HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 25 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
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
March 25, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 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:
Sharon Roy
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.22 — URBAN RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY (URM) DISTRICT TO REMOVE "'PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES" AS AN ALLOWABLE CONDITIONAL USE (AB2003 -124)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the urban residential
medium (URM) zone allows offices as a conditional use. This became an issue
recently. The City of Bellingham didn't want an office building in an area identified
as a residential area. County staff went through the process and conditioned the
project. The City was concerned because it didn't want office buildings in
residential areas that it would annex. The City requested that the use be removed
from that zoning district. There are also areas in Birch Bay and Lynden zoned
URM. The community plans for both cities envision residential development in
those areas.
Roy stated they talk a lot about the village concept that has residential
development around small businesses that support and service the community.
She asked if they are still allowing for that concept. Goodwin stated this would
take the County further away from that concept. If they take offices out of the
residential URM area, there would be less of that mixed use. That doesn't mean
houses can't surround commercial uses. There are broad areas of Birch Bay that
are zoned URM but are considered residential. She thought about how the
residents would feel if big office buildings came in. There would be a lot of
opposition. There are areas in Birch Bay, Lynden, and Bellingham that allow the
type of mixed use in the resort recreational and commercial zones. This area
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
didn't seem appropriate for that. The urban residential -mixed use (UR -MX) zone is
for mixed uses.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY RON
KILMER AND TOM FENTON FOR "'ANCHOR MANOR, PHASE II"
(PUD97 -002 AND PLS97 -0003) (AB2003 -129)
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated the planned unit
development (PUD) is recommended for approval.
Brenner stated this is usually considered in executive session.
Fleetwood stated legal counsel recommends treating this like the site -
specific rezone done last week.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Hearing Examiner made it a condition to
adhere to Natural Resource Specialist Peter Sims' Anchor Manor Wetland Mitigation
memo regarding the mitigation plan. They do have to adhere to the extensive
plan. Middleton stated the first Hearing Examiner condition states that the
applicant shall comply with the mitigation plan. There are a total of eight
conditions that are required.
Roy stated the packet references that the wetland mitigation was not
followed in phase I, and wetlands were disturbed without following procedure. She
asked why they would recommend approval before they see the mitigation plan.
Middleton stated the mitigation plan for this is included. He did not know how it
pertains to previous violations. The mitigation plan is detailed. It describes the
area impacted, function, buffers, hydrology, and other factors.
Peter Sim, Natural Resource Specialist, stated there is an approved
mitigation plan.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
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
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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
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.
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
Fleetwood stated the committee hopes to make amendments and vote a
version out of committee. They won't recommend to the full Council tonight. It
will require a public hearing. This should address the public's concerns about
creating one version for people to look at.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, provided additional comments
that deal with the current draft (on file). The comments are regarding all the
issues that were brought up at the committee meeting two weeks ago.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee took a ten - minute break at 3:20 p.m. to
review the additional comments.)
Goodwin stated the first issue is to section 20.803735(2)(b) regarding
phased clearing. Timber representatives were concerned this could be applied to
commercial logging operations, and it would add to the cost of logging.
McShane stated he has faith that the technical administrator would require
phased clearing for logging operations. He's not sure it is an issue.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, stated the phased clearing suggestions
are good.
Goodwin stated the next issue is 20.80.735(2)(d) regarding tree retention.
The question is whether they intend to retain just trees, or also the under story
and soils. It was modified a couple of weeks ago. The issue is enforcement. If
someone is clearing trees, that person needs a permit. If trimming bushes, he or
she doesn't. The concern is how people know that a permit is needed if they are
just clearing brush.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is trees and vegetation that contribute to soil
stabilization. She asked if a person has to submit a clearing plan, and whether the
County inspects after clearing and before building. Goodwin stated that their
would be an inspection during the initial subdivision. Areas would be flagged or
marked for retention. Once the house is built, someone will likely go in and
remove certain vegetation.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is not as concerned once the house is there and
the yard is in.
Brenner stated she liked the language about implementing a parallel process
of increased education. Give incentives to people to retain that vegetation.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
Goodwin stated they need to make sure that everyone is clear if they require
that the under story be retained, and define the level of enforcement. The staff
concern is the enforcement and ongoing maintenance.
