapping areas that influence this area; i.e., Abbotsford and the Trans - Canadian Highway, the
Trans - Canadian Railroad that links to the Burlington - Northern Railroad (BNR). He added there
are state plans which connect this to SR9 and identifies this corridor as a link within a regional
transportation plan. He noted the GMA also stipulates that it is necessary to also look beyond
the County =s immediate borders. He continued describing by specific mention of areas included
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 11
in the UGA and stated staff recommendation as follows: An area in the northeast corner was
approved conditionally, requiring Sumas to show how the area properly fit within an UGA. The
area is a mix of floodplain and island, and Sumas has not justified its inclusion, so it is
appropriate to be removed at this time. The five -year review area within the proposal should
also be removed, and the city may review it sooner if it wishes, but the County should not make
it an obligation to review. This is also true for the area near the BNR. There needs to be further
justification for the property near SR9 and Front Street, which is adjacent to an existing mill and
processing plant, because if this area is zoned residential, there will be a high potential for
conflicting uses. Mackie reminded committee that under state regulations, noise impacts are
measured at the boundary of residential activity, which can define a buffer setback for industrial
zones of up to 1000 ft. Other factors that make this area appropriate for industrial development
include railroad access and surround of industrial uses that make for a logical service area; the
five -year review area to the west of SR9 should be removed. The Garfield Avenue area is
presently agricultural, but the north half is significantly impacted by wetlands and a floodplain
(there may even be a federal program to acquire a portion of this area), and there is a small
boundary area that runs along the railroad track with corresponding industrial uses. This area is
a triangle and logical service boundaries are annexed to the north end of Garfield. This area has
no additional residential potential but has significant industrial development and is a logical
extension, so staff agrees following the Planning Commission =s recommendation to remove the
areas south to Morgan Road the five -year review and the conditional area and include the
Garfield Road, the SR9, Front Street, and the smaller area to the south. Staff also recommends a
short-term boundary on Hovel Road (running at the city limits), which would impose an RI -5
until such time as the city has a plan in place which assures the area would not be subject to
sprawl. These other two areas are industrially zoned and do not pose the risk of sprawl, allowing
the city and County to undergo a phasing for development that avoids low- density sprawl.
Sutter asked if the Hovel Road is a sufficient residential area for Sumas, and Mackie
responded that Sumas has the ability to absorb its population within its urban boundaries. He
added one thing that affects this area is the tremendous growth from Canada, noting statistics
from the Office of Financial Management (OFM). He said the City may review this area again
at a time when the population or needs warrant such an action with the caution that some
agricultural lands may have to be converted for the city =s needs. He continued the County can
review this area again at a later time, but staff feels this is the best way to balance those different
needs for the Planning Commission. Starkenburg asked Davidson if the wetlands area in the
northwestern portion was not included by an oversight, and Davidson replied the wetland area
curves around the triangular wedge of industrial area to the north side and some areas that are
Federal lands. Brown asked if the wetlands would affect the industrial zone, and Mackie replied
that dust and emissions would not disturb agricultural uses, such as cranberry or blueberry
cultivation. He added extension into this area will include the public uses of the city =s wellfield
and that the city does not want to encourage residential and urban development around that area.
Mackie corrected information on the section of the handout for Ferndale actually contains
information that applies to Sumas. He explained the Sumas UGA stopped just short of the
railroad tracks and there is also a highway corridor there, and staff recommends as policy having
the city be responsible for the abutting highway. The intent is to include any physical facilities
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 12
in this area. The state will do a corridor study and may have obtained right -of -way for the
potential re- alignment of SR9 in this area. He recommended including this information in the
Comprehensive Plan to give forewarning of this potential action.
Sjostrom distributed information for review, including a letter from the city of Ferndale,
dated November 12, 1996 that describes recommendations from the Planning Commission in
June and October 1996. The Planning Commission approved residential properties along Vista
Drive in June 1996 but then removed this approval the following October. Mackie noted the
Planning Commission designated a five -year study area, but the city wants to include this area in
its UGA because there is physical development along Douglas Road and Mountain View Road
areas. (See Fig. 2 of the City of Ferndale letter packet. Note crosshatched area along the south
end of Ferndale) The most compelling argument for including this area in Ferndale =s UGA has
been from its process to complete the Capital Facilities Plan. Of the areas with existing sewer
lines, areas for extension, and needs for pump station and such facilities, the city =s plans say it is
more logical to serve this area first, as far as the new facilities to support the additional
development that is planned. This shows good cause to depart from the Planning Commission =s
recommendation, which did not have the benefit of that analysis. Therefore, since Ferndale =s
Comprehensive Plan has been approved and adopted and the County does not have any good
reason for change and also considering Ferndale =s land needs analysis supports such boundary,
staff recommendation is to accept Ferndale =s plan. Staff also recommends two short-term
boundaries: One for the city =s western portion and a second for the light industrial areas east of
I -5. In the city of Bellingham =s Plan, there is projection for growth north of 1 -5, but this is a
new idea, and short-term boundaries are recommended as an appropriate phasing plan.
Modifications to short-term boundaries can be made to individual physical areas within the
boundary in a phased plan approach. However, issues for joint planning include whether to
apply County or city standards regarding fire flow, etc. Staff recommends identifying standards
and criteria in the Plan before development is allowed to occur so that it is consistent with the
city =s.
Sutter asked if it was appropriate for the city to remove the Vista Drive area from the
UGA and thought that would result in strangely formed boundaries around the Grandview
industrial area. Mackie recommended developing an annexation agreement with Ferndale so the
city does not annex all the high -value properties leaving the County with low -value properties.
