HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 29 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
March 29, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 1:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
1. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THE
RECENTLY ADOPTED BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM IN
THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
INCLUDE: PROCESS, JUSTIFICATION FOR LIFTING THE
MORATORIUM, BENCHMARKS, AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS)
(AB2005 -072)
Caskey- Schreiber stated the memorandum from Amy Pederson regarding low
impact development (LID) options was well done. There is opportunity to include
some of this expertise into the resource protection overlay. The Council will work
on the amendments to Chapter 20.71 that Councilmember McShane proposed
during the previous Council work session. The Council will also incorporate the
proposed LID options in staff's memo.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated staff may bring forward
additional LID options.
Brenner asked if Dr. Easterbrook's memo commented in general or
specifically on Councilmember McShane's proposed changes.
McShane stated the comments were partly directed toward the clearing
ordinance. There were also comments on some of the discussion about the water
resource protection overlay. Dr. Easterbrook has a concern about lawns, with
which he agrees. It's a complicated problem. Phosphorus fertilizer is something
Dr. Easterbrook wanted to emphasize. He doesn't quibble with that issue. There is
a contrary opinion out there that phosphorus is rare in soil, but that's untrue.
Phosphorus is one of the most common elements in rocks. A mineral called apatite
is a phosphate mineral that is virtually in all rocks. That doesn't mean it's available
for grass. It is not mobile and may not be picked up by the lawn. Councilmembers
must understand that phosphorus is not rare. It is present throughout the
environment, and is certainly present in earth materials.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated she talked to Dr. Easterbrook, who said it's not a very
common mineral.
McShane stated a text called the Manual of Mineralogy (after James D. Danal
explains apatite and specifically states that apatite is common in almost all rock
types. Phosphorus is always tested for in rocks when rocks are analyzed. It always
shows up as a percent, not parts per million. It usually shows up at about one
percent, which is not rare. His point is that the statement is untrue that
phosphorus is rare in soil, doesn't exist, and isn't a problem in the lake as a
contributor. It is present in soil. Putting in development standards that address
soil runoff into the lake is one solution to reduce phosphorus loading in the lake.
It's not the only solution. Dr. Easterbrook had some other very good suggestions
in his letter.
Brenner stated Dr. Easterbrook's letter doesn't say phosphorus is rare, just
that it contains very small amounts, which is what Councilmember McShane just
said. Dr. Easterbrook didn't say that phosphorus is rare and not in the soil. She's
frustrated because she's getting conflicting information. She would like Dr.
Easterbrook to address the Council.
McShane stated he's not conflicting with Dr. Easterbrook. He's simply stating
that phosphorus is in soils. According to his interpretation of the letter, Dr.
Easterbrook implied that phosphorus is extremely rare. Someone else may have a
different interpretation.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council will work on the proposed ordinance.
Dr. Easterbrook is welcome to address the Council at a future meeting. The issue
now is this chapter.
Brenner stated the Council should invite Dr. Easterbrook to make a
presentation to the Council.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Councilmember McShane to explain his proposal to
strike language in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.71.051.
McShane stated an identified source of nutrient loading in the lake is
agriculture. As supportive as the County is of agriculture, it's not an appropriate
land use within a drinking water watershed.
Brenner stated concerns about agricultural use is covered with setbacks.
Agriculture is a historic use. It's not a big use in the watershed. If the Council
approves this language change, the next step would be telling people they couldn't
have pets in the watershed.
Roy stated she would support not having agriculture as a permitted use.
Agriculture, including animal husbandry, is a specific activity. The Council is
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
proposing a ban on phosphorus fertilizers, yet is saying horticulture is a permitted
use. Either the Council does or does not want these elements allowed in the
watershed. She supports removing the language. There are plenty of other
agricultural places in the county.
