HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 9 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 9, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 1 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
Starkenburg addressed the agenda, speaking to the format of the meeting. He noted that
item #5 would be discussed first. Item #6 would be next with items 2, 3 and 4 following. If time
allows, item #1 would then be discussed. Starkenburg stated committee would meeting until
4:30 p.m. at the latest. He then noted for the public in attendance that this was a committee
meeting only; public comment would be at the discretion of committee.
Staff Present:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services
Patricia Decker, Bellingham City Planner
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Ward Nelson, County Council
Tom Brown, County Council
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PERMANENT WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, TO COMPLY WITH THE
WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB97 -226A)
Starkenburg noted this item would not be addressed until the next committee meeting
(September 23, 1997) due to lack of time.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, BY CREATING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT, URBAN
RESIDENTIAL - MIXED (UR -MX) (AB97 -269)
Starkenburg gave background regarding the status of the ordinance. He requested
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 1
background information on packet page 75(f). Michael Knapp, Planning and Development
Services Director, commented that this was a standard in a commercial area for pedestrian
movement.
Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services, gave background on packet page 74
(2), locational criteria. Knapp stated the one -half mile standard gives better pedestrian access
than the one mile standard. Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planner, stated there was no
opposition to the one -half mile standard.
Sutter reviewed with committee her requested changes on the Urban Fringe Plan,
beginning with page 14, which states: "Commercial development should occur in nodes on no
more than two acre sites and that residential development should be located within walking
distance of transit stations, designated centers, parks and recreation areas, so that there will be
pedestrian access to convenient shopping and jobs." The Bellingham City Council Findings of
Fact and Conclusions states that a commercial center can be no closer than one mile. Decker
stated originally it was one mile. The major concern for commercial nodes and their location
was to avoid creating in outlying areas the beginnings of strip so people would not want to live
there. Sutter's concern was the limitation of two acres regarding distances of nodes regarding
pedestrian access. Decker clarified that these areas Sutter referred to was in urban residential
mix (URMX), which is essentially a single - family residential district with the ability for
multifamily and commercial centers. Sutter addressed the issue of pedestrian vs vehicular
traffic. Decker noted many businesses will choose to locate where people come to a center for
various shopping, e.g. This section of the Urban Fringe Plan was crafted so that residential
neighborhoods are protected from something non - residential in scope but are provided with the
option for services. She also pointed out that all residential areas in this Plan are located
surrounding major employment centers. Knapp stated if shops are along the streets, walking is
better facilitated. There must be sufficient mass of stores to make this concept work.
There was committee consensus to move from the one acre of one mile radius to one -half
mile.
Sutter stated she was still concerned with the situation at one -half mile, although she felt
somewhat easier with the one -half mile. Knapp suggested a comparison of some of the
successful commercial districts regarding the number of acres in those districts and determine
the definition of an area that works from the critical mass standpoint.
Nelson stated his concern that the planned URMX areas will be placed in inappropriate
places and asked if this concept is appropriate on state highways. Decker replied the URMX is
intended to be on collector arterials, not on major arterials. The appropriate zoning must be
calculated due to the fact that there are major arterials. The city provided for a residential zoning
district that allows a range of densities. If commercial is included, it must go through a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The market will help control where these residential
developments are to be sited. Decker stated when the URMX is designated, the city does not
predetermine where the development location will occur. The city is predetermining in URMX
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 2
areas that development can occur at four, five to seven, or seven to ten units per acre. How that
happens will be a market - driven process. Decker stated the city's policy is not to line major
arterials with non - residential uses; it will not recommend that, as there will be many conflicts
with the major arterial areas leading to major commercial or strip development. Over time, the
situation will change, but at this time these areas are most appropriate for URMX.
Sutter suggested reviewing at some point one particular area along Mt. Baker Highway
where high voltage transmission lines are located, which is inappropriate for residential
development. Carl Batchelor, Planning and Development Services, clarified the starting point, a
UR4 zone, has been in place for 20 years. This area was first designated strictly residential.
