Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 9 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 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 9, 2001 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. Also Present: Connie Hoag Sam Crawford Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, introduced Rick Seplar of Madrona Planning, who was hired by the County to do the Point Roberts subarea plan. There has been an extensive public process with the Point Roberts community. They have been working on the plan for over a year. Rick Seplar, Madrona Planning, stated there is a committee that was appointed by the County Council that held workshops and met a number of times. The committee took comments and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The majority of the committee recommended the plan. The key concepts in the plan are to reinforce the small town focus, spend the currency of growth so that the small town concept could be reinforced to allow for mixed used development, enhance community identity, and enhance economic development. The public commented that there is no community center or lack of place. There is a desire to achieve a community center that could be more viable than what they currently have. Direct growth to preserve the surrounding rural character as well as provide a community center. One of the issues is to address new lot creation. Point Roberts has a surplus of lots to accommodate growth. Many of the lots are less desirable physically and in their configuration. Few people considered downzoning. The people want to reserve the right to sell those lots. The community wants better lots while also wanting higher density. A scheme was created by the committee for transitional zoning. If new lots are configured to be better lots, they would create a different product that has a more reasonable chance of accommodating the community goals. It allows for higher density if higher development standards are met. Underlying zoning would Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 allow for densities to develop as they can now. However, if one is able to accommodate open space with no reduction in the yield of lots, provide for improved sanitary uses, and accommodate other means to preserve the characteristics of the area, then he or she would be allowed to have a higher yield. There is much confusion about what is meant by "open space." The committee explained what open space and cluster developments are. Open space could be undeveloped, private in nature, and would not require trails. Acknowledge that this type of cluster development has been used extensively in Washington to achieve the end that Point Roberts is trying to achieve. Clustering allows for density to be met, and would meet the expectations of the community. The existing urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3) zone really allows one unit per five acres until the time that sewer is provided. In essence, it is the de facto zoning. What is proposed would allow the ultimate yield, but would require a higher standard to achieve it. Most land use planning processes have comments at the end. Many of the comments were property- specific. Others who spoke had on -point concerns. There was much modification of the zoning map to address the concerns. Very little was received in terms of specific goals and policies. Most folks agreed in principle to preserve the rural character. Recommendations were forwarded to Planning Commission, which held a well- attended public hearing. Most who spoke had property- specific concerns. The Planning Commission felt that transitional zoning was viable. The commission was concerned about reducing some of the density yields that were possible. Their recommendation directed that transitional zoning would be kept in the plan. One could also choose to maintain the existing zoning designation. Many of the parcels in Point Roberts could have existing, base transitional, and subsequent zoning. The Planning Commission tried to reconcile pre- existing lots with expectations of the community. Staff expressed concern, but that was the consensus. He, as the consultant, had concerns about the specific mechanics of that. He asked a land use law firm to review the proposed recommendation and address the functional issues, which was forwarded to the Council. The conclusion was to not have multiple designations, because it would be a logistical nightmare and very confusing. The consultant recommends four courses of action: 1. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation as proposed, 2. Revise the Planning Commission recommendation after a public hearing, 3. Choose to eliminate the transitional zoning and retain existing zoning, or 4. Rezone the entire area to rural residential, one unit per acre. Retaining existing zoning and rezoning to rural residential might have exposure to liability in terms of the Growth Management Act. One -acre zoning has been found to be inconsistent with rural designations. Crawford asked if the goals are in a particular order of priority. Seplar stated the goals are not in order of priority. Crawford asked if economic development was the top priority of the community. Seplar stated people felt sewer systems and development should be studied. The way this prioritization works, the individuals in the community could Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 48 spend their three votes all on one subject, on three subjects, or two and one. This information means that some people who voted strongly valued economic development, and it percolated to the top. The goals and policies are representative of a cross - section of community. Crawford questioned whether the staff's concern is that adding the third option, allowing development at densities if public or private sewer occurs, is the conflict. Seplar stated the concern is determining which of the three designations a development applies to. Crawford stated a subarea plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked what they are doing with the subarea plan. It seems like they are leaving their options open, but that defies the purpose of the subarea plan. Seplar stated a subarea plan provides specific focus to an area that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't provide. There are more details. A