HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 21 20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 21, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9 :34:15 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Bill Knutzen and Sam Crawford.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Kathy Kershner and Barbara Brenner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE ON PROPOSED WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.51 LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT; PLN2011 -00015 (AB2013 -102)
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read from
a handout (on file, exhibit A) and gave a staff report. He submitted and described an
amendment to Exhibit D, phosphorus neutral stormwater best management practices (BMP)
cost estimates for small lots (on file, exhibit 8).
Weimer asked if the example in Exhibit D is an average lot. Gill stated it is. Also,
it's not feasible to ask the engineering community to evaluate many scenarios on many
types of lots.
Crawford stated the 40 percent slope in the example seems very steep and asked if
that makes it easier or harder to do stormwater control. Gill stated it is steep and would be
a significant challenge.
Brenner asked if the cost will be less with a slope that's not so steep. Gill stated
that's a question for the engineers. It depends on many things, such as soils and other
factors.
Gill continued the presentation on the exempt lot analysis and cost estimate for
stormwater best management practices (BMPs).
Brenner stated she would like to know the cost of long -term maintenance for each of
the options in the example.
Crawford asked if landscaping costs would occur based on the current standard, or if
it's additional to each option. Gill stated there is additional landscaping cost to treat to a
phosphorous neutral condition. The examples assume that the lot is maintained to a
forested condition and needs no additional landscaping mitigation.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2013, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Weimer stated that if someone leaves their lot in a forested condition, there is not
additional landscaping cost, but if someone wants a lawn, for example, additional
landscaping mitigation is required. He asked the range of estimates from each engineering
firm for each example system. Gill stated the estimates were close.
Weimer asked the range of estimates received. Gill stated the estimates were very
similar.
Weimer asked the costs of the studies, engineering, and installation. He asked if
there is a need for upfront analysis and engineering if a homeowner chooses pre- approved
plans.
(9:46:56 AM)
Sandy Peterson, Public Works Department, answered questions and stated
engineering costs are approximately $5,000. Those costs may drop once they are past the
learning curve and the process is standardized.
J.P. Slagle, Freeland & Associates Engineering, submitted a presentation (on file,
exhibit Q and described two small lot designs they'd engineered and installed.
Weimer asked the cost of the two designs. Slagle stated the first cost is comparable
to the estimates given by staff, about $15,000 to $20,000 plug engineering fees.
Knutzen stated he would like to know the square footage cost of the two examples
from Mr. Slagle. He would like to know the cost of the facility compared to the same facility
at another location that isn't as sloped. Slagle stated this example is similar to Mr.
Peterson's example plan.
Weimer asked the cost differential compared to the same features that aren't
engineered around runoff. Gill stated the cost of the current standard and the new options
are shown in the handout (Exhibit 8).
Crawford asked and there was discussion of leaving a lot in forested condition versus
installing engineered design.
Brenner asked if an amount of runoff equal to the natural runoff is allowed. Slagle
stated the City code requires 30 percent native growth and a match of the phosphorous and
flow.
Brenner asked the cost of ongoing maintenance. Slagle stated ongoing maintenance
costs should be minimal.
Benner asked the possibility of installing a green roof. Slagle stated it's a thin soil
profile, and may not be phosphorous neutral.
Crawford stated green roofs aren't cheap.
Weimer asked the extra cost to be phosphorous neutral above the current standard
and the different standards in different parts of the national pollutant discharge elimination
system (NPDES) areas. Gill stated the City may have different standards. The cost of the
same lot design will be the same, regardless of where it is located.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2013, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford stated it would be easy for a $20,000 investment to become ineffective due
to the challenge of homeowner maintenance required by living with trees around the home.
(10:10:57 AM)
Gill continued his presentation regarding code updates to Exhibit E.
Crawford asked what the current requirements are.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions about current requirements.
Crawford asked the logic behind deciding on a size of less than 22,000 square feet.
Peterson stated the 2005 Ecology manual included a break point of 22,000 square feet
where dispersion would work. He's not sure if that condition is in the new 2012 Ecology
manual.
