HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources April 3 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
April 3, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
INCLUDE THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED UNDER CHAPTER 20.71 —
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, DESIGNATING
THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED AS A WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREA UNDER SECTION 20,80.730, AND AMENDING
SECTION 20.80.634 — STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICTS (AB2001-
115)
McShane stated this came before the Planning Commission last March, on the
heels of a possible rezone at Lake Samish that did not occur. The Council created a
committee to look at this issue. That committee forwarded recommendations to
the Planning Commission, which accepted most of them, with one change.
Hoag referenced packet page nine, subsection (4). It is the same language
used in the Lake Whatcom overlay. She read the exceptions noted, and didn't
understand why they would apply.
McShane stated it has to do with roads, which will get into setback issues. If
they were to change this language, it would have implications on Drayton Harbor
and Lake Whatcom as well. He would hesitate making any changes.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it was unanimously
recommended by the Planning Commission, and there was also citizen support.
Hoag referenced section 20.71.051. She questioned whether that section
would still apply, or if they needed different wording since the chapter is already
established. Goodwin stated there is no agriculture in Lake Samish, so it isn't a big
issue.
Hoag asked about section 20.71.021(4). Goodwin stated it is to allow
shorter setbacks that aren't as restrictive. They want shorter setbacks, for shorter
driveways, for reduced impervious surfaces.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, 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
48
Hoag referenced section 20.71.303, on packet page 11, and asked if that
date is significant for Lake Samish. Goodwin stated it isn't, but it would change the
date for Lake Whatcom. It is okay the way it is. It only says that the open space
for a cluster subdivision could be divided between the lots. There were not many
cluster subdivisions approved for Lake Samish this year. If they made the change,
it would still meet impervious surface goals. It would give the landowner credit for
maintaining impervious surfaces within the open space tract, which is probably
okay.
Hoag stated that if it is an issue, staff could put forward a recommendation
to add a date for Lake Samish. Goodwin stated they could, but it won't cause a
problem.
Hoag referenced packet page 13, section 20.71.604. She questioned why
language was deleted regarding vehicular access. Goodwin stated it doesn't make
sense. No one knows why it is in there, and they don't know why it is in the
overlay section in the first place.
Hoag stated that when they did the Lake Whatcom overlay, Mr. Pat Jones
brought it forward and said that they shouldn't be closer than 400 feet for safety
and site constraints, but there could be an exception if there were physical
restraints. Goodwin stated the Lake Samish road is a collector around Lake
Samish. Every fourth house could have a driveway, and the rest couldn't. It is not
a watershed issue.
Hoag referenced packet page 17, section 20.80.730(3), and stated that one
concern was sediment from land clearing, but surfacing mining is exempt. Goodwin
stated land clearing for surface mining has always been exempt because it and
forest practices are under state regulations. The County doesn't have the authority
to override state authority. The County can't put on any additional restrictions,
other than what the state allows.
Hoag stated the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) only regulates
reclamation, not the activity. Goodwin stated she would research the issue.
McShane stated runoff is regulated by the state Department of Ecology. That
is a specific question asked by DNR.
Hoag asked if land clearing in preparation for surface mining is specifically
addressed by state law. Goodwin stated she believed it is. It is not addressed in
County law. She would look into it.
Hoag stated a comment from the Planning Commission was different than
the wording that was in the ordinance. She read the language from section
20.80.630(4)(c). The language from the Planning Commission said they wanted to
make requirements without any specifications. They wanted to defer being
involved in the stormwater special district until County regulations have been
updated. The wording in the ordinance refers to when the overall countywide
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, Page 2
1 stormwater standards are updated and revised. She asked if the overall
2 countywide stormwater standards are the same as the specific specifications for the
3 stormwater district. Goodwin stated they are talking about the development
4 standards, which are not regulations. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is
5 working on the development standards. Those are overall standards because they
6 will apply to any stormwater special district, which includes Drayton Harbor, Lake
7 Whatcom, and Lake Samish if it is added. They will be a section of the countywide
8 development standards. Once those get done, then they will revisit Lake Samish to
9 decide if it should be a special district.