subarea plan cannot become more lenient than the policies in Comprehensive Plan. A single concern with the three potential designations is a procedural problem. Crawford stated a subarea plan would give overall guidance. When specific zoning regulations are implemented, those decisions still have to ultimately be made by this Council. Even if there are five options, he was not sure the concern is a critical issue. Seplar stated the ordinance would change the zoning. Crawford asked if this is the time to be specific on the direction in the wording of the subarea plan. Goodwin stated it is. The Planning Commission recommendation amends the official zoning map. Adopting the ordinance would change zoning to transitional zoning. The transitional zoning text has to be written. With the guidance in the plan, the staff would write it in a way to provide for three options. One question that the Planning Commission didn't address is what to do with the areas that are commercial. Crawford questioned the selection of the committee working on this process and the level of participation. Seplar stated the appointed committee was representative. It was typical of those found in other communities. There was much lively discussion of different points of view, equally. This process would stand scrutiny. The committee was balanced, well attended, and advertised. Participation was good. Those who disagree would disagree with results, not the integrity of the process. One committee member out of six had a concern with the process itself in the end. The plan did not come from the consultants, but from what was identified at the meetings. McShane questioned whether there was discussion in the committee on the amount of light impact industrial land. Seplar stated the designation is small town commercial. There was discussion about whether Point Roberts could sustain industry. Some on the committee felt it could. Others felt it could. Hoag requested an explanation of the colored map. Goodwin explained the color- coding. There is a difference in building size in small town commercial Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 47 zoning. It allows mixed use with residential, offices above retail, some light industrial, and office buildings. It is the broadest, most diverse use zone. It doesn't allow stand -alone residential uses. That is why the area along the waterfront was left as resort commercial. Some of the owners wanted to be allowed to develop condominiums or townhouses. Hoag asked the practical effect of something currently zoned at UR -3, and is now being designated as R5A or RR1, and it's transitional. She asked if the owner can do UR -3 still. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recommendation gives three options. The owner can divide now with five acre zoning, cluster and put in a step system at one acre, or wait until public sewer is available and go back to UR -3. There were some minor changes the Planning Commission made from what the committee made. The map is the same under both recommendations, as it relates to the transitional zoning. The changes include additional commercial zoning at the border, specific density changes in one area, changes in how the airport is treated, and minor amendments to individual properties throughout the area. The major change was in how transitional zoning is treated. Crawford questioned whether people at the Planning Commission hearing were asking to not be downzoned. Goodwin stated that is correct. Many people saw potential to go with the higher density with sewer, and didn't want to lose that possibility. People also said they didn't want to cluster or have to have open space. Brenner stated the third option for development is the highest development that is not allowed without water and sewer. A private sewer system can equate to a septic system and a well. She asked for a definition of a private septic system. Goodwin stated the public sewer is defined in the zoning code. It has to be approved by the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and operated by a public entity. Under the UR -4 and UR -3 zones, the landowner doesn't get the density without a public sewer system. It will be difficult to administer. Hoag questioned whether there is a separation of definitions between septic and sewer in the Whatcom County Code. Goodwin stated the marina built a sewer system that is treated as a public sewer system for the purposes of density in Point Roberts. There is a precedent of a private company building a public sewer system for their development. A collected system that goes into a community drain field can be permitted as a public sewer system. Brenner suggested that a private sewer system not be allowed. There needs to be different terminology. A septic tank and drain field are considered a private sewer system in the law. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Goodwin stated the code defines public sewer in WCC 20.97.329. It does not define private sewer. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 Brenner asked if there is a definition of an air park. Seplar stated there is a specific call to develop and insert into the zoning code. The intent is to allow for residential fly -in development. That definition would be prepared and considered by the County Council before it is implemented into the zoning code. The policy calls for the specific definition of fly in /fly out development. Brenner suggested not using the term "park" and instead "mixed use airport development, including residential." The term "park" reminds her of an industrial park or an amusement park. Brenner asked about Council packet page 110, project 2.1.4. Seplar stated it should be entirely removed. Hoag asked if the air park is for people who are residents of the island to build a house with a hanger around the air strip. Seplar stated one proponent envisioned developing land and parcels where people could have hangers, fly in, fly out, or live there and have a plane. The staff's concern was a residential zone would do a disservice to the airport because there could be multiple homes that create a constituency who opposes airport uses. The Planning Commission responded by limiting the densities. Brenner stated there are pilot communities that are built around airstrips. Nelson asked about the potential build