HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 6 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
May 6, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 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 AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, BY CLARIFYING EXISTING CODE LANGUAGE,
ELIMINATING CONFLICT AND DUPLICATION IN THE CODE
LANGUAGE (AB2003 -173)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is just to clean up
language, remove duplication, or change references to things that no longer exist.
The only change to the intent of the code is to correct a scrivener's error regarding
sections 20.42.105 and 20.42.109. It is supposed to be an administrative
approval. The Planning Division wants to do a code scrub once or twice per year.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
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)
(AMENDED VERSION)
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to spend some time at this meeting on
the point system.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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 moved to amend section 20.80.735 to remove Drayton Harbor.
They were looking for water quality protection from a lake scenario. Drayton
Harbor is not necessarily subject to phosphorus. It is a compromise. Also,
managing all these rules is a big task. It will help focus the attention onto Lake
Whatcom.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated it does not affect the stormwater special
district standards for Drayton Harbor. He agreed with the amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Baumgarten asked if the motion included removing Drayton Harbor from the
water resource special management area, not just the tree retention section.
McShane stated that is correct.
McShane moved to amend page 17, section 20.80.735(2)(d), "...clearing
activities on any lots less than S "m"i"na ae-es shall comply with the following
provisions: 1. , existing tree eanepy areas (as defined by th-e
site, dripline of the tree(s)) may be rerneved feF the purpose ef a building
tree canopy areas, as defined by the drip line of the trees, may be removed for the
purpose of a building site, driveways, parking areas, and areas to be landscaped,
but such areas shall not exceed 5,000 square feet or 35 percent of the existing tree
canopy area, whichever is greater."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated he looked at language regarding lots larger than five acres
in terms of co -hops and conversions. If anyone wants to make that change, he
would ask that person to add language that he would recommend.
Brenner asked if there is an exception for someone with a hardship that
allows that person to apply for a variance.
McShane stated they went through that once already. Someone applied for
a variance.
Brenner suggested a motion to amend section 20.71.302(4) so that the
square footage is returned to 3,000 square feet, "... shall be allowed, excluding
Sudden Valley. In Sudden Valley, for any lot consolidation, the 3,000 square foot
impervious surface shall apply." Encourage people to consolidate lots and reduce
the amount of buildable lots, even if those two lots don't create a standard lot.
This would help reduce buildable lots. Sudden Valley's allowed square footage
would remain at 2,500 square feet unless lots are consolidated.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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 asked the result of increasing the allowed square footage
to 3,000 square feet.
Tom Pratum, citizen, stated there are a lot of parcels in Sudden Valley.
Thousands could be built on.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how much more impervious surface would be
created. Goodwin stated she would have to do a calculation. It would be
complicated to figure out.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.71.302(4), "...square feet of
impervious surface shall be allowed. In the event they engage in lot consolidation,
they can increase their square footage to 3,000 square feet of impervious surface."
Goodwin stated certain Geneva lots are consolidated because they are too small.
She asked if they would get 3,000 square feet.
Brenner stated they would.
McShane stated some of those lots are really small. This number has been
discussed and changed a lot. Twenty -five hundred square feet is reasonable. His
concern is the impact on the smaller lots. The Sudden Valley Community
Association indicated that it wouldn't be a problem.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if they want to reduce impervious surface in
the watershed by removing buildable lots, they are doing that. Consolidating lots
to build at 3,000 square feet removes 2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces
from the watershed.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed,
Brenner suggested an amendment to section 20.71.351(3) to eliminate the
maximum number of lots. She doesn't remember the reason they chose a
maximum. Goodwin stated the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board invalidated Whatcom County's cluster ordinance because there was no cap
for the amount of clusters. The board was concerned that would create mini -
villages or urban pockets in the county. The biggest piece of property likely divided
into five acres is an 80 -acre parcel, resulting in 16 lots.