Starkenburg inquired if a broad conditional use setting had been considered. Decker
replied the attempt was to keep it narrow. For areas requiring changes due to a different future
demand, a zone change process should be done. She stated there has been no analysis done - -nor
has any market been indicated - -for changing that use at this time. Decker continued by stating
that what is good for one area may not be good for another, especially for large areas with tracts
of undeveloped land in the middle of neighborhoods. This may be rezoned in the future. This
was not done at this time because there were no requests to rezone and it was untimely. Decker
confirmed a minimart/gas station in a URMX in a two acre center is permitted. Sutter asked
what happens when it is too late to change zoning. Decker replied that as conditions change,
they need to be reexamined.
Starkenburg directed discussion to the city of Bellingham's letter of August 25 to
Council (on file) regarding the language pertaining to the URMX. Decker noted that URMX is a
residential district, and the city intended it to be located near an area close to employment
centers. Starkenburg requested committee agreement on the purpose statement as noted in that
letter. Committee concurred. There was no discussion regarding permitted uses.
Decker commented regarding uses of public and private community facilities and the
square footage (see August 25 letter from the city of Bellingham to Council). Committee agreed
with Bellingham's action. Language was added by Bellingham in locational criteria; there was
no discussion. Committee was in agreement with that clarifying language.
There was discussion on Section 20.24.156, accessory apartments or detached accessory
dwelling units. Topics discussed included densities; established urban communities; detached
dwelling units; and the Interlocal Agreement. Starkenburg requested Knapp's opinion on the
proposed new language regarding accessory dwellings, to which Knapp replied he disagreed.
Goodwin recommended leaving this new language out for the present and dealing with it later in
the Interlocal Agreement. There was further discussion on this. Starkenburg noted for the
record that no action was taken on this issue.
Returning to the issue of minimarts /gas stations, Decker stated there are no provisions for
gas pumps, although there are provisions for the minimarts. Drive up facilities are not
encouraged except for the gas pumps. The intent was to discourage fast food restaurants, etc. --
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 3
which would draw people into such areas -- because of the residential neighborhood. The gas
pump would not be an issue. Committee was in agreement to allow this. Knapp noted there is
criteria in the neighborhood commercial regarding two pump islands /two pumps. Decker
requested consistency with the most limited neighborhood district due to the intent of the
neighborhood. Roger Almskaar, land use consultant, commented about the issue of gas stations.
Batchelor pointed out two pump islands would be twelve product dispensers, four cars.
Starkenburg requested Almskaar assist committee in developing consistent language.
Sutter inquired about the 25% restriction on multi - family and requested an explanation of
this limitation and if this 25% applies to each development over two acres or to the entire zone.
Decker stated there is specific language regarding the city's decision process. The URMX is
essentially a single family district, and the city is attempting to encourage some diversity of
dwelling units within that single family area. The diversity is not limited to the URMX district.
The 25% is allowed to be developed over time and not at the beginning. If an area is begun as
multi - family, single families are frequently unwilling to come in. The process is done parcel by
parcel and acreage sizes are identified.
Batchelor inquired if committee wished to consider the right to farm section in
Bellingham's letter and noted the language. He noted Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal
counsel, advised staff regarding the language in this section. The issue is the edge of the URMX
zone - -the boundary between the open road area and the rural area - -where there will be
agricultural activity. Batchelor stated he felt this section is applicable to Bellingham's Urban
Growth Area (UGA). Ag activities are found adjacent to the UGA and even within the UGA.
Nelson inquired if an analysis was done on potential buildout and, if so, asked what the
numbers would be. Decker replied that four units per acre were provided, which is the minimum
and meets the projected growth.