Roy asked if they could clarify that they are talking about tree retention and
under story protection during the construction phase. Goodwin agreed that they
could.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d), "...with the
following provisions during the construction phase of home building:"
McShane stated they should remove the reference to the under story.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
McShane moved to remove all references to the associated under story in
section 20.80.735(2)(d) and all subsections.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated the next issue is with section 20.80.735(2)(d)(1) regarding
tree retention thresholds. It has been modified so that lots one acre or less must
retain 5,000 square feet or 30 percent, and lots larger than one acre have to retain
50 percent. The larger lots are going to have to retain more trees. That is an
issue of equity and whether people would be encouraged to have smaller lots.
Also, the foresters commented that a five -acre parcel managed as forestry would
only be able to log 50 percent of the trees. The foresters suggest including the
five -acre exemption. The problem is that a five -acre subdivision could remove all
the trees. If a parcel is platted, even if it is five acres, it is still treated as a
converted lot even if it is managed in forestry. There aren't many of those parcels.
Other parcels that are not platted could be exempt from County regulations under
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rules if not doing a conversion
or a conversion option harvest plan (co -hop).
Brenner suggested Isaacson's recommendation, "On lots or five acres and
greater, tree canopy and associated under story shall not be required, however
encouraged. All class IV forest practices or co- option harvest plans shall protect
and provide site plans in accordance with the Whatcom County critical areas
ordinance." The critical areas ordinance provides good protection. She doesn't
want the person to go to a State plan that doesn't have any protection.
Fleetwood asked how they encourage people who are otherwise exempt to
retain the tree canopy and under story.
Brenner stated education is one method. There may be incentives they
could develop.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
McShane stated the suggestion is to apply a single percentage for lots less
than five acres. They can always go to a class III permit. If it is a co -hop, the
forester has to replant. If it is a conversion, the forester doesn't have to replant.
Randy Bartelt, Trillium Forester, stated a co -hop permit holder has up to
three years to designate an intention. If the intention is not to convert, then the
property must be replanted.
McShane asked if the owner has to follow the rules that apply if he or she
chooses to go to a conversion. Bartelt stated the owner has to declare if he or she
wants to convert or go to a class III general permit. If the owner does not know
whether or not to convert, the co -hop process is helpful. The co -hop process is a
County process, where the County implements its critical areas ordinance. The
County is getting the same buffer requirements for a co -hop as a conversion. That
just protects the landowner from going through the six -year moratorium process.
If removing 5,000 board feet of timber, the forester also has to abide by
forest practice rules and regulations. There are strict requirements for buffers and
wetlands. Sometimes the requirements are more stringent than the critical areas
ordinance. According to the forest practice rules, the forester has to abide by
whichever is more stringent.
McShane asked if there is a requirement for replanting any portion of a five -
acre conversion property that has protected wetlands and streams according to the
critical areas ordinance. Isaacson stated they have to replant any area not
declared converted.
McShane asked if a five -acre parcel is replanted if it is converted. Bartelt
stated his concern is about large landowners if the tree retention regulations are
required. He interprets that the Council views the critical areas ordinance as not
being protective enough of public resources. There is adequate protection through
the critical areas ordinance as it applies to buffers on streams and wetlands. The
foresters must also abide by state forest practice regulations, or whichever is more
stringent. If the foresters are required to leave additional trees, beyond the
current requirement, it is a taking. He would have no problem with language to
reimburse for the additional retention buffers, similar to what the forest practice
rules have done for small forestland owners. They compensate the landowners for
the additional buffers. The forest practice rules were amended in 2001 through the
forest and fish process, which included the state, National Marine Fisheries Service,
tribes, and Department of Fish and Wildlife. In this process, scientists came
together and determined that the rules were adequate to protect public resources.
All the agencies bought off on it. Councilmember Nelson was presented with a
letter from the Department of Ecology, which said that the forest practices rules
and regulations, the forest and fish model, was adequate to address water quality
in the State of Washington. The question is whether the County Council believes
that the existing regulations are adequate to protect public resources. If it doesn't,
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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
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.
he would like to see the science before they go forward. He also wants to see
compensation because the public will view this as a taking.
Isaacson stated he supports his recommendation to reinstate the five -acre
exemption, as recited by Councilmember Brenner.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Isaacson continued to state he agreed with a lot of the things that Randy
Bartelt said. There is a lot of thought behind the Council on why this is happening.
It is not all scientific - based. There are a lot of concerns besides science, such as
aesthetics.
He provided information on his major concerns. If a portion of a property is
used for tree retention, it will have a major impact with the Assessor. That needs
to be looked at and reviewed. It won't be considered a taking. There are
considerable State revenue problems. There is a five percent excise tax on timber.
If they take millions of board feet off the market, the State will have something to
say about it. The percentage of the tree retention area is a matter of perception.
Brenner stated there was a charter amendment that requires the Council to
assess the economic impact of major changes to property owners.