out. Seplar stated they looked at the allocated rural growth for Whatcom County, and determined the fair share, based on strict percentages. The result is a fifty -year supply of land by existing lots alone. There would be a slight reduction from the 11,000 potential people who could be accommodated if sewer and water are available. The net number of dwelling units available if public water and sewer were available would be 5,013 units. The existing zoning could accommodate more than could be absorbed in a fifty -year period, based on standard growth percentages. This plan has a slight reduction in the number of lots that are available; it still allows more than could be accommodated at build out. Dawson asked about sewer. The State Supreme Court said that sewer fees were not to be collected from non - users. It's a fee for service. Sixty percent of the population has to agree to sewer before it comes through an area. She asked if people would have been more willing to approve the sewer if they realized they didn't have to pay for it if they don't use it. Seplar stated he was not sure of the specific decision. A local improvement district (LID), if forced, may not allow for connection. There is a project to explore sewer. There has been some preliminary feasibility work done that ranges from a portion of the lots to all of lots that would be hooked up. It is not certain what the number would be. Hoag questioned the zoning on which the table on report page 91 is based. Seplar stated it is based on the existing zoning. Council packet page 104 of the report specifically addresses the transitional zoning at its lowest density and as it is fully implemented, according to the committee version of the plan. The Planning Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 48 Commission version would be more like the prior table. The differentiation is a slight reduction by going to transitional zoning. Hoag stated there is an increase in scenario B. Seplar stated that is correct. The argument is that they are a higher quality, preserving the characteristics that the community identified as important. It is better to have better lots on the market. Hoag questioned whether there are any restrictions on going to the rural residential, two units per acre (RR2). McShane stated those lots had water available, and could go to a higher density. Goodwin stated a landowner is allowed to develop at two units per acre if there is public water. If there is neither public water nor sewer, the property is limited to one unit per acre. At this point, there is water available to most of Point Roberts. There is a capacity issue, and Point Roberts has to renegotiate their contract to get public water to every lot. The infrastructure is there. Hoag stated the effect of the change is to put in more density. Currently, a landowner can't develop at more than one unit per five acres if they don't have water and sewer. If they do have it, they can only go one unit per acre. Goodwin stated the change recommended by the Planning Commission would add a lot more density. It would allow people to go up to one unit per acre now, without sewer, plus the people could go up to four units per acre later if they ever get sewer. Hoag questioned whether the committee felt that the increased density would address the issues brought forward by the citizens regarding preserving the natural resources and unique beauty of the area. Goodwin stated most of the committee was comfortable with it. The fact that the transitional zoning would require clustering, which would keep up to 50 percent of a parcel open would address the rural character issue. For URM -6, the committee looked at the possibility of going six units per acre as opposed to two units per acre, which is less density. Hoag asked what the transitional zoning does. Seplar stated the transitional zoning is a performance -based zoning. A landowner can get greater density if he or she does certain things, such as cluster development and establish a step system that allows for future connection to sewer. One of the inherent problems in Point Roberts is the preexisting zoning map, which has more property- specific designations than cities five times its size. One of the issues is whether there is a way to craft a map that consolidates and simplifies the zoning as fairly as possible. Hoag stated the open space requirement doesn't establish a threshold beyond what is currently required. Seplar stated there is a project for the County to craft regulations to fully implement this. The County has proposed 50 percent as a threshold, which would be subject to public hearings. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Dean Embo, Point Roberts resident, Georgia Way, stated his street is zoned resort commercial. He understood that it is scheduled to be rezoned to residential, which it should be. It is a small, dead -end street. A local resident built a storage facility at the end of the street two years ago. The application stated it would be used for vehicle parking, however it is being used for commercial storage. It is a problem. The Land Use division staff has been after this individual. He was dismayed that his street is now slated to be zoned commercial. A local realtor in Point Roberts is on the steering committee, owns land on his street, and made the recommendation to change it. He identified Georgia Way on the map. Often, he can't get into his driveway because semi -truck trailers are backed into the dead - end street. Another court date is set for this neighbor. The potential small town commercial zone would allow for this use. Goodwin stated the change might have been made at the last steering committee meeting before the Planning Commission had a public hearing. The change would have been approved by the majority of the committee. Fritz Mueller stated he has holdings in Point Roberts. He is concerned with only one parcel, which is zoned residential. He showed the location of the property on the map. His concern is discrimination against a group of people at the Point. Point Roberts is different in terms of future development. It will only be a matter of time before all the waterfront land is purchased. There is a hodge podge of zonings. It should be simplified. Zone all the residential properties R1A. Public water is available to all Point Roberts