McShane stated existing agricultural uses would be allowed to continue as
nonconforming uses. He is aware that an individual in the watershed started a
small veal farm fairly close to the lake. The preferred land use is forestry. There is
quite a bit of rural land in the watershed. There is a risk of converting forestry land
to agricultural pasture land and animal husbandry, which entails importing nutrients
to feed the animals. Those nutrients won't leave the watershed.
Brenner stated they could increase setbacks and allow horticulture,
floriculture, and crop cultivation without the use of phosphorus.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they could keep some of the language, "Agr+EaFtuFe
... All new and pPreexisting agricultural
uses, other than structures, with two to five animal units shall comply with the
setbacks established in the critical areas ordinance unless they have eempleted an4
" They have a
lot of rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zones in this area. One can allow animals
with buffers that reduce contribution to sediment loading, including phosphorus.
It's currently being done in the watershed. The Backcountry Horsemen
organization has put a lot of time and money into the Y Road trails. Accessing
those trails is one of the reasons people choose to live in that area. She doesn't
see any harm in letting existing facilities continue. It will be difficult to say people
need to get rid of their animals.
McShane stated that if the Council is interested in allowing agriculture and
animal husbandry in the watershed, allow it as a conditional use to make
enforcement easier. Don't allow it to the permitted section.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about preexisting uses.
McShane stated preexisting uses would be nonconforming uses.
Goodwin stated preexisting uses are allowed to continue. For clarity, add the
use as an accessory use to a house. Make the policy clear on horses. If a horse is
present as a recreational use, make the code clear. If the Council allows the use
through a conditional use permit, administrative approval to register and track the
horses would be easier.
McShane stated the purpose is to keep agriculture from being an outright
permitted use. If the Council is interested in allowing all types of agriculture
activities, they need some constraints on the use so it would not be outright
permitted. It might be appropriate to make agriculture as a conditional use, with
conditions and constraints. If the Council is not interested in dropping any
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
agricultural activity from the watershed, then there is no need to work further on
that subject. It sounds like they want to put some conditions on agriculture.
Therefore, craft something in the conditional use section of this ordinance.
Brenner asked about someone with five acres that is farmed and is not for
sale.
McShane stated hog farms and dairy farms are outright permitted in the
watershed currently. An alternative would be to not permit them outright. It
would be okay to allow some crops or a couple of horses, but a horse feeding lot
would not be okay. The Council could allow some flexibility.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she could support removing agriculture from
permitted uses. She would like to allow two to five animal units as an accessory
use. Five acres is more than enough land to have a small operation. Goodwin
stated appendix A of the critical areas ordinance allows preexisting agriculture with
a farm plan and setbacks.
McShane stated the question is the level of tolerance for farming or
agricultural activities that are okay in the watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council could get good information from the
Cooperative Extension office. One could manage two to four horses on five acres
just fine. More than that would require a farm plan.
Brenner asked the number of animal units assigned to a horse. Goodwin
stated one horse equals two animal units. One cow is one animal unit. Horses eat
and poop a lot more than cows.
McShane stated they could get more information so they know a good
stocking rate for watershed protection. This is just a draft that is not even being
introduced yet. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission is discussing this same
issue to clarify the chart on animal units in the code. The Planning Commission is
talking about decreasing the number of animal units on very small parcels. Put this
issue aside and ask the commission for a recommendation, or get John Gillies to
give the Council the same information.
Caskey- Schreiber asked staff to talk invite John Gillies to attend the next
Council work session.
Brenner stated this isn't something that needs to be done before the
moratorium is lifted. The Council has all summer to work on it. She asked if the
Agricultural Advisory Committee could work on this.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is a watershed issue, not an agriculture issue.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, 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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated there are some things that are imperative to do before May 1, but
this is not one of them. They don't have to put extreme pressure on themselves.
Watershed protection is not an area of expertise of the Agricultural Advisory
Committee. Councilmember McShane is getting a sense that the Council wants to
allow some agricultural uses in the watershed. She can be convinced to not allow
any agricultural uses in the watershed. The Council will probably end up with a
compromise.