Roy stated the impression is that they are shutting down logging in the
entire watershed. She doesn't think that is correct, because there may not be that
many lots. Goodwin displayed a map of affected lots that are over five acres and
platted after 1960 in the Lake Whatcom watershed, which are treated as
conversion lots.
Isaacson stated the map is inaccurate. More than one piece that is smaller
than five acres may be adjacent and owned by the same person. Many
subdivisions already have to have conditions attached, which are the best tools the
County has, even if none of this is approved. There are many holes in the
proposed language, but staff doesn't have enough time to analyze them all.
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated that going to a five -acre
maximum on the retention policy is a good idea. He supported potential action two
in the memo submitted today by Sylvia Goodwin. Also, specify a nominal five
acres instead of a net five acres.
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated he is concerned about
reinstating the five -acre maximum lot size. Someone could clear ten acres and
subdivide it. There would be no tree retention requirements for those lots that are
created. They could require replanting back to what the tree retention amount
would have been. The trees that were there first are better than trees that are
planted. Promote forestry over houses. However, if houses are built, this is a way
around the tree retention regulations.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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
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.
Isaacson stated that if they go to a class III permit, they lose all regulations.
Fleetwood stated the object is to do the best they can to protect Lake
Whatcom and Lake Samish. They are balancing some peoples' economic well
being with watershed protections. He asked if the unintended consequences of
keeping the language as it is will make people go to a class III permit and log the
area anyway. Goodwin stated it is true. They have to replant within a certain
period of time and have a six -year moratorium against subdividing. The
commercial foresters will probably get a class III permit. Those who want to
convert to development are more likely to go with a conversion option harvest
permit or a conversion permit. Those who are going to commercially log and
replant are exempt no matter what. They need to worry about the smaller logging
operations that might be converted to subdivisions. There are options to
encourage the trees to grow back, but not prevent them from being logged.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if is feasible to establish an incremental retention
plan based on lot sizes. Goodwin stated that's what this language already does.
They could refine that. Rather than make it complicated, determine the overall
goal, pick a percentage that would be applied across the board, and then provide
exemptions for commercial foresters. Five acres seems to be a reasonable
threshold. Encourage that they leave the stumps in and replant, which will protect
soils and prevent runoff.
McShane moved to exempt lots that are a nominal five acres or more.
He's not entirely happy with that. It needs more work. It will send a message that
the committee is considering that issue. They'll get some input on this over the
next few weeks.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the class III permit works.
McShane stated there are three options. The first option is a class III special
permit, which means that the owner would not have to follow critical areas rules,
only forest practice rules. The forester would be required to replant, and could not
develop for six years.
The second option is a co -hop permit, which keeps the owner's options
open. The forester follows the critical areas ordinance, and then must choose
between replanting or developing.
The third option is a straight conversion, where an owner harvests and then
builds the houses. He would like to see a requirement for replanting a percentage
of the property for a conversion. The intent is to maintain a hydrologic regime,
which can be done by replanting.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that they could develop a reverse scale of the
percentages. Make the required retention percentage less as the size of the parcel
gets larger.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Goodwin stated the next issue is with section 20.80.735(2)(f) regarding
seasonal clearing limitations. There was discussion about whether or not to include
Drayton Harbor. The environmental community feels that the point system isn't
stringent enough. Any parcel can be cleared if there is an engineered plan. There
was discussion that some parcels shouldn't be cleared, even with an engineered
plan.
Fleetwood stated they need to address the point system.
Goodwin stated the point system wouldn't become part of the code, but
would be used administratively as a checklist to make decisions on this issue. The
points were assigned to various items on the checklist. She described the point
assignments to the various criteria. If a project scores 40 points or less, it is
approved, subject to best management practices. If a project scores greater than
40 and less than 75, it can be done with conditions. Any project that scores 75 or
greater would require an engineered plan.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is an obvious area that is not scored
appropriately. Goodwin stated she couldn't think of anything in particular. The
one thing staff was concerned about was allowing any project that scored over 75
points to go forward, even with an engineering plan. All manmade engineering
measures can fail, and that property would be in a very critical area.
Fleetwood asked how the time of year, February and March, was chosen.
Goodwin stated the committee looked at the amount of rainfall. Later in the year,
when it had been raining all winter and the soils are saturated, there will be more
runoff. Usually, the amount of rain received in January is much greater than in
February.