Brenner suggested at least 24 or 30 lots as a cap. It will not create anything
that looks like a small town. If they can consolidate more and leave a more open
area, then they should do that as much as possible.
McShane stated they should be consistent in rural districts. That language is
from the rural areas. That number should be argued in a different venue than just
the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish area.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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 that if it works better in those areas, it doesn't persuade her
to keep it consistent.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner asked how a building lot would be compatible with critical areas
when there is language about disturbance of critical areas. She asked what kind of
additional design extras they are asking for. Goodwin stated they wouldn't put an
entire cluster in the wetland, and the wetland would be put in the reserve tract.
Brenner stated it looks like there are more location and design criteria to
avoid critical areas.
McShane stated they might not want stormwater to be compatible with
wetlands.
Brenner suggested an amendment to section 20.71.402 regarding setbacks.
She asked why they have different roofline allowances. Goodwin stated it is to
accommodate front porches.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the other overhanging architectural features
could mean the front porches. It is about encroaching into the setbacks. There is a
safety concern about how far they want the structure to encroach into the side yard
setback.
Brenner suggested an amendment to remove 'recreation" and "education"
from sections 20.80.634(1)(f)(ii) and (vi).
Fleetwood stated they are examples, not mandatory.
Brenner asked if section 20.80.733(2) is a class three activity.
Paul Isaacson, citizen, stated it is. It could be class one, two, and four, also.
The language is the best as it is.
Brenner asked if section 20.80.733(3) includes road building for forest
practices. Pederson stated she believed that logging roads are included in the
forest practice activity definition in Title 20. She will look it up to make sure.
Brenner referenced section 20.80.735(2)(x). She asked if it is already
required. Baumgarten stated this language would make sure it is covered if it is
just a clearing permit being applied for.
Brenner stated section 20.80.735(2)(b) should be "may" instead of "shall."
That's what they said before.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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.
Fleetwood stated it is qualified later in the section, "if determined to be
appropriate." It's not mandatory, even though it appears to be.
Baumgarten stated staff was okay with the two suggested amendments to
sections 20.80.736(2) and 20.80.738(2)(b)(v) from Brenner's list of amendments.
Brenner referenced section 20.80.741 regarding assurance of performance.
They need to be more specific about the kind of financial assurance the County
requires. Goodwin stated there was discussion to not require bond or insurance. It
would need to be defined. The Building Industry Association wanted the language
more vague so they weren't locked into posting a bond.
Brenner stated the people at the Building Industry Association told her that
they wanted it to be more specific. Goodwin stated every builder has a different
idea. She will try to clarify it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked to look at comparable counties to come up with
something. Goodwin stated staff will come up with something more specific for the
next meeting.
Brenner asked if conditional uses are permitted outright in Planned Unit
Developments (PUD). Pederson stated conditional uses are not, but because the
PUD process goes through the public hearing process and the Hearing Examiner,
it's incorporated.
Brenner suggested an amendment to section 20.97.187 and to add a
definition for another level of surfaces that is between impervious and pervious,
called 'glow grade pervious." Give gravel some credit for having perviousness.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that would be difficult to enforce.
Brenner stated the person has to show proof of what he or she has, which is
no more onerous than what they already have to do. The size of the pervious
gravel is 1 Ya -inch or greater clear gravel, without fines.
Baumgarten stated it has to have some structural integrity beneath it. He
asked what would go under it.
Isaacson stated it is a base rock. It is clear and also structural. For the
public, it is more expensive to use. It is used in ditches at the lake. If gravel was
impervious, the ditches out there would be considered impervious because they use
2- to 4- inch clear ballast rock for soil stabilization. If someone puts pit -run under
it, it would invalidate the perviousness.
Brenner stated add another section and assign a percentage of 20 or 30
percent of the credit given to pervious surfaces.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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 that sometimes a paved road might be better for water
quality than a gravel road. Most roads are fairly impervious. There is an issue with
some soil types that are impervious. The stormwater rules will be easier where
there are pervious soils. Asphalt and gravel, for the engineering purpose of
stormwater runoff, are the same. Water runs off them both at the same amount.