McShane stated the Council needs to make sure this gets done. The Council
has to deal with State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) when it brings
forward this ordinance. The odds of getting this done by the time the moratorium
is over is becoming impractical.
Fleetwood stated he is not yet sold on agricultural being entirely removed
from a permitted use. The idea of making agriculture a conditional use is
interesting. The subject matter is clearly tied to moratorium response. The
justification is for lifting the moratorium is stricter building codes, which relate to
the low impact development memorandum from staff. The Council must establish
criteria to use to measure whether a proposed interim ordinance is necessary for
lifting the moratorium. Consider proposed criteria, which will guide the Council in
the next month as it decides what is and is not necessary for lifting the
moratorium.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced the proposed changes to section 20.71.300(3).
She asked if this is the section in which the Council could place an incentive or
bonus for maintaining mature conifers.
McShane stated this is the correct section. The current language in that
section talks about landscaping in general, but not water quality protection. The
goal of having open space areas in the watershed as part of development is about
water quality. The use shouldn't be clouded with anything else. Put an emphasis
on native conifers because of their ability to intercept water through an area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated having native conifers planted on 30 -foot centers
doesn't sound native. It sounds like one is replacing what is destroyed. She
suggested maintaining what is there naturally.
McShane stated the reference to 30 -foot centers is a reference to tree
density. If there is an open space area without trees, it would need to be planted.
A forested area wouldn't need to be planted because the trees are already there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that the language sounds like the County is
mandating exactly 30 -foot centers, without allowing more tree density.
Goodwin stated the reason
the current
language says, "or landscaped
per
Whatcom County" was because
staff was
concerned that bare ground
or
undesirable vegetation could be
maintained.
That is not desirable. Split
the
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
language into two sentences. Natural vegetation should be maintained where
natural vegetation exists. Replace bare ground or ground with invasive species
with desired vegetation. They don't want to dictate that someone must remove all
blackberries and replace them, but provide incentive to replace undesired
vegetation with vegetation that is better for water quality.
Brenner stated make it an encouragement rather than a mandate.
McShane stated he defers to staff's suggestion. If there are non - native
invasive plants, it's difficult to make someone take care of a problem they may
have inherited. Tearing out the invasive species could be worse. Just keep it from
ruining the trees. He liked Ms. Goodwin's suggested language.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff could come up with revised language at the
next meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced subsection .302(3).
McShane stated he proposes the original staff recommendation, which makes
sense.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about geographical information system (GIS)
capability to figure out how much impervious surface already exists. Goodwin
stated she would bring forward that information. Staff has information on the
amount of impervious surfaces by basin.
Brenner stated she wouldn't support the change from 2,500 square feet to
2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The extra 500 square feet will not make
much difference to the watershed overall, given the areas that are left to develop,
but it will make a difference to the people trying to build.
McShane stated a different approach relates to the amount allowed currently
for an impervious footprint. Look at the memo regarding LID. A question is how to
tie low impact development into the code.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane continued to state that the goal is to reduce the amount of
phosphorus heading into the lake. Impervious surfaces plays a big role in that
amount. If there are a lot of impervious surfaces, the runoff rates are higher and
the amount of infiltration concentrated in one area of the property, which increases
discharge rates to streams. A different approach is to look at the effective surfaces
that increase phosphorus loading in the lake. The type of pavement used becomes
a factor. Lawns also are a factor in runoff efficiency, which is different from forest
and native material. Set a level of 2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The
rooftop would count against that amount. The County could issue a credit for
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
mitigation elsewhere on the property. The problem with this option is managing it.
A question is whether the Council is interested in looking at that angle.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council must get more information from staff on
this option. As they delve into the rest of the LID options, the Council could maybe
take another look to build more incentives for using other uses.