Sutter questioned affordable -type housing under the purpose section. Her concern was
bypassing the 25% rule and then making a specific statement that the purpose is to provide
affordable housing types such as apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. One cannot be
had without the other. If this district is not intended to be multi - family, then it is not intended to
provide affordable housing types such as apartments, townhouses, and condominiums.
Batchelor responded this is a multi - purpose zone, which serves a number of purposes. The
primary purpose is single family. Decker replied she was unaware of the conflicting purpose
statements and agreed with Sutter. The purpose statement approved by the city of Bellingham is
located in the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan and should match this purpose section. All agreed the
statements should match.
Knapp asked the percentage that would satisfy the single family primary use and still
have a mix that allows for multi - family. Sutter wanted to know why it was important that it be
single family. Decker stated there are no other single family districts in the urban fringe; they
are in the UGA. She then explained how the transfer density is set up: four units per acre are
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 4
allowed as of right. Higher than four but up to seven must have certain improvements; higher
than seven can only be through transfer density. If there are up to ten units per acre obtained by
transfer of density onto a parcel of property, then 25% of that 100 units could be multi - family, as
could some percentage of the other units that were transferred. The transferred units do not have
to be multi- family. The single family units could then decrease in size.
Brown requested clarification on transfer of density rights regarding where they were
transferred from. Batchelor replied they transfer from areas which will be designated by
planning staff (rural unincorporated). Decker stated the intent was to provide a receiving zone
for those County areas that are critical, as well as sensitive areas and particularly the Lake
Whatcom Watershed. Nelson stated the buildout in the UGAs could not be completed until they
have been annexed. Decker stated there were no policies stating the areas had to be annexed in
order for transfers to occur. Presumably, no urban density will be designated until the services
are to the site.
Bill Geyer, land use consultant, commented to request clarification on the proposed
ordinance language regarding transfer development rights.
Starkenburg reviewed the actions taken by committee thus far. Sutter requested
clarification regarding agriculture in the permitted use section. The language regarding animal
husbandry, horticulture, viticulture, floriculture, silviculture and beekeeping was deleted
(referring to the city's letter of August 25). If the language regarding the right to farm stands,
Sutter asked if this was inconsistent. Batchelor replied no, as there was existing non - conforming
ag use. It would be non - conforming if the ag were stricken.
Starkenburg moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA ZONING MAP
UPDATE (AB97 -273)
Areas discussed included the airport area (Garrett); the Dewey Valley area, the Campbell
property and
(Clerk's Note: Tape 2, Side A)
the property to the west. There was consensus that these two areas be designated LII.
Starkenburg asked if staff had any comment regarding Map 14, the Hicks property.
Should this also be included? Knapp stated it was outside an UGA. Starkenburg stated this
would be considered at a later date.
Deans Foods was then discussed. Decker stated the city recommended it be included in
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 5
the UGA.
Starkenburg moved Deans Foods be included in the LII.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Guide Meridian was then discussed regarding south of the Smith Road. Batchelor
updated committee on the east side of the road being included and no action taken on the west
side by stating the recommendation was to zone the commercial developed areas on the east side
General Commercial (GC) with a fairly squared -off boundary. The property on the west side is
undeveloped. Neither piece is in the UGA. The Comp Plan designation is a transportation
corridor. The corridor goes to Bellingham's UGA. Discussion followed on the timeline for
studying the Guide Meridian.
Starkenburg pointed out it was important for committee to seriously consider all the
major intersections in order for people to be able to use the property to the best use. Batchelor
stated these intersections were dealt with in the Comp Plan.
Starkenburg inquired of the process of moving from the study area to the next step.
Knapp stated the study is first done and then staff time is designated after consideration by the
Planning Commission. The last step is to forward to Council. Knapp stated the estimated
timeline is to begin that process in 1998. Sutter pointed out the state Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Council of Governments (COG) are currently holding neighborhood
meetings along the Guide to assess what needs to be done in terms of improvements.