Isaacson stated it doesn't matter how much it rains. What matters are the
activity and the rain that occur after saturation.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association, stated the question is what
criteria they have to make sure staff has some mechanism to enforce that, and
that it makes some sense to people who are doing projects. It must have
predictability and certainty. The point system developed out of that concern. Most
of the time, they don't need to worry so much about the soil composition. They
need to make sure the staff can work with any application to develop a plan that
makes sense on the associated parcels. This establishes a middle ground between
the technical administrator and the applicant. If it is expensive enough, it will
make more economic sense to wait to do the project during the summer months.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
A lot of people spent a lot of time working on this system. A reasonable limitation,
not a total ban, on seasonal clearing is a good idea.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would be more comfortable with the point
system if any project scoring over 40 points must wait until the dryer months. She
doesn't want to allow a high -risk project, knowing it is a high risk, to go forward
instead of just making them wait a few months.
Fleetwood stated it is the Council's prerogative to amend the ordinance if it
deems necessary to develop the best regulations they can.
Nelson stated forest practices in the watershed occur more in the wetter
months because they are precluded from the dryer, fire season. He asked if that is
taken into account. Goodwin stated forest practices are exempt if there is a class
III permit. Co -hops and conversions have to comply.
Nelson stated the Department of Ecology stated that forest practices have
little impact on water quality. However, this will penalize a property just for being
five acres in size.
Brenner suggested an exemption for commercial logging activities. She
asked if there is an option for the County to deny the engineered plan. Goodwin
stated there is not.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated staff might suggest
modifications to the plan, but they wouldn't actually deny it unless it is woefully
inadequate. It will be difficult for a non - engineer to say that the engineering plan
is woefully inadequate.
Roy stated it would be useful if the Planning Department matched actual
construction sites to the point system to see how it works. This should be passed
on. They can come back later and make those revisions. That would be good
information to have. Goodwin stated staff could do that review for various current
and past projects.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Roy stated that it would make those on both sides of the issue feel better.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to remove the last two thresholds.
If a project doesn't make the 40 -point criteria, then it has to wait.
Nelson stated it needs to be evaluated in terms of forest practices, which are
typically larger than a five -acre piece. Take into consideration how they deal with
a forest practice versus a development. The intention is not to inhibit or preclude
the ability to use a property for forest practices, even though they may want to
retain the ability to develop in the future.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
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 moved to amend Council packet page 117, section
20.80.735(2)(f)(1)(c), '...during the wet season. if a lieensed engineer- designs
and submits an engineered eresion and sediment centrel plan feF the pFepesed
measuFes will eentrel eresion and pFevent silt laden runoff fFem leaving t
censtructien site on aCCeFdance with this section, the administrater may appreve
the pr-epesed eleaFing aetivity -during the wet ." Don't let the technical
administrator make that determination and fight that fight.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend Council packet page 116, section
20.80.735(2)(f)(1)(a), "...for seasonal clearing limitations or is limited to forest
practices only, the proposed activity shall be exempt..."
Nelson stated there is an exemptions section for forest practices land
clearing. He asked if those would be exempt, but would still have to meet the
requirements of the Whatcom County development standards, chapter three. He
asked what those are. They need to make sure that the amendment is not
contradictory to the regulations. Goodwin stated she believes it cross - references a
section that is no longer there.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Goodwin stated an exemption is listed in section 20.80.735(2)(f)(3) that
cross - references a section she cannot find. The staff will have to renumber the
language and find out what it was supposed to cross - reference. These are the
exemptions. That might be where they want to exempt forestry practices.
McShane moved to rescind the previous motion.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber abstaining.
McShane moved to add the exemption to section 20.80.735(2)(f)(3).
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated the next issue is in section 20.97.419 regarding the
definition of a "significant tree." The definition no longer exists. It used to be
what they used to determine the percentage of the trees that were retained. In
section 20.80.735(2)(d)(1) the question comes up about which trees could be
removed.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, 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.
Isaacson stated that there are a number of factors that have to be dealt with
on a site. When they get that specific about tree size, he becomes concerned. The
County should not take a position that one size fits all, in this case.
Goodwin stated the canopy size of a two -inch tree will be small, so it won't
add much to the percentage.
Roy stated there is an issue of confidence and trust that people will
understand the intention.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some buffer trees on a slope might be essential to
retain.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated the initial intent in defining
the trees was to have some predictability. With that, they have a tree that is more
established, has a larger canopy, and intercept more rainfall before it hits the
ground. Unfortunately, it conflicts with the views that people want to have on a
property. Encourage trees in areas near the slopes or on slopes. There is still a
section in the code about prioritizing trees for retention. If the Council's intent is
to intercept rainwater prior to striking the ground to mitigate for stormwater, then
he recommends keeping the larger trees.
