HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 10 20021
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
December 10, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
L. Ward Nelson
Sharon Roy
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)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, submitted a memo suggesting alternate language
to the proposed Planning Commission recommendations (on file). She read
through the memo.
McShane stated the committee would begin working from Council packet
page 262.
Nelson referenced section .153(2) on packet page 263 and asked what
happens if the farm exists. Pederson stated that language applies to preexisting
facilities that have to come into compliance.
Nelson stated they are asking everyone in the rural area to take down their
fences.
McShane stated it exempts people who have completed and implemented a
conservation plan that provides for smaller buffers. That is a significant part of the
critical areas ordinance within the agricultural zones.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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.
Nelson stated conservation plans are usually for large dairy farms. He asked
the cost of getting a conservation plan.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Conservation District
does not charge a fee for conservation plans. The County Council has funded the
Conservation District to provide that service. The Conservation District will work
with these people.
Nelson asked about the definition of what becomes a nuisance as the term is
referenced in section .153(4). Goodwin stated she suspects that language is
standard throughout the code. It is the wording in the rural district. Since it
applies also to kennels, the nuisance would be noise. Since it's a conditional use
permit, the Hearing Examiner would take a look at each instance and see what the
issue is. A preexisting farm would not go through a conditional use permit process
and would not have to deal with this issue.
Nelson stated he's concerned about jeopardizing agricultural activities in the
watershed by imposing an additional burden that may not be necessary. Goodwin
stated that anyone who already exists could continue as is unless the code
specifically says they have to change. Only section (3) regarding preexisting farms
would be affected. Everyone else who is already there would be okay. New uses
would have to go to the Hearing Examiner.
Brenner asked if a golf course using integrated pest management does not
use chemicals. Pederson stated not necessarily. Chemicals are generally used as a
last resort, but they can use chemicals.
Brenner asked if section .213 applies to existing golf courses. Pederson
stated it applies only to new golf courses.
Brenner asked the reason for changing the exemption to aquaculture or
mariculture, as referenced in section .204, and whether there are any problems
they are trying to address. It's more of a change than a clarification. Goodwin
suggested language, " Aquaculture and mariculture projects other than ffevided
that fish hatcheries and private non - commercial fish ponds approved by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife."
Nelson asked where the language in section .154(1) came from. Goodwin
stated that came from a former councilmember.
Nelson stated they need to reword section .154(3) to not put an undue
burden on the owner.
McShane referenced section .213. He moved to strike the double -lined
portion. The language is about herbicides and pesticides being a problem. His
concern is about nutrient loading. Golf courses will be a source of nutrient loading.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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.
He's not excited about adding another golf course to the Lake Whatcom watershed
or having one in the Lake Samish watershed.
Nelson asked if there is a study that shows nutrient loading. Goodwin stated
Sudden Valley and Semiahmoo have done reports on their pesticide use. She
doesn't know if there has been any downstream monitoring for nutrient loading.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Lake Padden might have information. It is a lake
without homes and only with a golf course on it.
Roy asked if there are standards for nutrient control as well as pest
management.
McShane stated there are a lot of work done on farmland that is driven by
financial concerns, to minimize the amount of fertilizer used or avoid overloading
fertilizer. To some extent, golf courses concern themselves about the amount of
nutrients they add for cost benefit reasons. The amount of runoff from a golf
course is significantly higher than a forestry area.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood stated he hoped they could demonstrate with evidence that
nutrient loading is a concern.
Nelson referenced section .202. The intent was to address combustible
engines. He asked if a boat repair would qualify. Goodwin stated another question
to address would be the train that is near the Park Store. They would be allowed.
204.
Brenner liked the change of language suggested by Ms. Goodwin to section
McShane stated he likes the language in section .204.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane continued to state that he questions the amount of nutrients are
being added to Lake Whatcom and the fish hatchery program. Hatcheries are
notorious for adding huge nutrient loads to water bodies.
Brenner stated that every little noncommercial fishpond should not have to
come in for a permit.
McShane stated another reason they should be permitted is to prevent the
introduction of fish species that they don't want in a lake. That section states that
aquaculture and mariculture projects are not permitted. Hatcheries and
noncommercial fishponds that are approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
may be permitted. It's not automatic that they are exempted.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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 the Department of Fish and Wildlife do not permit hatcheries
and fishponds anyway. They are not in that business. There would never be an
instance where there would be a fishpond approved by the Department of Fisheries.