Sutter asked if, instead of designating it a five -year study area, perhaps it would be better as a
short-term boundary to keep the connections to the UGA from the city limits out to the
Grandview area. Mackie replied the entire area could be zoned R10 until such time as a joint
plan is in put into effect and the area essentially becomes an urban reserve; an R10 designation
also puts it within the rounding error on the land needs analysis. He noted that these areas are
probably larger than needed, but the justification for R10 zoning with a short-term boundary
(urban reserve) is an intention to focus on the area for long term planning. Starkenburg asked for
clarification on the location, and Sjostrom stated the two areas of discussion were colored in pink
in Figure 1 of the letter packet from the city of Ferndale. He asked what factors determined
taking the area to the east (containing Grandview Business Park) versus the one to the west.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 13
Mackie responded his understanding was the city has utilities already in place for the west but
not necessarily for the eastern area; however, Ferndale should be contacted for more
information. It is presently at R5, but the County might mandate clustering at urban lot sizes so
that when it does come into the city it is not built out at five -acre tracts. Sutter mentioned it
might then be shadow platted. Sjostrom stated the city of Ferndale =s letter described its analysis
given for these areas and reasons for including the UGA boundaries. Starkenburg asked why not
adopt the boundary to the west if the services are there, and Mackie replied there is a completed
analysis of land needs for the eastern area, whereas the western area requires a more thorough
analysis be completed. He recommended imposing a short-term boundary around the western
area until such an analysis is completed. Starkenburg received committee approval to allow the
city of Ferndale =s request to include the eastern area within its UGA. Mackie stated staff will
bring back an alternative means and analysis for retaining this area, noting that the city--s needs
analysis should also be reviewed for compliance with critical areas regulations vs its market
factor. The city may have used a 50% growth factor but some proposed actions in its
Comprehensive Plan would reduce that number significantly, so staff recommends adoption of
its Plan on the condition of the city =s ability to justify the 50% factor.
Sutter asked the impact of the city =s proposal for an area between north of Ulrich Road
and east of Imhof Road. Sjostrom replied the area is between a proposed city shopping center;
Mackie added this area may be appropriate to square off the boundary because this area is
characterized by floodplains and wetlands. He continued that from a service point of view, the
County does not want to create islands and agreed with Sutter--s suggestion that the wetland area
could be made into a park, noting the area goes into the city -s open space calculations. Gibson
said if there is current agricultural activity in an area, the County does not want to compromise
that use. Sutter questioned why the city is proposing a shopping area. She asked if a small
triangular area south of Slater Road with adjacent property designated for a five -year study area
would be more appropriate for inclusion in Ferndale =s proposal for an industrial zoning.
Sjostrom replied by reading from the city--s letter: ASlater Road: Approximately 70 acres of land
south of Slater Road, west of I -5 and east of the Burlington Northern Railroad was included in
the city =s proposed UGA ... Ferndale requests that this area be included as a portion of the city =s
UGA at this time.= The city has identified this area as suitable for industrial and commercial
land uses. The rationale for this request is that the land is located immediately adjacent to
existing city boundaries, is in close proximity to the BNR (both water and sewer are located on
the north side of Slater Road), and it can be serviced. Sutter asked why the Planning
Commission recommended it as a five -year study area instead of part of the UGA. She
identified in the North Bellingham/east Ferndale five -year study area two small properties, one
south and one north of Smith Road that are included in the UGA and that look out of place.
Mackie replied staff recommends the property on the north side is inside the area they have
identified as the North Bellingham suburban enclave. He continued it is heavily platted but not
likely to redevelop and is not contiguous to the city, so the staff recommends removing it. He
clarified the five -year study area designation will change to a suburban enclave zoning. Mackie
felt more information and testimony was needed to determine why the property south of Smith
Road was not included in the UGA since it immediately abuts the city limits and does square off
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 14
the city. He noted this becomes an annexation issue, but the area should be part of the city.
Batchelor noted the area north of Smith Road is zoned UR and platted at that density but that it
already has services from Ferndale. Mackie replied that it would not affect Ferndale =s ability to
serve, but the implications of carrying the urban boundary across this northern portion would
preserve the continuity of the North Bellingham enclave. By annexing this area, the question
arises as to what is the rest of the annexation boundary into North Bellingham. Someone
brought in a very good aerial photo that will be included in the record that shows distinct
parcelization and supports the conclusion that it is not likely to redevelop. Ferndale is not
planning extension of sewer /water nor an upgrade in density, so it seems best designated as a
suburban enclave, zoning it for what is there. Gibson requested committee bear in mind that
when this fine degree of platting is approached, law enforcement concerns and other service
issues must be addressed.
Sutter asked about the rationale for removing a small portion on the eastern boundary of
Ferndale =s UGA east of Smith Road. Batchelor replied the area is an old gravel pit and has long
been included in the all Comprehensive Plan iterations for a recreation/open space designation.
Sutter asked if this is a logical boundary in all considerations or should it be squared off
somehow; Mackie replied the County probably does not want to cut an existing subdivision in
half but was not certain whether there is existing development on this property. He promised
further information at the next meeting. Sutter asked if committee could at some point give
special consideration to the Bellingham/Ferndale area, and Mackie noted this for further study.
(Clerks Note: A lunch break was taken.)
Starkenburg summarized the morning session concluding with a review of Ferndale and
gave staff the choice to address any outstanding issues regarding Ferndale and North Bellingham
now or at the next meeting. Mackie commented he would like to bring a larger scale map to the
next meeting that better shows the areas in question.
Discussion began on the city of Bellingham--s proposed UGA with Sjostrom distributing a
supplement (on file). Mackie stated Bellingham has an adopted Plan and, although some
portions were called into question, the Plan was not appealed by the state. Bellingham is in the
process of proposing a series of map amendments, which will be distributed at the next meeting.