residents. There is already a lot of green space, including the airstrip, golf course, and a future sewer system area. Insist on clustering. There is no need for a bonus allowance. Some people don't plan to subdivide. The market will decide who develops their property. People would not buy a property zoned R5A with no chance to develop it. He bought his property in 1991. Prior to the purchase, it was landlocked. He was assured that Johnson Road would be extended so he could have access, and he would have 600 feet of frontage. In 1995, when it was extended, they connected it to Iris Road, which detoured around his property. He was still landlocked. The County provided a culvert at Johnson Road, and was 170 feet from the road. There were no public services. All that wait was for nothing. He had to finish the connection, and he lost the frontage. Then they added to the problem by zoning him R5A. The developer above him planned to put the connection in at his own expense years ago, but abandoned the project. That developer was given that same road at the taxpayers' expense. Sid Wallace, 528 S. Beach Road, Point Roberts, stated he was on the steering committee. He disagreed a great deal with the committee. In 1998, realizing that there was going to be a new subarea plan, they looked at what was happening with Point Roberts. What has happened in the last ten years is similar to what is happening all over the Northwest. A two and a half percent growth rate will cause a lot of problems and cost a lot of money. Vancouver in the 1930's had log booms and lumber mills right in town. Now, there isn't a building lot within a reasonable Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 48 driving distance all up the Frasier Valley. Point Roberts land is selling for one -eight of what property costs across the border. The transition zoning is not a solution. It is intrinsically unfair. The problems with Point Roberts began 30 years ago when the County allowed indiscriminate subdivisions in Point Roberts. They exist today. Some of them are built out only ten percent. They should have a plan that develops Point Roberts in an orderly way. Point Roberts is changing. In 1976, there were 260 registered voters. In 1989, there were 211. Now, there are 651 registered voters. Point Roberts can be an asset to the county. The way the plan is written, it becomes a liability. There are more cost commitments, but no specific costs. Fifty -six policy items are included that have an administrative cost. They should not be treated any differently than any other part of Whatcom County. The Growth Management Plan won't work at Point Roberts. He wants a commonsense plan to overcome the problem of prehistoric lots that are not being built upon. There is no business in Point Roberts. Point Roberts had a village in the 1920's. Since then, there has been no successful business, except for the gas stations, which are based on taxation. This plan is not realistic. It doesn't solve the problem. It creates more problems. The undeveloped interior lots are green space. People want to build on the southern slope. If they add lots to the southern slope, they would begin to solve the problem. Many of the low wage earner jobs in Point Roberts are very difficult. For those people who are retired, it is a wonderful place to live. Point Roberts is going to be a valuable area for the county, but it will not come about by this kind of planning. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Wallace continued to state that the plan should be in the interest of the people of Point Roberts and Whatcom County, not for providing trails for visitors coming into Point Roberts. They have four miles of trail per thousand people. The standard set by the County is for three miles per thousand. They have many parks. What Point Roberts needs is a stable economy that will support a village. That will only come with population. Donovan Kehrer, 748 Marine Drive, asked what the process will be now. McShane stated this will be scheduled at the next Planning and Development Committee. The committee will entertain changes. If the committee recommends changes and the Council concurs, a public hearing will be scheduled. Kehrer stated the County's agricultural protection overlay district affects Point Roberts. There is one small area of agricultural soils there. That area is around the airport. The agricultural protection overlay zone requires clustering conditions. That could have a significant affect on the design of the airport. He questioned whether it is necessary to have the agricultural overlay zone apply to the Point. Hoag stated a number of requirements are required to have the overlay applied, including historical agricultural use and parcel size. Kehrer stated the two Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 48 criteria are the soil type and size of the property. It is an issue that should be looked at. Dave Duncan, Point Roberts resident, stated he submitted a letter and was available to answer questions. His main concern is with the degree of the property down zone. Most of the property in his area is 90 percent developed at six units per acre. The current zone is four units per acre. The proposed zone is two units per acre, which would make it an aberration in the neighborhood. Brenner asked why the property would be zoned UR -2 if it is already developed to UR -6. Goodwin stated the proposal was rural residential, one acre. The Planning Commissioner changed it to two acres to allow some of the properties to further subdivide. There are still some vacant properties that are not platted. The plats zoned at six units per acre are the old plats that are too small to develop. Those are the properties that everyone says are undesirable. They didn't want to leave zoning that would create more of those undesirable lots. Most of it is, platted, not developed, at six units per acre. There are several vacant parcels in the area. There are many recreational cabins and seasonal housing. The committee did not want to encourage more lots at that density. Brenner asked to look at changing the zoning, but allowing someone who wants to use the plat for a recreational cabin to continue using it seasonally. Goodwin stated they don't want to get into seasonal restrictions on properties. Brenner stated they have looked at the historical