HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 5 20031
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
Planning and Development Committee
August 5, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 —
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, handed out a memo (on file) regarding tree
retention and is based on conversations with the public, staff, and the State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). His proposal is for language that would
not unfairly burden smaller landowners with land platted after January 1960 and
that is being used for non - conversion forest practices. The current language makes
it not economically viable to harvest trees on those lots. Staff reviewed all
applicable state rules and regulations, and found that an exemption could be placed
into the tree canopy area retention section. It is a simple statement that will take
care of the issue. The tree canopy retention language would regulate a conversion.
A person doing a simple non - conversion harvest on platted land would apply for a
County clearing permit, subjected to the rest of the review, and would have to get
a DNR class IV general permit.
Also, Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.80.733(2) of the Amended
June 9, 2003 version must include the language that is currently stricken from it.
It is a State requirement. It is not a substantial change to the ordinance.
McShane moved to amend WCC 20.80.735(2)(d), "...clearing activities on
any lot or parcel, with the exception of non - conversion forest practices occurring on
lands platted after January 1, 1960, shall comply with the following provisions:"
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, 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
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.
and to reinstate WCC 20.80.733(2), "The proposed activity consists of non -
conversion forest practices other than a Class IV General forest practices on platted
land, and other than those with an approved COHP regulated under Chapter 76.09
RCW; or"
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to discuss the impervious surface
language. Use the language that Councilmember McShane proposed in his June 10,
2003 memo. Add language to section 20.71.302, "(8) Gravel covered driveway
surfaces will be counted as impervious surfaces unless all of the following criteria
are met, in which case one -half of the surface area of the gravel driveway shall be
calculated as impervious surface:
(a) The site is not located in an urban zoning district.
(b) The slope of the driveway is less than 5 %.
(c) The site soils consist of hydrologic group A or B soils.
(d) The depth to seasonal groundwater is at least 6 feet.
(e) The driveway is sloped in such a manner that any runoff generated will
be infiltrated into the ground."
Brenner stated that language makes people think they have a chance to use
gravel, when they really don't because the criteria disqualify most people.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that, as an alternative, she would just prefer to
treat gravel as an impervious surface, as King County does.
McShane stated that staff provided a map that shows all the areas that meet
the criteria in his proposed language. The slope criterion would be site - specific.
Fleetwood asked if Mr. Brueske has had a chance to look at the language
proposed.
Chris Brueske, Engineering Manager, stated the intent of his July memo was
to present an objective analysis of what Whatcom County development standards
would require for an engineering analysis. His analysis tried to address the factors
in Councilmember McShane's memo. Using the required engineering analysis,
gravel calculates as producing 40 to 90 less runoff volume than pavement,
depending on slope. He can't evaluate the other criteria proposed, such as the
zoning. He'd prefer to comment on the aspects of the proposal that he can test for
engineering analysis.
Brenner stated gravel has 40 to 90 percent less runoff than pavement,
according to Mr. Brueske. Based on the restrictions in Councilmember McShane's
proposal, people will opt for using pavement. Her proposal was to give someone
more credit for using gravel than for using pavement. Her language is to allow
twice the credit for using gravel instead of pavement. Most people will see that
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, 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.
they don't fit Councilmember McShane's criteria for using gravel, so they will use
pavement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated these numbers and Councilmember Brenner's
proposal don't calculate slope. That's important in a watershed area. She would be
willing to add in type C soils.
McShane stated he proposed this language because he felt that the original
proposal didn't make sense. Since then, his proposal has been clouded and
debated heavily. He's become frustrated. He preferred to defer to what other
people have thought regarding these types of surfaces. He doesn't want to debate
this at all because of his frustration.
Brenner stated she would rather have people use gravel than pavement. It's
not a credibility issue. Both options make sense.
Caskey- Schreiber stated their purpose is to limit the amount of impervious
surface. By giving credit for a gravel driveway that is undeserved is to encourage
someone to have more impervious surfaces. The goal in the watershed is to keep
as much pervious surface as possible. Treat gravel as it is. In certain conditions,
gravel may act imperviously, but it depends on the soil type. If they have the right
soils, slope, and other conditions then it would be fine. In situations where the
gravel won't be pervious in a few years, it's not okay. The County needs to say up
front how much impervious surface will be allowed.