Bellingham is also taking a second look at its needs analysis to ensure that it fits with the current
Plan, so committee should consider whether the land needs analysis supports that and whether
there has been good cause provided to make a change.
He continued by stating the first issue with Bellingham includes the Industrial Needs
Analysis. Staff has a new analysis, compiled by Greg Easton of Property Counselors and
published in January 1997, which reviews the old reports and their assumptions and then makes
a detailed study in conjunction with work being done by the County =s Economic Development
Council (EDC). Mackie recommended the County adopt the study for the planning base of
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 15
information. The staff will send this to the city for comments. This study includes support for
Bellingham =s case for propriety of the industrial lands, which was a question raised in earlier
GMHB cases.
He described the second issue encountered raises the point that Bellingham has two
unique features- -the Port of Bellingham, operating the Fairhaven Multimodal Center, and the
Bellingham International Airport. In view of this, he asked how the County designates the
planning horizon. Staff recommends Bellingham include enough area to service the ports and
justifiably provide for an airport zone that will be necessary in the foreseeable future, even
beyond the next 20 years. If a new development is wanted, a growth boundary is moved, but to
accommodate new or expanded ports, an extensive siting criteria must be undergone. Mackie
suggested staff solicit comment from both the city and the ports for their input on this issue as
well.
Knapp commented it does not make sense to retain the designated R5A residential zone
under the current flight path. Mackie replied the County should establish an airport protection
zone that allows the residential area to remain for the present but designates this area for future
airport and other non - conflicting uses, which tend to be light industrial -- limited to activities that
enable the growth and use of the ports. He added the County should review the Airport
Commission =s Master Plan required under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that
projects take -offs and landings; however, this is an appropriate area for further inquiry. Knapp
interjected the danger of leaving this area in its present R5A zoning may be that some tracts will
be bought out for residential uses. Mackie recommended looking more closely at Bellingham-7s
UGA five -year review areas #3 and #4 using enlarged maps and asked for a comparison of the
Findings from the Planning Commission, the city of Bellingham, and the Airport Commission
for the entire airport area. Recommendations made by these entities must then be synthesized
and reviewed for public comment before Council can make a final decision.
Sutter mentioned another area east of five -year review area #3 between Northwest and
Aldrich Road, north of Thomas and south of Slater (Bear Creek) that has extensive testimony
requesting light industrial zoning and requested information on zoning and other items as
proposed in the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. Batchelor replied the Bellingham City Council is
scheduled to make a final decision for this area on February 10 and, in the meantime, there is a
staff report dated November 19, 1996.
Mackie recommended removing the five -year review areas from the Comprehensive Plan
and clarified for committee the five -year review areas are outside the UGA; the short-term
boundaries are inside the UGA. Therefore, the staff recommendation is to have the cities re-
examine these areas in the event of significant growth but remove the requirement for a five -year
review process.
Mackie identified areas in the Urban Fringe Subarea (see handout for Bellingham, page 2,
fold out map, on file) 1 -4 as not having adequate water and some without sewer; however, area 5
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 16
has full services. He recommended these areas be designated with a short-term boundary (zoned
R5) until such time as the city has its full urban service plan completed. This information was
taken from the Subarea Plan EIS, Section 4.4.7 - -Water Service and subsequent section on Sewer
Service. Sjostrom added a caveat is to consider these areas are currently served by Deer Creek
Water Association but service will not be able to continue with expanded growth. Mackie added
the County should try to hold off development of these areas until a better service capability
becomes available for these areas, but the short-term boundary also needs to be extended before
an area can be built out at a density.
Mackie addressed the significant issue for Bellingham regarding the extension of services
and the timing of annexation. He gave an expression of a policy that will be recommended for
the Comprehensive Plan that says the properties inside urban boundaries are urban and are best
served by cities; a mechanism is needed to make certain the properties ultimately do annex.
AThe objective can best be accomplished by the requirement that all
development permits within the UGA, whether it is a short plat or binding
site plan or building permit that adds new facilities, sign a Power of
Attorney with the County for annexation.-
Mackie continued this allows the County to provide a logical step process to achieve annexation
without stopping new development that helps to accomplish the County =s or city =s urban
objectives. If the city is going to annex, this measure allows the city to block properties to be
included in the city, which can then cast votes in blocks for annexation. Regarding an
annexation policy, the Comprehensive Plan should state that until the annexation agreement is in
place, annexation will not be effective in these areas.
Sutter asked if special districts should be addressed at the time of annexation or whether
this should take place in advance in the form of an interlocal agreement for annexation. Mackie
responded there may be different answers to that question, depending on the city. Sutter asked
specifically about Bellingham, and he responded this measure will effectively state Ait is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to annex until such time as an agreement has been
reached with [the city].= The annexation agreement with the city of Bellingham may require a
more global approach than just [the city] and needs to deal with impacts on special service
districts. By putting it in the Comprehensive Plan, the BRB cannot approve the annexation
because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Sutter then asked what kind of assurances can be given to these special districts (such as
water, fire, sewer, and schools) regarding our Comprehensive Plan that their concerns will be
taken care of. Mackie replied the County must first be satisfied with the annexation agreement
before annexation can take place. Sutter asked if a provision could be included in the
Comprehensive Plan that states as part of the annexation agreement the special districts must be
a part of that process. Starkenburg interjected Sutter--s perspective is before the annexation, and
he felt the discussion should be focused on planning the UGA. He added that through the
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 17
Comprehensive Planning process, the special districts will be trying to plan for what is needed in
the future, and there is already a need for an interlocal agreement to devise some capital
improvements to identify where they can combine efforts or whether a city has anticipated
growth adequately to protect against abandonment of services in an annexed area. Starkenburg
agreed with Sutter and felt this issue needs to be considered early in the process to provide a
benchmark for future planning. Knapp responded this may already exist in the County -Wide
Planning Policies (CWPP). Mackie cautioned committee not to write this policy so strictly that
annexation cannot occur until total consensus is needed among all entities and to retain the
power to say when each entity has performed work to an adequate measure. The annexation
agreement should include an interlocal agreement that fully explains the delineation of services
and authorization for these areas and the County. Starkenburg turned this subject back to Gibson
to make further determinations for policy recommendations.
