HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 22 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
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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
July 22, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING ROAD STANDARDS RELATING TO
ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETICS CONCERNS (AB2003 -274)
Brenner stated she and Councilmember Crawford received a concern that the
County is not insuring that County conversions of roads from gravel to asphalt are
up to the same standard as that of private developers.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated that there is a gravel road
conversion program on the six -year plan that they started two years ago. Before
that, people paid to have their roads converted. When converted, they are not
changing the road regarding adding traffic. It is an ongoing maintenance issue,
such as dust control. There comes a point where they realized that they should
pave a road because it's cheaper to maintain and is more environmentally friendly
because there is dust control. There is more runoff, but the runoff is cleaner
because there aren't any fines in it.
If a private person asked to convert to pavement, the Engineering Division
would consider it as a straight conversion. People were concerned because the
Engineering Division requires developers to bring a road up to standard when
developing a new project. When someone does the conversion, they are not
bringing it up to standard, they are simply trying to change the road surface.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/22/2003, Page 1
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.
1 Brenner stated that once they convert a road to pavement, it inspires people
2 to use the road more often. It is not any different than a person who converts a
3 gravel road to pavement. She asked why that should be any different. Rutan
4 stated they would not require a private person to bring the road up to standards if
5 they are changing the surface type and if they are not going to affect the traffic
6 level. If development brings in traffic, that's different than a gravel conversion.
7 They have money for about four miles of conversion per year. That is not
8 upgrading the road.
9
10 Crawford stated his understanding is that there is confusion among the
11 County employees. The example was converting a gravel road, which has a lane
12 width of nine feet and shoulders of two feet. If anyone else were doing this, the
13 lane width would have to be eleven feet, and the shoulder width would have to be
14 four feet. He is not interested in going over how wide roads should be. He
15 understands Mr. Rutan's reasons for conversion versus upgrade. He asked if the
16 development standards are clear on the two different situations, between upgrading
17 a road for traffic and changing the road for maintenance purposes. Rutan stated he
18 didn't realize the confusion existed until now. He would have to clear up the
19 confusion. As a project engineer and inspector in past jobs, he's learned that the
20 most important thing is for the government agency to set the example for people.
21
22 Brenner stated she didn't get the impression that the concern was over
23 confusion, but that there was a double standard. Rutan stated he would not allow
24 a double standard to happen. There are two different things. They are changing
25 the road surface, not the level of service on the road.
26
27 Brenner stated that if they see a road being converted from gravel to
28 pavement, and they know there will be more single - family houses on the road, do
29 the improvements then rather than wait for people to complain about it. Rutan
30 stated that would come forward as a County road project. That would be outside
31 the scope of gravel conversions.
32
33 Brenner stated she was concerned that they don't treat private individuals
34 the same as the County. Rutan stated that is his concern also. The County has to
35 set the example.
36
37 Brenner stated it seems subjective. She asked how many more houses
38 make a difference. Rutan stated that when someone goes through a development
39 process such as a short plat or long plat, they have to look at transportation issues.
40 A gravel conversion is someone calling to say they want their road to be paved.
41
42 Brenner asked why it's okay to make a developer pay for the road upgrade,
43 but the County does not have to if there is build out potential on a road that is
44 converted from gravel to pavement. They may end up with the same amount of
45 traffic on both of them. They need to go further than just a conversion. They need
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/22/2003, 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.
to look at the complete potential build out given the existing zoning. Rutan stated
that's what they do.
Mike Roberts, Assistant County Road Engineer, stated they do need to make
sure that the amount of short plats going in will not trigger the development
standards before a seven -year period, when the County would recoup its cost for
the chip seal.
Brenner stated that if the County is going to do a Y4 -mile road surface
conversion, staff could see the potential build out on a map. She asked at what
point the potential build out triggers the upgrade to road standards. Roberts stated
that is something they have to develop. Now, the criteria for a gravel conversion
are prioritized on length, width, and drainage issues. They are somewhat aware of
proposed developments. They should incorporate that into the standards.
Rutan stated they look at potential development and proposed developments
on a road. They are not going to convert a road from gravel to chip seal if there is
a planned development pending that will require a different style of road.
Brenner stated staff could look at potential lots that are there already
because of the zoning. Rutan stated that if a road is rated high enough for chip
seal and is imminently developable, they could look to see if it is already platted
out. They could wait until the development starts to occur and do a County road
project. If the lots are not fully divided, a developer will do the road upgrade when
the lots are divided. County staff is taking all those types of things into account
right now. It does get to a point where it's very subjective. He's firm that the
County will always set the standard, and will never ask a developer to do
something that the County won't do itself.
Crawford stated it's important to make sure everyone down the chain of
command know the difference between a road improvement for traffic increase and
a road improvement for long -term maintenance issues. The County can improve a
road without going to full standards if it's in the best interest of the County.
Roberts stated he would mention it to staff.
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic /Development, stated that if
there is potential for future lots, they try to review it in relation to the gravel
conversion. It's not an exact science.
Brenner asked if they look at a zoning map to calculate build out. Donahue
stated they do that.
Rutan stated that if a road has development that is imminent, they might
propose a road project instead of a chip seal project.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/22/2003, 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
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.
Rutan thanked the committee for bringing these issues forward.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 7/22/2003, Page 4