Brenner stated it would be a nightmare for the staff to figure out those
numbers. Instead, go with low impact development. The Building Industry
Association (BIA) and Sustainable Connections have workshops on low impact
development. In the watershed, the Council could require low impact development,
which says someone must either do it a certain way or come up with some way
that is comparable. The Council could approve that rather than the square footage
option.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff will come back with more information. The
Council will incorporate low impact development in the ordinance.
McShane stated a green roof built via low impact development would count
as a credit toward the total amount of impervious surfaces. Reducing impervious
surfaces is low impact development.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced section .302(8). Add something that gets
toward the low impact development.
McShane stated the new section (8) isn't meant to replace the old section
(8). It's just a numbering issue. The old subsection (8) is addressed in the
alternative surfacing methods section.
Brenner stated gravel can be very pervious. Don't take it out. One can have
gravel that is very pervious. The 50 percent value was a compromise.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced subsection .603, which addresses the removal
of section .302(8).
McShane stated that section allows gravel as an alternative surface if its
demonstrated that rainwater hitting the covered area will infiltrate through the
surface for the two -year, 24 -hour storm event. If the gravel driveway is installed
to allow rainwater to infiltrate to that level, it would be allowed.
Brenner stated that's what they'd expect from a pervious surface. Gravel is
counted as 50 percent pervious. There should be a 50 percent demonstration of
perviousness.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Councilmember McShane's reason for removing
subsection .302(8).
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated the information he has doesn't support it. It's arbitrary and
not consistent with protecting water quality. There is no incentive for someone to
put in a gravel driveway appropriately. A gravel driveway could be installed and
work the same as a paved road, and the builder would receive a 50 percent
reduction. Someone who does a really good job of putting in an appropriate gravel
surface gets no reward whatsoever. This subsection is not fair and offers no
incentive.
Caskey- Schreiber asked staff to comment on encouraging permeable
pavement.
Goodwin stated an incentive for people to put in pervious pavement is if
gravel isn't treated as pervious. Staff would want some way to measure whether
pervious pavement or cinderblock driveways are properly installed. She is
concerned about someone having to demonstrate perviousness. Instead, say that
the surface must be designed to be pervious. She doesn't want staff out in the field
with a hose trying to calculate how pervious is a surface. A good way to go would
be to say that the surface must be designed and certified. Past demonstrations
shown that a properly installed gravel driveway would allow infiltration.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the current language doesn't say anything about a
properly designed gravel driveway. Goodwin stated that is correct. Eliminating the
current subsection .302(8) makes the choice of surface either pavement or a
designed alternative surface of block.
Brenner stated gravel is pervious. Some gravel gets less pervious as it ages,
but it's still pervious. There is never a point where gravel becomes impervious.
Caskey- Schreiber stated King County considers gravel impervious.
Brenner stated that, factually, gravel is never impervious.
McShane stated he's not debating that. He's simply saying that gravel would
be an alternative surface method. If the design of the gravel driveway allows
infiltration of the specified storm event, then the gravel driveway would be allowed.
Encourage alternative surface methods as much as possible. Encourage people to
put in gravel driveways in a way that they function and meet the goals of the
chapter.
Roy stated the design matters. As one of the councilmembers who voted for
the 50 percent pervious for gravel, she would accept this kind of distinction. The
two -year storm event seems reasonable. She asked if that is consistent with
requirements for other kinds of pervious surfacing, such as the pervious paving
blocks. The regulations must be consistent.
McShane stated his intent is that all alternatives meet the same standards.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if there is a design for gravel to do this.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated that in road construction, they use
free - draining gravel to drain and be pervious. Three - quarter inch crushed
limestone with a lot of fines, when the fines get wet, sets up like concrete. There
are varying ranges of runoff coefficients, based on slopes and other factors. In his
experience, maintenance is very important and the key for long -term success. The
designs are good when installed. Once people move in, owners do work that
degrades the design.
Brenner asked about a two -year 24 -hour storm event for measuring
permeability. Rutan stated it is a reasonable frequency to look at things like this.