10
11 McShane stated the Planning Commission minutes indicated that would be
12 some time in the future. Goodwin stated the TAC is not even looking at it now.
13 They will be working on road standards for the next couple of years.
14
15 McShane stated this was before the Council to back away from requiring an
16 engineered design for specific stormwater detention for a single residence, because
17 the Engineering Division doesn't want to review every one of those applications. He
18 agreed. It would be cumbersome and expensive. He asked if this could be
19 resolved through different approaches. He asked if they really need the TAC to look
20 at it. The Engineering Division's recommendations made sense. Goodwin stated
21 they could be adopted as regulations. Development regulations just go through the
22 TAC, and are signed by the County Executive. The Council doesn't have input. The
23 TAC did a revision to the administrative section in land clearing that had made
24 major implications to the watershed. It has been sitting in the Executive's Office,
25 unsigned.
26
27 Hoag asked to whom the TAC makes recommendations. Goodwin stated the
28 TAC is advisory only to the Executive for administrative issues. They don't work
29 under the direction of any particular County department. The Planning Department
30 doesn't have the authority to give them priorities.
31
32 Hoag stated that development regulations should come through the
33 legislative branch. Goodwin stated the TAC was formed administratively. It seems
34 like an unclear process.
35
36 McShane stated they are going to do things that are purely technical, but
37 they also cross into areas where they advise the Planning Commission and the
38 Council. Goodwin stated there may be a procedure where the Council can request
39 being interveners or to be involved.
40
41 McShane stated one problem is that the committee didn't have enough time
42 to make those changes. He was concerned that this would sit out there for two or
43 three years.
44
45 Goodwin stated the TAC was defined in Whatcom County Code (WCC)
46 Chapter 12.08 regarding construction standards for roads and bridges. Their
47 purpose is to establish clear development guidelines for all construction activity
48 within the County. They will establish administrative and technical requirements for
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, 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
implementation of land use regulations. The language also says that the County
development standards will be established and its administrative function complete
dependent upon regulatory authority. She didn't know what that means.
McShane stated an example is the structural component that need to go into
buildings.
Goodwin stated she could talk to the Public Works Department and see if
they can move this up on the TAC priority list. She hoped to get the TAC to pause
on the road standards and work on this.
Hoag asked about section 20.80.636. Goodwin stated that section was
recently amended by the County Council, which made it clear that there only had to
be engineering for 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. For areas of
2,500 to 5,000 square feet, they just use the best management practices (BMP's).
The problem is that there are no BMP's.
McShane stated that Bruce Mills was to ask for the BMP's from the TAC.
Anyone who is building a house would need to have the BMP's in place. They don't
have that yet. Goodwin stated there is no specific guideline for people who come to
the counter. It was wise to not do it in Lake Samish. If they can't get BMP's, then
take it off for Lake Whatcom also.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.634(2)(c), "...until such time that the
overall Ceuntywide stormwater standards for stormwater special districts are
updated and revised. Lake Samish is not..."
McShane suggested language that the stormwater district requirements
would not be in place until the County provides the BMP's. Goodwin stated the
citizens and landowners didn't want to sign a blank check. They wanted to look at
the standards first.
McShane stated he preferred to strike the section, and add Lake Samish as a
stormwater special district. They should have reasonable BMP's. There is no
reason why these standards should not apply to Lake Samish.
Hoag stated her suggestion accomplishes the same thing.
Goodwin stated the Council could docket this for a zoning text amendment
on June 30, and have the TAC look at it before then.
Hoag amended her motion, "20.80.634(2)(c), "...until such time that the
stormwater standards for stormwater special districts are
updated and revised. Lake Samish is net recommended to be a stermwater special
district at this tmme."