This language is included on the insistence of a Planning Commission member.
Staff will look into whether the Department of Fish and Wildlife permits fish
hatcheries and fishponds to make sure.
McShane moved to amend language in section .204, " Aquaculture and
mariculture projects,
ponds appreved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife."
Brenner stated the noncommercial fishponds are not considered aquaculture
and mariculture projects anyway.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend section .202, "... combustion engine
repair garages..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson referenced section .206 regarding confinement feeding operations.
Many horse farms confine the horses for feeding. Goodwin stated confinement
feeding is defined as livestock or poultry where population exceeds two animal units
per acre. More than ten horses on five acres would be a confinement feeding
operation. Feeding animals in a confined area isn't the definition of a confined
feeding area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the Planning Commission reason for adding
language to section .216. Goodwin stated this was at the request of citizens who
were concerned about extracting gravel in a forestry operation. Those are exempt
from County rules, so they clarified it. It is still allowed. All forestry roads that
meet this criterion are exempt.
Nelson referenced section 20.71.301(3). He asked if sports courts are
considered open space. Goodwin stated they are impervious surfaces. Open space
has to be landscaped, vegetative stuff.
Nelson asked if they even need to have that list in section .301(3).
McShane moved to amend section .301 (3), "Parking areas, driveways,
paties and outdoor sterage and leading aFeas that are constructed of +Impervious
surfaces shall not be considered open space."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood out of the room.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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.
McShane referenced section .301(4). It is different if they have open spaces
and landscaping that is protective of water quality. He could leave this language as
long as they do a different job on their tree retention. He asked staff to think about
it.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated the intent is to retain as much
undisturbed vegetation as possible. To encourage that, it would be consistent with
vegetation and tree retention. It would be beneficial to clarify it here. The
landscaping in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.80.325 does not get to that intent.
Nelson stated they are trying to preserve open space in the watershed.
However a lot that has been logged may have blackberries and Himalayas all over
it. A person would not be able to remove that vegetation. Goodwin stated this
section only applies to tourist commercial and resort commercial areas where
landscaping and open space is required. One can get rid of noxious weeds. This is
for the few commercial uses in tourist and resort areas.
Baumgarten stated they could change the language to require that someone
use appropriate native vegetation when doing landscaping in these areas in the
watershed.
Goodwin stated that would prohibit a business from planting tulips in front of
the business, for example. She doesn't think they want to be that restrictive.
McShane stated this only applies to a small area of tourist and neighborhood
commercial areas. Maybe they shouldn't be worried about it.
McShane referenced section .302. It seems problematic that people have to
carefully measure their property and then come up with a percentage of impervious
surfaces that are allowed. Baumgarten stated it hasn't been problematic so far.
People haven't seemed to have a problem with it. Most folks are able to come up
with an accurate enough representation of what their impervious areas are.
McShane stated he is also concerned about fairness between the zones.
Some zones get hit harder than other zones. Baumgarten stated ten percent of
impervious surfaces is the goal. In areas that are designated urban residential,
they've written off that goal by allowing high density. In areas that it is still
attainable in the rural zones, it is an important goal. A lot of folks with small lots in
the rural areas are feeling unnecessarily burdened. One way to deal with that
would be to look at the allotment for some of those smaller parcels.
McShane asked if section .302(4) applies to small lots in the rural zones.
Baumgarten stated it also applies to the rural residential zones. This section
provides that someone would get at least 2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces.
McShane suggested for maximum limits for impervious surfaces for
discussion. A maximum impervious surface limit would be:
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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.
• 50 percent of the lot size in the URM zone,
• 3,000 square feet in the UR -3 zone,
• 4,000 square feet in the RR zones,
• 6,000 square feet in the R2A zone, and
• 10,000 square feet in the R5A zone.
Fleetwood asked if those limits are more restrictive.
McShane stated it is more restrictive in some zones and less restrictive in
other zones.
Brenner asked about limits for the R10A and Rural Forestry zones.