It seems to fall in line with other criteria where they use that storm event for sizing
facilities.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to remove the existing item .302(8)
Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed,
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend .603, "...shall not be considered
impervious surfaces under WCC 20.71.300 if it is designed so all rain water hitting
the covered area will be infiltrated through the surface for the two -year, 24 -hour
storm event."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add to subsection .302, "(8) Within the Lake
Whatcom watershed, lawn areas exceeding 500 square feet will be counted as
impervious unless some low impact development standards, such as filter strips,
bio- retention swales, bogs, are in place."
McShane stated he's leery of the language Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber
added to his language. Rewrite the section to incorporate green building standards,
but don't call out something that specific. The purpose of his proposed amendment
is because he's concerned about the fact that lawns are a potential contributor to
water quality problems for a number of reasons.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the Fire Marshal has a response to this
language. In areas such as Sudden Valley, they are working hard with builders in
the community on defensible space. That is the concern with that threshold.
Defensible space is about keeping trees away from the house for fire protection
purposes.
Brenner stated that would be taken care of by the ban on phosphorus
containing fertilizers. She won't support the motion.
McShane stated he would not support the motion.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew the motion.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add language to section .302, "(8) Alternative
surface methods described in Whatcom County Code 20.71.603 may be used."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the cluster design standards section can be
manipulated to discourage subdivisions. Pederson stated the Planning and
Development Committee is looking at this code section at its meeting later in the
afternoon.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced subsection .700 regarding roads, curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks. It is best to get away from having curbs. She asked if
something could be added to this subsection to discourage the use of curbs. Rutan
stated an effective means of road stormwater treatment is filter strips of biological
material. There are other things that a curb does. It collects drainage and also
provides a clear zone. On a 35 mile per hour or less road, there cannot be any
fixed objects higher than six inches within ten feet of the traveled lane, which
includes things like mailboxes and signs. When there is a six -inch vertical curb, the
clear zone is now 18 inches. That allows mailboxes and signs. It provides a
modicum of protection for pedestrians. There is no doubt that a very effective
means of stormwater treatment is a filter strip. It is a federal law adopted by the
State. The County must follow federal and State guidelines when any project
includes federal or State money.
Brenner stated the County could reduce the curbs on a lot of roads that don't
involve State or federal money.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the low impact development items in staff's memo
addresses the role of curbs in stormwater runoff. She asked if the County can
implement something like this only in the watershed. Rutan stated the County
could implement this in the watershed. It's very important for safety to provide an
appropriate clear zone and recovery area. There are designs to allow for a clear
zone and control runoff.
Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Rutan to develop draft language to reduce the
velocity of runoff.
Brenner stated language must also reduce the amount of impervious surface.
Don't require large width and sidewalks on County roads.
Rutan stated the County currently allows reduced cross sections for special
districts. He also incorporated the City of Bellingham's Lake Whatcom watershed
road standards for a couple of County projects. A benefit of not having a curb is
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
not having a catch basin and a subsurface system. An above - ground surface is
cheaper to construct and maintain.
Roy asked if the filter strip could also be a safety zone. Rutan stated it
could.
Roy stated she would not be upset to see proposals with no sidewalks. The
issue with the fire department comes up. There are low impact development
standards that fire departments can approve. Incorporate those options. Include
the fire department in the discussion. Rutan stated he can do that. There are two
purposes to a curb, and he wants to make sure they address both things.
McShane asked about one minor change to section 20.71.400 to reduce
setbacks for different road classifications. Rutan stated the first issue might be
with utilities. They will want to look at that. Ten -foot widths may be of concern
when there are cable and gas lines. It's very hard to open cut a road and then get
it back together, however it's something they should look at.
McShane asked Mr. Rutan to look at that issue. Overall, the County is taking
steps to reduce density. The amount of new utilities going in should be minimized.
Rutan stated having shorter driveways that serve multiple houses is an effective
way to cut down on impervious surfaces.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council will meet again on this issue next
Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on April 12 , 2005.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 3/29/2005, Page 12