Mackie noted that with a certain level of growth in the County, the fire district standards
may require building a new fire station or other facility, but after annexation they are faced with
the issue of whether to abandon these facilities or have the city take them over. In the
Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends putting a placeholder for inclusion of policy on
interlocal agreements, but the solutions provided by the interlocal agreements are not appropriate
to enumerate here.
Mackie mentioned he heard on the radio the Public Works Director for the city of
Bellingham was saying the city does not want the corridor in Summit View (handout on file).
He heard over the radio the city determined the estimated cost to complete the transportation
corridor was $25 mill (reported figure), and this type of funding is not available in either the
city =s nor the County =s capital facilities plans. Mackie =s understanding of the situation is that,
even if the funding was available, the city felt it has greater priorities. While this corridor is both
in the city and the County, the city is backing away from responsibility for improvements, and he
thought the Comprehensive Plan may have language on a Acut -ofL of services. Mackie felt it is
most appropriate for the County and the city to receive a recommendation from the Whatcom
County Council of Governments (COG) on the regional implications of overall traffic dispersal
if the road is deleted. Knapp commented that Patricia Decker, city of Bellingham, said at a
meeting of January 29 that the city =s priorities were to focus on any infrastructure funding
related to arterials in areas where the greatest economic development could occur. Mackie
reminded committee growth in the Geneva /Summit View /Sudden Valley areas are posing a
transportation problem, and if the connector road is deleted, will there be adequate road network
to handle the expected traffic for that area? Sutter replied that the City Public Works
recommends against building the connector because whether it is constructed or not, an adequate
transportation infrastructure will not be available. Mackie concluded the staff recommendation
is not to delete the road but consult RTPO /MPO and report on how to resolve these
transportation issues impacted by growth and requiring joint planning. Starkenburg thought the
County also should have staff review the area that would be served by this corridor to determine
the potential for expansion to the road in time. He would like to know more about the
topography, land ownership, indication of willingness to develop, etc, and stated this information
needs to be used as a tool to justify spending a great deal on a new connector.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 18
(Clerks Note: Clerk left the meeting due to illness. Clerking was then undertaken by
staff from the Planning Division)
Mackie recommended two alternatives for the Summit View area: Remain zoned R2,
allowing the vested development to continue at low density (one unit per acre) regarding the
proposed corridor; and zone the area UR4 (urban reserve), maintaining the urban boundary and
zoning to accommodate the existing corridor. The owners of the Summit View property can
then make a choice to proceed with the rest of the plat or consider the corridor analysis, which
may warrant Bellingham to review its urban boundary. The UR4 zoning would also help to
support the financing needed to improve the corridor if the area becomes part of Bellingham-7s
urban boundary. This short-term boundary may be imposed outside the UGA with the additional
condition that the area cannot be built out at four units per acre until inclusion in the UGA and
consideration has been given to WCCOG—s recommendation for the corridor. Starkenburg felt
this will be a difficult choice due to the fairly narrow request made by the owner of the Summit
View property. Mackie clarified that if this property were included in the UGA, it may
effectively preempt the decision on the corridor. Knapp mentioned the decision about the
connector needs to give consideration to continued growth in the Lake Whatcom communities.
Starkenburg stated he would like a substantiated estimate for construction of the connector and
instructed committee to withhold judgment pending a response from the WCCOG and verifiable
information. Brown said he has received a few requests to consider an alternate route for a
bridge across Lake Whatcom with sewer tied to the bridge and connecting to the Dover Beach
area.
Mackie continued that the County recommends adoption of the city of Bellingham =s
proposed UGA; however, some additional work needs to be done regarding its land needs
analysis. The area north of the airport is an area that staff questions as a logical service area.
Sutter asked if the city, in choosing its UGA, is maintaining the same proportional balance of
industrial to commercial to residential as it has now, and Mackie responded he could not answer
that question. Sutter pursued her concern of clarifying whether the city is trying to increase
industrial land per capita as opposed to residential land per capita. Starkenburg responded that
issue be given a broader approach and questioned whether this would have been included in
Bellingham =s land needs analysis. Mackie brought up there may be areas in the UGA that
should
be UR6 rather than UR4. He noted a lack of mixed -use zoning, such as the UR8 -12,
characterized by townhouses, apartments and some single families, which gives a more urban
flavor. He concluded there may be areas in the UGA to maintain a compact efficient level of
service that would warrant higher densities.
Starkenburg explained that Bellingham is a more complex study, and the city is just now
moving its boundaries to a final form. Committee has just received much of this information and
will try to remain open regarding recommendations until final committee action. Mackie stated
staff will provide for a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission =s recommendation,
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 19
the latest city of Bellingham =s proposal - -the latter of which is subject to discussion - -and further
review by full Council. Starkenburg noted the city of Bellingham will make its final proposal on
February 10.
Brown commented that during Patricia Deckers presentation for the city of Bellingham,
she had mentioned that the city wanted control over the County lands in the watershed area.