Crawford stated that if it is consistent with the 2012 manual, leave it in.
Weimer asked if the new subsection 20.51.420(1) (k) address the concerns of the
Sudden Valley Community Association about community systems. Gill stated it doesn't
entirely.
Weimer stated he is also in favor of change one if it's in the 2012 Ecology
stormwater manual. Peterson stated the current manual doesn't have the 22,000 square
feet reference, unless using an Ecology model.
Weimer asked if they should not include change one and instead require it of
everyone to be consistent with the 2012 Ecology stormwater manual.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the different standards and under what
short -plat scenarios the 2012 manual applies and of determining whether a lot has
stormwater capacity at the time of short -plat.
Weimer stated remove the language to be consistent with the 2012 manual.
Brenner stated remove the language and just make sure area is available.
Peterson asked when the entire watershed will be in the NPDES phase two area.
Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, stated that when the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) is approved, the entire watershed will be under the permit. They should be able to
discuss it further this fall.
Peterson stated that according to the 2012 manual, the owner has to come up with a
stormwater design for the whole subdivision or each lot in the process of subdividing a
property, but it doesn't have to be installed. That would make change one and the question
of 22,000 square feet moot.
Gill stated he will work on improving the language to make it clear what they're
asking for and when.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2013, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Hood stated the permit also has procedural issues, separate from the phosphorous -
neutral condition.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether the DOE will let the County allow
a property owner to plat a property by showing there is ample area for a stormwater facility
for all the lots.
Gill continued the presentation on change two of the Exhibit E code update.
Weimer stated he is fine with change two.
Crawford stated they can schedule a hearing. He still wants to find out about the
effect of the cost on the market.
Weimer stated change two is for everything other than the small lots.
Crawford stated staff and engineering professionals have demonstrated it's possible
to get to a phosphorous neutral status. He's trying to compare the costs of the various
systems in various areas. He's beginning to accept that these costs will be required. He
will go along with change two, reluctantly. He still wants to hear from real estate
professionals about how this impacts the market.
Gill continued the presentation on change three of the Exhibit E code update. Staff
talked with the Sudden Valley Community Association about an option for community
systems, and they have agreed to a concept that meets the NPDES standard, if the
Association comes up with a stormwater plan and program. If Council agrees in concept
with the email from Larry Brown, staff will work with legal counsel on specific code to add to
this before introduction.
Weimer stated he supports getting rid of change three and would like to provide that
option for community systems in places like Sudden Valley, which may make it less
expensive for individual home owners.
Crawford stated he would like to hear how Sudden Valley would design a community
or neighborhood system. Gill submitted a handout (on file, exhibit D) and stated invite the
Association representatives to discuss their options.
Weimer stated this seems to be an innovative way to come to a phosphorous neutral
position.
Crawford stated get rid of the small lot exemption, and include the alternative for the
community association for the purpose of introducing an ordinance for public hearing.
Weimer stated he agrees.
Gill stated he will have an ordinance for introduction on June 4.
Weimer stated he will want to discuss why the Planning Commission removed the
idea of allowing private land trust dedications for protective easements.
Gill continued the presentation on a Comprehensive Plan change. He will prepare an
ordinance for this Comprehensive Plan change at the same time as the overlay district
ordinance.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2013, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Kershner asked if they referenced the code in the Comprehensive Plan in other
places. Gill stated it's only in one place for the stormwater regulations.
Kershner asked if the reference is due to the challenge to the Comprehensive Plan
updated rural development regulations. Gill stated it is part of the appeal.
Kershner asked if they need to change the Comprehensive Plan if they change the
zoning code. Gills stated they do.
Crawford stated staff is looking into the phosphorous loading from the City of
Bellingham diversion, which contributes huge amounts of phosphorous to the lake. If the
County is going to ask small homeowners to spend thousands of dollars on preventing small
amounts of phosphorous from going into the lake, they should also be addressing this large
source of phosphorous.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Natural Resources Committee, 5/21/2013, Page 5