Additionally, the Land Uses and the Development Regulations specific to the Guide corridor will
be discussed in the near future. Goodwin stated monies will be requested (1998 budget) for
contract money to work with COG to complete the land use portion of the study. Starkenburg
stated that at this time, committee was unable to take any action, as this was for information
purposes only.
Discussion followed regarding a specific area on the map on the east and west side on a
particular intersection as noted in the above paragraph. Starkenburg stated he would like
uniform zoning around that intersection. Committee was in agreement for staff to deal with the
east side; committee will then complete the intersection after the other pieces are in place.
Discussion followed regarding tying the Comp Plan and the right -of -way footage on the Guide
(either 330 or 660 feet). Starkenburg recommended dealing with this at this time, as there is
consistency. Jack Swanson, attorney, commented. Committee agreed not to deal with this
section of property at this time.
Sutter began discussion on Map #1 (by the Mt. Baker Plywood mill) regarding a small
piece between the urban growth boundary (UGB) and the city limits. Batchelor responded the
property should be in the UGA and is a mapping error, which staff will correct.
The next area of discussion was Mt. Baker Highway, Map #16. Her concern was
development of a residential area where they are businesses as well as the high voltage
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 6
transmission lines. Batchelor gave permit history on this property. Discussion followed. Sutter
suggested committee review this area, as she did not feel URMX was an appropriate designation.
Discussion followed regarding zoning.
(Clerk's Note: Tape 2, side B)
Decker and Knapp also commented. Starkenburg suggested committee address this issue more
comprehensively at a later date.
Sutter then discussed the Dewey Valley area, Map #15, regarding issues affecting
development of this area and the zoning recommendation. Batchelor gave permit history of this
area. Decker stated this is one area where there is a residential area in the urban fringe. Low
density residential was recommended in this area, maximum four units per acre. There is no
ability to transfer density or multi- family. Because of the rural character and because of lack of
sewer and water capacities, higher densities cannot be served. Sutter inquired how to preserve
rural character by having urban zoning. Decker replied it was recommended in the UGA.
Goodwin requested returning to the Hitz property, referring to a letter from 9/21/95,
which requested General Manufacturing (GM). Discussion followed. Sutter stated the owner
now requests the property be split on the diagonal due to geographic restraints R5A and LII /GM.
Knapp noted it can be reconsidered for the amendment process at the annual update.
(Clerk's Note: A five- minute break was taken)
Starkenburg noted that rather than take action regarding the motion, this item will be left
open and discuss the next item ( #4). If there are any map issues to be discussed in that section,
discussion can then follow. Further, he noted at the close of the meeting he wished to take action
on this mapping ordinance, if possible.
(Clerk's Note: After discussion of item #4, Starkenburg then returned committee
discussion to this item for conclusion.)
Decker expressed her thought that it would be helpful if the maps were included in the ag
and rural residential sections showing those areas designated ag and rural residential. Discussion
followed on maps.
Starkenburg pointed out committee would give a report to full Council at tonight's
meeting. An ordinance cannot be approved until all information has been completed for formal
action. Knapp responded regarding the means to complete the work before tonight's meeting.
Starkenburg stated item #4 could be moved forward tonight in its current form as amended.
(Clerk's Note: Before the motion, Starkenburg returned to move action on item #4 and
then returned to item #3 for final committee action)
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 7
Starkenburg moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT (AB97 -273A)
Sutter reviewed her list of suggested language changes. First, on page 10 of the Plan,
#107, delete: " '
Area onee a a: ffer -e * standard is otiatea." She felt this was an item that should be left to the
Interlocal Agreement process. Language should read: ".County development standards shall be
enforced until a different standard is negotiated through the Interlocal Agreement process."
Discussion followed. Committee concurred on the new language suggestion.