It will vary if it is a paved driveway with pervious soil. That doesn't have an impact
on the ecological regime of the local stream.
Nelson stated he disagreed. The impact is oil emissions that are getting
filtered. If he had asphalt, it's another organic material on top of the watershed.
During the summer, byproducts will accumulate. During the first storm event of
the summer, it will drain into the streambeds. During the year, it would have had a
chance for bio- filtration without a one -time deluge.
Brenner asked how critical areas are different from environmentally critical
areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is just clarification. She would like to discuss the
point system.
McShane stated the idea is to avoid getting sediment in flowing water that
would transfer that sediment to the lake. In the "proximity" section, change the
points for water in a ditch from ten points to 20 points.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to keep the system, but make it simpler
for the Planning Department. Baumgarten stated it is an administrative document
that can be reviewed after a time. He ran some example sites through the
proposed point system. These were sites that were challenging for the contractor
to keep the sediment onsite. If they bump up the number for proximity to a ditch,
all numbers will go up.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that a point score of 40 or above would not be
allowed. Don't allow the higher point activities. Baumgarten stated that a
threshold of 40 points would disallow most proposals. He would have to run some
more model sites. A cut off point would be clearer. The point system is
administrative, so staff can review and change it later. The Council just has to
decide if it wants to use a point system.
Pederson stated the Council has to decide if it wants a two- or three - tiered
point system.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to change the points of proximity to a wetland
water body to 20 points for each item.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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 moved to adopt a two - tiered point system, so that
anything under a certain point would be approved, and anything over a certain
amount would have to wait. The point level is to be determined administratively.
Eliminate sections 20.80.735(2)(f)(1)(b)(iii).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Baumgarten stated there would have to be language about a winter erosion
control plan, if there was going to be a threshold. The language in section (ii) must
be consistent throughout.
McShane stated he is comfortable letting it go as it is written. They've
always said they are not going to go to an engineered design solution. There is
enough flexibility to adapt the point levels as they learn more.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how much this increases the workload.
McShane stated that is a good question. Drayton Harbor has been removed,
so it might not be so bad.
Baumgarten stated that currently, every site plan has to have something
related to soil coverage and other basic stuff.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is no enforcement on these plans. A two -
tiered system would get away from that.
Goodwin stated that once the regulations are adopted and staff is trained,
they'd like better cooperation from the building department to make sure that all
the erosion controls are installed and inspected before the footings are poured. The
building department has been resistant to doing that because the rules are always
changing. It has been a logistical problem. Once adopted, counter staff can be
better trained and there will be more people who can do this.
Baumgarten stated that building inspectors show up onsite. There are three
opportunities for a contractor to be aware that he or she must call him for an
erosion control inspection. He can't follow up on everyone who doesn't call. He's
been working with the building inspectors to get them to not approve the footings
until they call for the erosion control inspection. That's not happening. He would
be more confident about the three - tiered system if that were happening. He's not
sure how to get that going. Having something that is more straightforward and
drops out more people would make it easier to administer.
Goodwin stated it would happen once the rules are finally adopted and they
can give everyone training about the rules.
Roy asked if it is easier for Mr. Baumgarten if the regulation was more "black
or white," such as a two - tiered system. Baumgarten stated that to have a
Planning and Development Committee, 5/6/2003, 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
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.
threshold to allow a site that is obviously not a hazard would not be much different
than what he is doing now. If there is a middle category for marginal sites, it
requires staff time and follow -up.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber in favor.
McShane moved to approve the seasonal clearing section, as is.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Pederson stated the County Planning Division and Engineering Division
recommend additional amendments, described in her memo to the County Council
dated May 6, 2003. She read her memo into the record.
Fleetwood moved to adopt the proposals in the Pederson memo dated May
6, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to recommend adoption as amended to the full Council.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 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, 5/6/2003, Page 8