Mackie clarified that she had said the city is ready to take responsibility for watershed areas in
Geneva, and committee should explore through joint planning and interlocal agreements a
method of defining responsibilities for expansion of services into UGAs, sewer, water,
stormwater, etc. He commented the joint planning process has often resulted in counties
adopting Amirror= city zoning in the UGA. In this instance, the city will develop extraterritorial
planning which projects its plans for the UGA, and then the County adopts either the closest
zone or the city zone as part of the County zoning within the UGA. Joint service plans define
the County =s and city =s jurisdiction regarding standards, regulations, policies, etc. He
concluded the groundwork for setting up joint planning and interlocal agreements are included in
the Comprehensive Plan. Gibson noted the interlocal agreement is one piece of the joint
planning process between Bellingham and the County, but the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan is the
major piece in the process. Starkenburg commented there was quite a bit of discussion at the
interlocal meetings regarding whose development standards will apply, and this issue could be at
a decision point, but this would inundate the County Engineering Department with a workload.
He continued the interlocal agreement discussions to date have indicated County standards
would apply until annexation, at which time it would be further addressed. He stated further this
is an important issue that needs resolution and directed committee to give consideration to
whether the interlocal agreement should state Awhatever UGB the area is in, the regulations and
standards apply for that city A.
Beginning discussion on Special Situations, Cherry Point, Sjostrom distributed a report,
(on file) noting all Council members received a copy yesterday. Also distributed was a packet
from Mackie, Whatcom County Proposed Urban Growth Areas, with Map #9 showing the
Cherry Point UGA (on file), as was another handout, Special Situations: Cherry Point and Custer
(on file).
Mackie explained the reason these are called special situations is because these are urban
areas not associated with cities. At Cherry Point, there is industry of a certain scale, but because
of the existing unique facilities and the need for large parcels and the potential for impact to
surrounding areas, it is really not appropriate for location inside a city. He noted there is not the
land parcelization, 24 hour plant operations, and noise levels that could not comply with the state
standards if located near a residential area. Therefore, there are huge constraints on surrounding
an industrial site with residential uses and other types of urban development. Staff has asked for
justification of UGB around Cherry Point, identification of the unique features that warrant its
current location and the steps needed to preserve that location.
Mackie continued committee has received a good map (dated 12/96) of the Cherry Point
industrial area, and supportive testimony was received regarding the boundaries. Reviewing the
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 20
map, Mackie described the boundary as leading from the south end, characterized by the Tosco
Refinery, whose ownership extends to Slater Road (a logical south boundary), and to Lake
Terrell Road (a logical eastern boundary). These boundaries are not projecting growth beyond
the existing impact. In view of land consumed for industrial use, Tosco has a designated buffer
located far from other development, which allows 24 -hour operations and generation of
industrial noise without impact to neighbors. The Northwest Air Pollution Authority is the
regulatory agency that monitors air pollution emissions and shifts in dispersion of the plume
from industrial smokestacks. By having large areas to deal with, it enables Tosco to remain in
compliance with the clean air standards.
The boundary for the Intalco Aluminum Corporation =s industrial site follows Lake Terrell
Road and Rainbow Drive and provides both a logical boundary and physical buffer at the Lake
Terrell game range regarding the intensive activity at this site. To the north of the Cherry Point
UGA is the Arco Oil Refinery industrial site, which may run to either the railroad spur or to the
road (needs to be confirmed). Bob Tull of Langabeer, Tull and Collier, P.S. and representing the
Cherry Point Industrial Park, clarified that Arco =s ownership is interspersed with small owners.
Mackie replied the large parcel is under Arco =s ownership. He continued the Arco industrial
boundary then extends to the north where it comes to Terrell Creek and the interspersion of large
ownerships to the west. Arco, Intalco and Tosco have submitted proposals for two additional
docks that are presently vested pending environmental and other permitting reviews. The natural
feature here rates both with Seattle and Tacoma as facilities for deep water ports (dock area
water depth is upwards of 80 ft) and is actually better able to handle larger ships, is closer, and
does not require ships to go into Puget Sound. The intervening area has some wetland and
critical areas, and committee has discussed developing adequate critical area protection in
connection with the proposal. He noted the Easton report gives an outstanding analysis of why it
is critical to preserve large quantities of land regarding land available at this site, and there are
few other places in the state that have the distinction of being able to provide a port service area
which specifically relates to both port and rail activities. The County should also protect large
parcelization and avoid subdividing this area into small parcels. Staff recommends before
subdivision of any of these large parcels a master plan must be provided to identify, in order, a
principal user, the subdivision that accommodates the user, and all accessory and support
services. This measure preserves the unique uses of this area; i.e., a bulk port facility, a
manufacturing and transportation facility, and through covenant /easement devices may enable
residential uses that assure industrial standards prevail. This area will remain under the
County =s jurisdiction because the agricultural protection zone to the east will assure a low
intensity of development. The plan for this area should focus on infilling between developed
areas to the north and south. This area has the ability to provide water service, and there are
good road extensions. These large industrial sites are often required to manage their own
wastewater and precludes an immediate need for the County to construct a sewage treatment
plant. Staff recommends the County respond to the particular need for the area and be certain
that adequate water /sewer is available before a development permit is issued. Water access is
another consideration with different industrial uses requiring different demands for water access.
The PUD has given the County an assurance they can provide the needs for serving this
industrial complex.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 21
Mackie noted Tom Anderson of the PUD has the ability to provide potable water, and
Donovan Kehrer clarified the PUD provides potable water to Arco by contract with the Birch
Bay Sewer/Water District. The PUD has a small well that provides water to some parcels in that
area. Mackie noted a trend away from the private water purveyor business and often turns it
over to a centralized purveyor, which is more efficient.