On page 19, Section 4.05, the last phrase: "... Whatcom County shall request industrial
users to financially participate in cost of upgrading said systems." Her concern was the city
giving instructions to the County. Decker replied this policy was to have been adopted by the
County discussing the current policy. Knapp commented regarding language in the Comp Plan
linking Land Use to the Capital Facilities requirement. Sutter referred to the language on
page 22, Section 4.21: " Whatcom County will not permit expansion of the industrial zone to
ensure protection of Silver Creek." Also, page 25, Section 4.32: " Whatcom County shall require
plat language including a hold harmless agreement." Discussion followed. Sutter withdrew her
objections after learning that County staff, city staff, and the Planning Commission worked on
this language together.
Knapp pointed out if housing near airports is considered by the County, the issue of
liability limitation by the County must be decided.
On pages 25 -30, the section on rural, Sutter was unsure why rural zoning was appropriate
in urban areas when urban zoning was inappropriate in rural areas. Batchelor replied this plan
also applies to an agricultural and a rural designation.
On Section 5.03, Sutter inquired if it were appropriate to include the following language
when the County's cluster option is invalid: "It is the policy of Whatcom County to encourage
the use of the cluster option." Knapp pointed out the Plan cannot be addressed until the appeals
have been reviewed.
Section 5.08, page 27: "Rural residential designation should be provided with a partial
range of public sewer and water, volunteer fire protection, law enforcement services from the
Whatcom County Sheriff's Department, and County maintained roads with adequate capacity for
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 8
rural traffic volumes." She suggested this was another item for the Interlocal Agreements.
Batchelor pointed out the rural residential was outside the UGA. The Comp Plan map should be
examined for that decision. Discussion followed. Bill Geyer commented. Batchelor stated the
areas outside the UGA are dealt with in the overall Comp Plan. This Subarea Plan provides
additional detail about land use. Discussion followed regarding the boundary lines on the map.
On page 40: "Whatcom County agrees to comply with Bellingham's Municipal
Code 15.42 (Stormwater Regulations)." Knapp stated this would be an Interlocal Agreement
item. Bill Geyer commented by requesting no change be made to Map #1, Shoreline Industrial
Area, as this was negotiated in good faith with the neighborhood. Sutter agreed with the
concession that this also be included in the Interlocal Agreement because it is part of the
Development Standards. Starkenburg noted for the record the language will stand as is.
On page 44, the last paragraph: "The County ... subdivision provides for 8,000 square
foot building sites... ". On page 45: "Comparable city zoning for single family residential 10,000
square feet per unit... ". Sutter inquired if there would be a problem if the County allowed
development at 8,000 square feet when the city's requirement will be 10,000 sq ft. Decker
replied that when the property comes into the city, that is what it will be zoned.
On page 54, Sutter questioned the development of the area #4 regarding the lack of a park
site service in the Birchwood/Bennett Drive area.
Sutter continued to page 55, comparable future city zoning, and inquired about current lot
sizes regarding residential single plan with a range of densities from 10,890 sq ft to 6,223 sq ft
per dwelling. She also asked if lot consolidation were going to be required to meet city
standards in the Bennett Drive residential area. Knapp replied that lots of record would continue
to stand whether in the County or city. There would be no reason the city would deny a building
permit. Batchelor stated most of the lots are larger; lot consolidation is with substandard lots.
Sutter inquired what special considerations were regarding lot consolidation. Batchelor stated
this referred to redevelopment of this area and the grouping of as many lots as possible for
future development, which would be most desirable. "Aggregation" would be a better term,
according to Decker.
Sutter moved to change the term "lot consolidation" to "aggregation ".
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson was concerned about the section on agriculture, the large tracts of lands in the
urban fringe subarea (Silver Creek/Nooksack). Batchelor replied no changes have been
recommended. Also, Nelson questioned the city /County proposal regarding Little Squalicum
Creek and the park site shoreline regarding clean up and liability costs to the community.
Discussion followed.
(Clerk's Note: Tape 3, side A)
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 9
Bill Geyer commented regarding drainage basin planning at Squalicum Creek.