Isaacson stated he was concerned with section 20.80.735(2)(f)(1)(b)(iii) on
Council packet page 117. He submitted alternate language. An engineer who
hasn't completed a recent certified erosion control and who designed the plan
would not be able to review it.
Goodwin stated the last issue was with section 20.97.187 regarding the
impervious surface definition.
Isaacson stated gravel can be impervious when done to specific
specifications to meet certain requirements. There is a lot of rock that is pervious,
and would be better for a site than the natural dirt after it is disturbed. He
proposed that non - compacted gravel be allowed for use when the material is no
less than 1 Y2 inches when crushed, and is relatively clear material.
Brenner stated the issue is with driveways. It gets compacted on driveways.
Isaacson stated 1 Y2 inch of clear material doesn't get compacted. A number of
roads have been done with that type of rock.
McShane moved to include gravel roads as an impervious surface in
section 20.97.187.
Motion carried unanimously.
Roy stated they have not discussed whether or not to include Drayton
Harbor. She is not sure if she has an opinion on it yet. Much of the land within the
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, Page 11
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.
Drayton Harbor watershed would score under the 40 points on the point system,
and the question may be moot because it is flat and well drained. The only
question is how close it is to a water body. If the point system is correct, the
impact may be only to those areas where they want to impact, which is by water
bodies.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to include Drayton Harbor if the point system
stays as it is. If the point system is altered at all, they should go back to the
Drayton Harbor discussion.
Goodwin stated Drayton Harbor is currently a stormwater special district and
a water resource special management area. The seasonal land clearing regulations
are for the special management area, of which Drayton Harbor is not.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion until they address the point
system fully.
McShane moved to amend section 20.71.302(1), "For uses in the UR and
URM zone districts, at least --9 80 percent of the lot...." If one is in the UR zone in
the Lake Whatcom watershed, a typical lot will be 15,000 square feet. On those
lots, they can have half the lot, 7,500 square feet as impervious surface. If it is
over 10,000 square feet, the percentage can go to 60 percent. They should
increase the percentage to 80 percent. Sixty percent of a 15,000 square foot lot is
a 6,000 square foot footprint. That is an area where they have some significant
problems with stormwater runoff. Those individuals are going to be dealing with
significant problems. It is draining in an area where they are going to have
problems with the total maximum daily load is decided. Minimizing that to a
degree is important.
McShane asked if there is any UR zoning in Lake Samish. Goodwin stated
there is not anymore.
McShane stated it does not apply to Birch Bay.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the typical percentage of impervious surfaces for a
home site, including driveway.
McShane stated that, as a comparison, his entire lot and half his neighbor's
lot would total 6,000 square feet. That is a large area.
Roy asked if the goal for sensitive watershed area is to limit impervious
surfaces to ten percent. Goodwin stated that is the limit drainage -wide. It applies
more to streams than lakes. That is the best available science that they have.
McShane stated a standard lot is 15,000 square feet. If it is 80 percent
open space, there could be 3,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on the lot.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, Page 12
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 there will be people who can't build up. They should not use
their own living situations as comparisons.
McShane stated that his property is not a demonstration of how he expects
other people to live. It is used for comparison - purposes only. The point is that
this is a drinking water source for half the county. People who live within the
drinking water source area should be held to higher standards than elsewhere.
Because of the fact that they are going to allow development to continue, those
folks should live with it. Three thousand square feet of impervious surfaces is
ample. He would propose an amendment to section 20.71.302(4).
Brenner stated the people already living in the watershed are the majority.
If they are going to do something like that, they need to add retrofitting.
McShane stated that in the end, there would be retrofitting occurring in that
neighborhood. It will be required by the total maximum daily load study in two or
three years. Those areas are going to be defined by how much they are allowed to
discharge. Those individuals are facing a retrofit bill down the road. One reason to
reduce the amount of impervious surfaces is to save new developments, the
County, and the City the cost of doing retrofitting. What he is proposing is
aggressive. He is willing to give a little more to property owners with small lots
that are limited now to 2,000 square feet. It would be more equitable.
McShane repeated and amended his motion to amend section
20.71.302(1), "For uses in the UR and URM zone districts, at least S$ 80 percent of
the lot shall be kept free of structures and impervious surfaces, exeept On the URI
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to approve an amendment to section 20.71.302(4),
"...2,999 2,500 square feet of impervious surface shall be allowed."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood stated this version would go forward for public review.
McShane stated they would take this up in about a month, after they get the
public input.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/25/2003, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 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, 3/25/2003, Page 14