Mackie concluded his comments on the Cherry Point UGA as an area characterized by
urban growth. This UGA has been a long- standing plan of the County. He wanted staff and
committee to note there is a recently submitted grant application by the WCCOG for studying
the feasibility of a large east -west rail corridor that connects the Sumas via Custer to Cherry
Point, which creates both a competitive rail option and an alternative rail system. He directed
staff to identify the proposed rail corridor in the transportation section of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Sutter asked if the noise generated by the Cherry Point complex would impact the
proposed UGA of Birch Bay and which would take precedence. Mackie responded the
residential zone has precedence but mitigations such as warehouse, screening, buffers and
passive uses can protect the residential areas from noise. He restated the development
regulations may identify appropriate areas that could provide a buffer. Sutter then asked how
many acres of large industrial land would be removed, and Mackie responded uses that emit
noise, dust, etc., could be located on small acreage or near a residential area if is fully self -
contained. He clarified the land will not be taken out of productive use but some limitations may
be set in certain areas.
Starkenburg asked about the proposed infilling. Mackie clarified a large parcel of
approximately 1,000 acres was the proposed second dock as described above. Sjostrom showed
this proposed site, referencing the Gateway Pacific Terminal Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (pg. 115). Tull stated there is a pending application for a second dock and noted the
first dock has cleared some of the administrative review; it has not been determined whether
both docks will be accepted. He further stated that Cherry Point Industrial Park has proposed the
dock as depicted in the EIS noted above; the second proposed dock would be located further
south toward Intalco and would extend further to access greater water depth. Tull said that both
his client and the other developer will ensure that if only one first dock is approved, access will
be granted for multiple users. Mackie noted that the proposal actually calls for a small belt line
rail, which is needed to accommodate a large shipping port, and that large acreages are then
needed for storage (designating the area a foreign trade zone with a value -added tax). The
shipping containers would then be placed on the rail for transport across the states. He thought
this site is perfect for such a use because it is essentially passive storage; however, this type of
use requires a great deal of land that is quickly used to capacity. He added that Tacoma--s
shipping port was so successful because Seattle =s port became filled to capacity. Mackie
continued explanation of such use by stating that the shipped transfer of goods also created a
need for a sub - assembly zone for light assembly and repair of damages to goods occurring in the
shipping process. He recommended this requirement for sub - zoning be addressed in the Master
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 22
Plan by identifying the major manufacturing activity and sub -uses resulting from the
transshipments.
Brown said that during proceedings some weeks ago, discussion of this parcel included a
reference to an area on the outside boundary that had a light industrial activity that could serve as
a buffer, and he wanted to know if it could be put back in. Mackie replied this area is
recommended for transition to an agricultural protection zone, so that if development occurs on a
100 acre parcel, an 80 acre parcel would be left behind. If there is the potential for development,
then clustering the parcels along the eastern edge would preserve the agricultural lands and allow
for increase of the light industrial capacity.
Mackie referred to a series of policies for this area (page 2 of Special Situations: Cherry
Point, on file) because it is a special situation like the agricultural protection policies. The
policies are intended to provide more guidance for the development regulations and identify how
to preserve the unique features of this area. He asked committee to move these policies forward
to the public hearing to solicit public comment. There are four requirements, including the
master planning of each policy; designating a site plan for major users before development of
accessory uses; requiring support activities to be located only after the completion of a Master
Plan; and identifying a site plan and approval for major user. In addition, he recommended
specifying an interim lot size of 160 acres until such time a major user has been approved
(Mackie =s definition of a major user is 40 acres). He noted these numbers are drawn from
general notions and that Greg Easton testified that 100 -200 acres are really needed to preserve
adequate land. He added this measure does not impose a development limitation on an existing
lot that is less than 160 but prevents a developer from subdividing a parcel into 20 acre pieces
and selling them to multiple users. His recommendation is to allow port, intermodal and large
industrial uses and ancillary activities.
Starkenburg asked the public to comment on or correct the accuracy of information given
on the Cherry Point UGA. Tull commented that, generally speaking, Cherry Point Industrial
Park =s proposal fits with all of the above criteria, but he thought committee should consider a
Asafety valve =; i.e., means of quickly administrating the application process for major user
facilities that does not cause the applicant to wait six months to site a facility because it falls
under a certain size. He thought it crucial the County be able to respond to industrial inquiries in
consideration of global competition. Mackie asked Tull if the Gateway Pacific =s proposal, with
dock facilities and beltline railroad, effectively serves as a Master Plan, admitting the term
AMaster Plan- has not been truly defined. Tull responded that in Whatcom County vestiges of
the Apre- zoning era= remain and in response to the State Environmental Policy (sic) Act, a
major development permit process is required for applications extending over a specified size in
acreage, value, or number of employees. This then dovetails with County site plan and sub -use
ordinances and reviews. He stated that the Gateway proposal was developed in anticipation of a
phased review for subsequent users, and the site would not really be affected by what was
suggested above. However, his suggestion would apply as far as the development of peripheral
pieces for ancillary purposes requiring large acreage.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 23
Starkenburg asked if committee would like to proceed with addressing Custer at this time,
due to the number of persons present with interest in the area. He received agreement by
members.
Mackie began discussion of Custer as a special situation because it is presents a unique
opportunity. This opportunity arises in part by the confluence of the railroad and I -5 but mainly
because of the proximity to the Port of Bellingham and Cherry Point. He noted the Easton study
shows how unique Cherry Point is, and over time its success will depend on its ability use rail
effectively. In order to use rail effectively, staging areas are needed to accommodate 50 -100
containers at one time and other facilities are needed for warehouse, shuttling, shifting, and such
activities as are appropriate for an Aintermodal yard.= An expanded rail fits other activities that
are here and ties to the grant proposal to connect with the Canadian - Pacific, which then enables
access to trans - continental rail. He noted the map (page 10 of handout) comes from a rezone
illustrating lots that should be included. Staff recommends a different approach to this rezone
that extends south on Birch Bay - Lynden Drive, north on Arnie Road, and west on Portal Way.