Starkenburg asked Nelson if he felt there was any need for language change based on the
above conversations. Dawson suggested additional language. Discussion followed regarding
interlocal and funding sources regarding Dawson's suggested language to Nelson's park site
concern. Nelson thought full Council needed to be aware of his concern; he stated there was
sufficient time to examine his park site concern perhaps through an Interlocal process.
Discussion followed regarding proposed language. On page 46, Dawson suggested: "The city of
Bellingham, Whatcom County, the Port of Bellingham and other public agencies shall cooperate
in developing an interlocal agreement and seeking available funding sources that will address
stormwater drainage basin issues." Nelson suggested individual committee /Council members
develop Dawson's language for tonight's Council meeting. Starkenburg stated committee would
entertain language suggestions from all parties present. Discussion followed regarding working
together on developing the interlocal and identifying available funding sources for this park site.
Starkenburg then directed the meeting to item #3, the maps.
Sutter requested inserting the zoning designations the areas include in the text for clarity
when discussing the rural residential (RR) section.
Starkenburg moved to recommend approval of this item as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: At this point, Starkenburg returned to move action on item #3).
5. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY ANGUS
AND PAULA MCEACHEN FOR "GENEVA HILLS" (AB97- 301)
Starkenburg noted the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) has dealt with this
area and requested Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, give an overview regarding the
outcome of this if approved by Council.
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated the GMHB has invalidated the
planned unit development (PUD) ordinance, which the County has appealed. The question faced
by the County is: What does that mean? Either nothing can happen or vesting is suspended.
Further, does the County act on that PUD application? The Hearing Examiner (Jon Sitkin) stated
this will be processed and acted upon. What are appropriate notice provisions after action has
been taken? Notice would be necessary so that subsequent purchasers are aware of the risk
attached under the current conditions. Sitkin recommended no notice to subsequent purchasers
attached. Gibson asked if that were adequate notice to subsequent purchasers in light of the
uncertainty created by the GMHB.
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 10
Committee concerns included notice to purchasers and County liability; Gibson pointed
out there will be a waiver. Starkenburg requested staff examine this issue regarding Gibson
advising committee regarding notice.
In answer to a question, Gibson responded that ten units that could be constructed
without the PUD; with PUD and full development, there could be up to nineteen units.
Seventeen units are proposed. With current zoning levels, ten units would be allowed if the PUD
is not done.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, clarified that a general
notice was sent out via The Bellingham Herald. The waiver also serves as a notice for the
applicants visiting his department. Starkenburg stated committee was concerned that the
potential purchaser be fully aware of the situation/conditions.
Bob Andersen, Land Use Planner, P.O. Box 3183, Bellingham, commented by stating he
was part of the team working on this project. He gave background information.
Discussion followed regarding assuring all future property owners have notice.
Starkenburg asked committee for consensus regarding legal and Planning staff being instructed
to deal with notice. Committee was in agreement. Sutter requested this be for the protection of
future property owners and the committee that may become involved in this matter.
Nelson asked if one was judged guilty if an appeal were before Superior Court based on
the invalidity orders. Does the appeal suspend the previous ruling? Gibson stated not unless the
decision before it affects the state's decision.
Starkenburg noted there were 29 conditions to the PUD. He requested committee
questions needing to be dealt with at this time. Sutter wanted to know if the conditions were
acceptable with the property owners. No property owners were present.
Starkenburg moved to recommend approval.
Sutter stated for the record that recommended approval would be subject to the property
owners' discretion.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1997 OPEN
SPACE /TIMBER APPLICATIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION (AB97 -309)
Starkenburg reviewed Planning Commission actions. Discussion followed regarding the
status of the two properties tabled for further review. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and
Development Services Manager, commented regarding missing pages in the Council packet.
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 11
Starkenburg moved to recommend moving this forward to full Council at tonight's
meeting. Goodwin will supply missing information for this meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 9/9/97, Page 12