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, 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
48
McShane stated his intent was that Lake Samish will be part of the
stormwater special district, and that it won't apply until the update is done.
Goodwin stated that if that is the intent, then include stronger language.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated the only relief was that someone building would not be
subject to those stormwater standards in the interim period until those BMP's are
brought forward. Goodwin stated it would be subject to interpretation because it
doesn't say that Lake Samish is a stormwater special district. It just says that it
would be deferred. As soon as those BMP's are adopted, do a text amendment to
make sure it's clear that it is a stormwater special district.
McShane suggested a friendly amendment, "Lake Samish watershed.
Stormwater requirements ... until such time that the eveFall ceuntywide stormwater
standards for stormwater special districts are updated and revised. Lake Sangi "
Hoag accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated the change was substantive enough to require a public
hearing.
Hoag asked if there is language that would apply in the interim for
stormwater management practices until the standards are actually revised.
Goodwin stated if they do that, then just adopt them. If they are adopted as an
interim, then there is no point to having the TAC look at them.
Hoag stated the interim standards would be in place while the TAC reviews
them to find out if that is what they really want to do. It provides protection in the
meantime. Goodwin stated the place to do that would be in the development
regulations themselves. That could be done administratively. The issue is that the
BMP's are not written. They don't exist.
McShane stated that at a future committee, they should hash out what they
should be. He questioned circumventing the TAC.
Hoag stated they would not circumvent the TAC if the standards are only
interim. She asked if Chapter 2 is something to adopt through the Council, or if it
is only administrative. Goodwin stated it is administrative, and signed by the
Executive.
McShane referenced sections 20.71.302(4) and (4)(a). He was concerned
about creating separate regulations, and questioned whether that is a problem
administratively. Goodwin stated it wouldn't be much of a problem. The concern is
that bigger mobile homes exceed the minimum impervious surface area, so it would
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, 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
freeze people into the homes they have and let the area deteriorate. They could
make it specific to Lake Whatcom. There should be more consistency between
districts, regarding the 70 percent standard. The minimum footprint should also be
discussed for Lake Whatcom as well. There are also small lots in the Lake Whatcom
watershed in which the footprint will be small. There are Rural Residential, two
units per acre (RR2) lots that are about 20,000 square feet or smaller.
Hoag stated that RR2 lots would fit into subsection .302(2). Goodwin stated
there have been some lots without enough room to put in a house on the lot.
McShane stated there would be pressure to build large homes at Lake
Whatcom and Lake Samish. He moved to amend section .302 (4) and .302(4)(a),
"in the Lake Sarnish watershed ... A mobile home within an
existing...."
Goodwin stated an issue is with the steep driveways and not wanting to put
in unpaved driveways on the steep hillsides.
McShane stated he would be open to making exceptions.
Hoag suggested a friendly amendment to not strike the second sentence in
section .302(4).
McShane asked if this is an issue with the UR, URM, and UR -MX zones.
Goodwin stated no, because they are bigger. Most of the rural areas surrounding
Lake Samish is platted at R5.
McShane questioned the typical lot size for Rural Residential lots. Goodwin
stated it is 20,000 square feet.
McShane stated that could be a problem in Lake Whatcom and Drayton
Harbor. Goodwin stated impervious surface regulations don't apply to Drayton
Harbor. It is a problem on a few lots on the north shore of Lake Whatcom. The
zoning is rural, but the lot sizes are small. Some lots include an area in the lake,
and people add that into their lot size calculation.
McShane stated he'd rather keep everything at 80 percent. He accepted the
friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend section 20.71.302(4), "...000 2,500 square feet
of impervious surface shall be allowed."
Goodwin stated there was discussion about needing paved driveways
because of the steep lots.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, 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
Hoag stated she didn't want to undermine the committee's recommendation
at this time. She would not support the motion now, but would give it some
thought.
Motion failed 1 -1 with McShane in favor.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:57 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 4/3/2001, Page 7