Gibson--s term, the Alinear accelerator circle= encompasses both sides of I -5 and, in the
Comprehensive Plan, this area will be somewhat reduced. A concern here is that, unlike Cherry
Point that has a significant existing base and a clear idea of what is being proposed and how the
land needs will be affected, growth for the Custer area is less definite, and there is not much of
an historical economic base. Mackie felt this area is clearly appropriate for an MRL designation;
however, the precise boundaries and the implication of those boundaries for a mining activity
may warrant an environmental review. He noted an EIS is in process that addresses these
questions. He asked committee consider how to address the Custer area in the Comprehensive
Plan when there is no definite idea of what is being proposed. He mentioned potential issues
could include transporting and handling hazardous materials, contamination, spills and wrecks,
and that project- specific issues need to be addressed to ensure this site is appropriate. To include
all this within the Comprehensive Plan, the environmental documents need to address all these
issues and be nearly the equivalent of a project level review. Staff recommends the
Comprehensive Plan give an overall designation to the Custer area for a major industrial
intermodal yard, with an indication ( *as so marked) to show where it is parcel specific and
acknowledging the environmental review will determine parcel selection. The Comprehensive
Plan will then define, through a master planning process, the final characteristics in terms of
boundaries, phasing, and facilities needed. He noted that unlike the Comprehensive Plan, a
Capital Facilities Plan would address more specifically issues such as adequate sewer and water,
the ability to deal with hazardous materials, minimum lot size, compatible uses, etc. He
explained the use of the Master Plan may go forward once the environmental review is complete
for a project level planning process, and then additional regulations may be added if needed to
clarify what is intended. He added this allows any discussion regarding specific size and
intended uses, consequences, mitigation to neighboring properties to be dealt with in a
proceeding that gives close review of these issues and is not then preempted by the
Comprehensive Plan process. He concluded the Comprehensive Plan is making the
determination the Custer area presents a unique opportunity and has features that are supportive
of a major industrial intermodal yard, but the final decisions for project specifics are to be
determined through a master planning process.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 24
Starkenburg asked if committee were in a position to give approval for this
recommendation for an intermodal site, and Mackie responded that Council has received
substantial testimony and presentations on how Custer should be structured. He said all of this
information received has indicated the property could be a tremendous asset to the County and
supports Cherry Point. Mackie cautioned committee that this type of project will operate as a
unit; issues such as switching, storage, etc., must be addressed. Other issues need to be
considered, such as potential impacts to neighboring properties, presence of sensitive areas, and
other constraints. Mackie stated the designation for an intermodal facility does not change the
underlying R10 zoning, and if the owner wants to develop a residential unit on this property, the
County cannot tell him he must hold out for development of the intermodal facility. Mackie
stated he does not recommend such an idea, but the Council could zone the area R10 and restrict
a subdivision until the Comprehensive Plan is processed. Starkenburg asked if committee
proceeds as recommended once the environmental work is complete and zoning is made
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then committee may move to the next step. Mackie
replied the zoning ordinance and the mapping in the zone would identify the final boundaries,
and a Master Plan will be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as a phasing plan
for utilities to serve the proposed facilities. The County then may enter into a Acontract
rezone,= which essentially states the County agrees to rezone an area for a specific use, but
before the rezone is effective, the proposal must define the components of its process within
which specific issues must be addressed. The contract rezone also subjects the proposal to an
environmental review at a project level of detail so that committee can understand what
mitigations may be necessary for inclusion in the final review. Mackie included a sunset that
states in the event such a proposal is not processed within the next five years, committee or
Council may again review the area. However, the assumption is the developers will continue to
move forward, permits will be obtained, and a public forum will be held to address local issues.
Mackie concluded that this piece of property appears uniquely suited and recommended the
County preserve it for this type of use. The zoning map and regulations can be changed if all the
criteria is put forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mackie clarified for committee this issue is not
one of whether or not to develop but rather how and when to develop.
Gibson asked how detailed the Master Plan must be, and Mackie responded it would
include a phased environmental review with certain environmental consequences that may be
anticipated before the project level detail and an EIS at the project level of detail. He added he
would like to review the current development regulations with Gibson before the public hearing
regarding requiring a Master Plan and any other review process for recommendation to Council.
He said the recommendation is not specific to boundaries or acreage used but takes as the basis
the concept of constructing a major industrial intermodal yard. Sutter asked if the decision on
this property will be impacted pending the outcome of the east -west rail. Mackie replied the
decision would help assess determining factors. He clarified for Gibson that approval of a
Master Plan would trigger a rezone for the area. The Comprehensive Plan would recommend the
use from a global level, while the Master Plan would define zoning and the concomitant
agreement, which is the mitigation agreement regarding zoning - -all the components that define
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 25
how the County may assure parallel development and address impacts. He concluded by stating
that with approval of the Master Plan, the property is then zoned for that use.
Brown thought the master planning application may withhold smaller parcel owners from
developing their property, and Mackie responded this area must be viewed similarly to Cherry
Point. If Council identifies this area as unique because of its large parcels and proximity to
significant industrial and transportation uses, the smaller property owners will be at a
disadvantage to develop as they would if the property were located in downtown Bellingham.
Brown asked if committee felt this was too complicated, would it be able to zone it light
industrial zoning or would this preclude such zoning because it does not recognize the area =s
unique features. Mackie clarified light industrial land is generally included within an urban
boundary, but the reason for zoning this area light industrial is because it requires a larger block
of land than is available in the urban areas. In order to preserve that unique feature, the same
kind of development criteria used for Cherry Point is needed, where major users are identified
and a Master Plan illustrates the entire development. Once the Master Plan is approved, the
smaller parcels may negotiate for other types of uses.