Brenner stated that according to Mr. Brueske, gravel is still 40 to 90 percent
less impervious than pavement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that doesn't include slope. Brueske stated his
models did include consideration of slope, and he didn't find much difference in the
results. Slope does not affect the runoff numbers because of the way they ran the
analysis. The type of storms in Western Washington is called a 1A storm. A 1A
storm has a rainfall distribution that starts very low, gradually builds and peaks
eight hours into the storm. Once the maximum infiltration rate of the soils is
achieved, any rainfall after that becomes runoff. On a small area such as a
driveway, the slope will only change the infiltration and runoff rate by a minute or
two.
Brenner stated that if the committee doesn't approve her proposal, then she
would rather do the alternative to evaluate the scenarios on a case -by -case basis.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add language to section 20.71.302, "(8)
Gravel covered driveway surfaces will be counted as impervious surfaces unless all
of the following criteria are met, in which case one -half of the surface area of the
gravel driveway shall be calculated as impervious surface:
(a) The site is not located in an urban zoning district.
(b) The slope of the driveway is less than 5 %.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, 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
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.
(c) The site soils consist of hydrologic group A or B soils.
(d) The depth to seasonal groundwater is at least 6 feet.
(e) The driveway is sloped in such a manner that any runoff generated will
be infiltrated into the ground."
Caskey- Schreiber stated that she may want to add A, B, or C soil types,
depending on the amount in the watershed.
McShane stated he thought most of the rest is either C or D type soils. They
don't have good infiltration. Look at the difference on the flow curves of the
percent change between C and D, which depends on the storm event. For the six -
month storm, there is over 50 percent greater runoff from type C soils. For two -
year storm, it is less than that. The bigger the storm, the less percentage
difference there is because it overwhelms all soil types. Even on forested land,
shown on Table 3 of Mr. Brueske's memo, they start to see runoff with Type C soils.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would not add those soils.
Brenner stated her language specified one and one - quarter inch gravel. She
wanted to change her language to say "clean" gravel instead.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend 20.97.187 to remove the reference to
one and one - quarter inch gravel by deleting the last sentence, "...determining total
impervious surface. HeweveF, gravel reads using ene and ene EjuaFteF ineh,
greater, clean gravel shall be considered lew grade ervieus surfaee and shall be
allowed twice the limit of impervious surface."
Motion carried unanimously.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, submitted a handout dated August 5, 2003 (on
file) for suggested amendments.
McShane moved approval of item two, financial assurance language for
tree retention to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(9), and item three, financial
assurance language for land clearing to amend section 20.80.735(2)(e)(v), in Ms.
Pederson's list of Possible Alternative Language to Address Areas of Concern, dated
August 5, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to approve item four, tree retention language limitation to
one -time 5,000 square feet or 35 percent clearing to amend section
20.80.735(2)(d)(1), in Ms. Pederson's list of Possible Alternative Language to
Address Areas of Concern, dated August 5, 2003.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, 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
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.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sylvia Goodwin Planning Division Manager, asked if the Council would
schedule a public hearing on this item on September 9.
Fleetwood stated they would, unless there is a good reason not to.
McShane stated one of the reasons they put this item back in committee was
to compare tree retention language, discuss why tree retention is important to
protect water quality in a drainage area, and consider alternative approaches.
Derek Booth reviewed alternative approaches to a variety of streams in the King
County area. Those approaches include stormwater retrofits, stormwater design
standards, and zoning. From that study, they found all the approaches had limited
success, including zoning. Rural zoned areas do not provide protection because of
the runoff once a tree canopy is removed. There are impacts to water quality and
biology that occur inside a stream channel. They need to think of whether there
are other approaches for success. That is something that should be done in
committee. He gets the sense that staff isn't ready to do that today. The question
is whether they want to do that at the Council or in committee.
Goodwin stated staff is working on those issues and is preparing a memo to
the councilmembers so that information could be in the findings for the ordinance.
The Council could discuss it in committee, and continue the discussion at the
Council meeting.
McShane stated he would be concerned about scheduling a public hearing at
that time. He would not want the public to come to an evening meeting not
knowing the information and where the councilmembers are going. Wait to have
the public hearing on a following meeting. It will give people an opportunity to
provide rebuttal to what the Council is doing. Don't have the public hearing the
same night as the day of the committee discussion. The interim is good until
December.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's been referring to information on the hydrology
process and forestry retention. She would include that information in the packet.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin stated certain staff would rather wait until at least the second
meeting in September. However, Comprehensive Plan amendments will be coming
forward soon.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it would be beneficial for
the community to have time to put thought into the information the committee
would receive for its discussion.
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, 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
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 he has great admiration for the entire Council on this item,
which has been very difficult to work on. The councilmembers have had to
understand some cutting edge science.
Fleetwood stated this would be held in committee until the second meeting in
September.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 8/5/2003, Page 6