McShane stated they might want to add another couple thousand square
feet. A 20 -acre lot in the Rural Forestry zone would currently be allowed 88,000
square feet of impervious surfaces. That's two acres.
Brenner stated that would have to accommodate a road.
McShane stated he would do that calculation and come up with an estimate.
The committee will discuss that at another time.
Brenner referenced section 20.71.350 regarding cluster subdivisions.
Subsections (1) and (2) should be made equal under a subsection called "purpose."
Subsection (2) sounds like an afterthought.
Fleetwood agreed. There's no rational basis for separating the two.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she did not put any value on whether the two
sections are separate or together.
Brenner referenced section 20.71.351 regarding cluster design standards.
There should be an additional subsection (8) that says vegetative buffers be
included with neighboring properties, specifically in areas where the look of the
area would be changed from rural to almost urban. She suggested language, "(8)
Vegetative buffer with neighbors where necessary to retain neighborhood
standards." There should be a buffer between a cluster and a neighboring property
outside the cluster.
Goodwin suggested, "vegetative buffers on exterior boundaries of cluster
subdivisions."
McShane stated they should instead require some distance between a cluster
and an existing home outside the cluster. If they put a certain amount a distance
between the existing home and cluster, they have to follow the open space
requirements, which will automatically create that buffer.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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
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.
Baumgarten stated the Planning Commission struck language that required
at least 500 feet of separation between clusters.
Brenner stated she would come back to the committee with specific language
to amend the exhibit regarding this issue. Goodwin suggested language.
McShane accepted Ms. Goodwin's suggested language and moved to amend
section 20.71.351, "(8) Vegetated buffer to screen home sites from adjacent
residential lots."
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include a distance
requirement between cluster and existing homes of 25 feet.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane accepted the friendly amendment and restated his motion to amend
section 20.71.351, "(8) A 25 -foot wide vegetated buffer to screen home sites from
adjacent residential lots."
Baumgarten stated a minimum of 50 feet would achieve the intended
purpose of screening.
Goodwin stated this section applies to short plats also, so they are talking
about cluster subdivisions of four properties. In an urban residential zone, those
are 10,000 square foot lots. If they start putting in a 50 foot vegetated buffer,
they've wiped out more than half of someone's lot.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the concept, but she would like
Planning Division staff to figure out if this is going to cause any problems with
someone's view or some other problem.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Fleetwood in favor.
Nelson referenced section 20.71.301(8) regarding impervious surface
requirement regarding a three foot overhang. He asked if they are rewarding
anyone for doing any type of roof runoff treatment. Baumgarten stated stormwater
special district standards require those types of treatments. A roof overhang of
over three feet should not be considered a penalty. When a roof overhang
becomes a certain depth, they are not getting the rainwater underneath it, so it
becomes in effect an impervious surface after a certain point. He's not sure where
the specific three -foot maximum came from. At a certain point, it becomes like a
solid deck. They are not counting any overhang up to three feet. The additional
square footages beyond three feet becomes part of the impervious surface
calculation.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, 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.
Pederson stated the structure calculation is based on footprint. Overhanging
architectural features may include porticos and roofs over patios.
Brenner stated she preferred to see the original language in section
20.71.602(2) regarding parking requirements. Pederson stated the difficulty with
the original language was that there were no specific criteria. That's why they
specifically stated 20 percent.
McShane moved to strike language in section 20.71.603 regarding
alternative surfacing methods, 'Alternative surfaces including, but not limited
to: ... gFavel...."
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the science shows that gravel turns into
impervious surfaces. Baumgarten stated gravel becomes essentially an impervious
surface if it is driven on. It's up to the County Council to decide if it is impervious
enough to be considered an impervious surface. The runoff coefficient to asphalt is
.95.
Brenner stated they should develop a middle standard for gravel so they
don't encourage people to use asphalt. Gravel is better than asphalt. Make 75 or
80 percent of gravel count toward the impervious surface limit.
Roy asked if the issue is whether or not gravel is counted. If gravel is not
counted as an impervious surface, then they are increasing the damage in the
watershed. They are encouraging that use when gravel really is just as bad as
asphalt, but won't have to count it in the total calculation.
McShane stated someone could bring forward an amendment that includes
coefficients.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 8
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 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
3
4
5
6
7 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Committee Chair
8
Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 9