Gibson asked how the County gets users lined up to warrant a Master Plan where there is
a measure of certainty of the direction of the proposal. Mackie responded the objective is to
encourage property owners to invest in a Master Plan and where the value is not in real estate but
in entitlements, which come with the zoning ordinance. Users generally will acquire property
subject to the conditions of the zoning. A developer at this stage may see the property
authorized for this specific use in the Comprehensive Plan, and it is not uncommon then for this
user to agree to complete a Master Plan because it is not cost - prohibitive for the scale of this
type of industrial development. Gibson then asked about one or two large users looking at an
omnibus plan, and Mackie replied that when there are a multitude of owners, dividing the cost
becomes an issue. For most industrial properties, the Master Plan development gives an idea of
the project costs, which follows information from the EIS and identification of the mitigation
fees. After this point, the proposal is literally 90 days from the building permit and can be put on
the market because all the major structural issues regarding on- site /off site mitigation have been
addressed.
Starkenburg stated he acknowledges a major industrial intermodal facility would be a
necessary, beneficial asset for Whatcom County but felt committee needed a clearer idea of how
this can be achieved. He said that since committee has neither the knowledge of background on
this property nor the legal perspective to take a definitive action toward designating it for an
intermodal use, committee must consider this proposal from a planning perspective. He
suggested committee may reach an understanding with the owner that an agreement may be
made to recommend recognition of the area in the Comprehensive Plan as having unique features
suitable for an intermodal use if the property owner agrees to commit the parcel to such use.
Mackie concluded this is the best committee could do today in the absence of its point of
position. He asked County staff present to give any information on any legal proceedings or
environmental studies made on the proposal.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 26
Roland Middleton, Land Use Services, stated the original proposal was to include Custer
as a UGA and rezone for a light impact industrial. The County began the EIS process on that
process, and a draft EIS may be completed possibly by next week. Starkenburg concluded that,
pending the completion of the EIS, perhaps committee can move one more step toward
justification for a rezone. Mackie cautioned that such a justification for a decision is the unique
character of this site, adding that if a draft EIS is going to be published, it needs to be sensitive to
and speak to some of the concerns stated in the Comprehensive Plan regarding uniqueness and
not address just the light impact industrial zoning. A proposal to zone it light industrial would
probably not be an acceptable proposal; that would not be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore not defensible. He recommended having staff and project proponents make
sure the proposal being given an environmental review for rezone purposes is consistent with
some of the features that are essential in order to validate it under a Comprehensive Plan. The
current timing to adopt the Comprehensive Plan by March 11 should not require amendment if
the rezoning will take place a few months after that. Gibson suggested that a closer examination
of the upcoming EIS will give greater clarity to this issue and help avoid any pre judgment on its
status.
Sjostrom clarified the property was rezoned at one time before being challenged in court.
Mackie responded the property is currently zoned R10, and the recommendation is for the area to
be shaded as a designation for an intermodal facility. The yard may appear to be urban because
of the light industrial activities, which relates to a state designation of a city as having industrial
activity within its boundaries. Council could approve the property as an intermodal yard, and
then at the next Comprehensive Plan review, a decision can be made as to whether to make it an
urban area. Mackie added the rationale for designating this property an urban area does not
apply to the general industrial between that, and he does not yet have a recommendation for that
area. He felt the area was urban, but that is a different issue.
Starkenburg concluded this discussion by saying committee is taking information on this
issue and not taking any action. Mackie added for the record there are adequate sewer, water
and power facilities available, and the general transportation grid supports it. Dawson asked if
the EIS was being done on an intermodal basis, and Middleton replied it is not project specific,
but the EIS is simply to review the area as a UGA and a general industrial site. Mackie said it
sounds like the EIS could be modified to reflect the master plan for the area. Middleton
responded the current EIS is a supplemental environmental document to the Comprehensive
Plan, and the information would be utilized in any additional environmental work, but there is
still the scoping that would have to be reviewed. Starkenburg reiterated committee will take no
further action.
Starkenburg directed staff to look into another area depicted with an off -color marking,
noting a proposal had been received for a truck stop in that area. Mackie noted the area may be
similar to the Guide Meridian in that infilling would be appropriate. Sutter received a letter
regarding a request for a change in an R10 zoning for an area between the city limits of Blaine
and the freeway. The owner requested the area be zoned as consistent with uses in the area.
Mackie identified a nearby use as a golf course but thought the area appeared to have R5 uses.
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 27
Starkenburg directed staff to review this request further and determine if the area needs to be
expanded.
Starkenburg noted the purpose of the meeting was accomplished and asked for any further
comments, of which there were none. He stated the next meeting will be Tuesday, February 4, at
the Planning and Development Library and Meeting Room at 9 a.m. The purpose of the meeting
will be a work session to revisit the issues brought up today, as well as agriculture, minerals, and
other outstanding issues. If all issues and concerns are not able to be addressed at the next
meeting, committee will determine a work session for Thursday or Friday of that week.
Sjostrom reminded Starkenburg committee needs to give recommendation on CWPP at
the next meeting from 9:00 -10:30 a.m. She reminded committee had directed staff and the city
of Bellingham to go forward and make a recommendation for CWPP, and this recommendation
had been approved by the County Executive. Committee now must make comment on the
recommendation before it can be brought forward to full Council for public hearing on February
11. There will be also be a public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) on February
25, and the record for public testimony will remain open until February 28. Adoption the
CWPP, CAO, and the Comprehensive Plan will be considered for action by Council on March
11. She added staff will review current rezone requests for recommendation in quick order.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Mary Jo Pellerito, Recording Secretary
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 28
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 1/30/97, Page 29