pattern of development in the past. They have been sensitive to that. Goodwin stated the solution Mr. Duncan proposed, RR3, would be the best way to address his concern, but don't do a spot zone for one property. Draw a larger boundary around it. Hoag questioned how this relates to the map that Mr. Wallace provided. They are talking about the same area. The map says the area is developed, not just platted. Goodwin stated it is developed, but there are tiny cabins seasonally occupied. Most of them are not permanent, year around residents because of the septic issues and the size of them. Some people do live there year around. Hoag questioned whether the density at UR -6 or UR -4 isn't allowed unless there is water and sewer. She questioned whether it is fair to surmise that the ones that are developed have water and sewer. Goodwin stated no. They are old plats from the turn of the century, before the County had zoning. None of them have sewer. Hoag questioned whether those that have not developed have not developed because they do not have sewer and water. Goodwin stated either that, or there wasn't a market. They all can get water. None of them can get sewer without designing a community septic system. Hoag stated keeping the zoning at UR -3 or UR -4 would still have the requirement for water and sewer to develop. If they change it to a rural residential Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 9 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 zoning, that part of the requirement is dropped. The UR -3 zone is not a compromise because the development could move ahead without having sewer. Duncan stated that is not correct. In cooperation with the sewer and water district, he can create an approved system. As long as the district approves the system, the process to subdivide the property can go through. The Health Department is currently issuing septic permits for these 5,000 square foot lots in this neighborhood. His lots are 14,000 square feet with 100 feet of frontage. They are three times the size of what is already there. Hoag questioned whether a 14,000 square foot lot equals RR -3. Duncan stated it does. Michael Rosser, Steering Committee member, stated he supports the plan approved by the committee. The Planning Commission made minor changes. Transitional zoning is not easy to understand. He recommended that the Planning Committee recommend what the steering committee recommended. The original subarea plan cites that people live in Point Roberts because of rural character. Developers want to develop their land, and they can't deny people that. The question is how to reconcile those two things. The solution recommended is transition zoning. Clustered development is more desirable. The open space would be available for wildlife and the rural character. That is available for the community as a whole, but the developer still has the ability to develop at a higher density of one house per acre. He came from a community like that. It was a very desirable community to live in. The step system would have a community drain field that would make it possible for future sewer system development at a lower cost in the future. Adopt the plan as originally crafted by the steering committee. McShane stated this item would be held in committee for two weeks. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.71, WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2001 -322) Crawford questioned whether the Council would be required to have another public hearing if the Council changes the Planning Commission recommendation. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it would. Crawford asked how that affects enforcement and people who are waiting for final construction loan payments, and other occupancy issues. He assumes that this committee will not go with the Planning Commission recommendation. Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated he can't sign off on any building permits that do not meet the code. There are five or six building permits that are waiting for this change to happen. He cannot approve them without the driveway section of the code being removed. There are also enforcement issues on hold pending Council decision. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 10 1 McShane questioned whether the enforcement is against people who violated 2 the code. Middleton stated some of the violators did not know, and some did know 3 what the code said. 4 5 Hoag stated a constituent brought this to the Council's attention. When it 6 was brought to the Council, it was said that the Council was unaware of the 7 requirement. The constituent asked to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment to fix 8 it. At the time this was brought to the County Council, Councilmember Crawford 9 said he will talk to legal counsel to see if they can fix this. The next thing she 10 knows, there is the Planning Commission, with a mandate from the Council, to 11 change this. There is no mandate from the Council to change this. In addition, at 12 the Planning Commission Councilmember Crawford said the previous Planning 13 Committee spent many hours of late nights in meetings. That Planning Committee 14 did not meet on any late nights. Councilmember Crawford also said that there was 15 no specific motion to make driveways pervious. However, Councilmember Sutter 16 brought it up and it was adopted. Goodwin stated this item is a paid application by 17 the Building Industry Association, and is going through the normal process that any 18 individual or organization can go through. It was scheduled for a regular Planning 19 Commission hearing and has gone through the normal Council process. 20 21 Hoag stated that at the time it was brought up to the Council, the Council 22 was told that the only way it could be processed with this year's Comprehensive 23 Plan amendments was as an emergency. Goodwin stated that discussion was about 24 a Council initiated free zoning amendment. The Council cannot docket it to no cost 25 to the applicant. The BIA could do a paid application and bring it through a regular 26 process. 27 28 Hoag stated that is not on the Council's record. She was told that the 29 Council voted for the Planning Commission to do this, but the Council did not. 30 Goodwin stated the Council did not approve that vote, and the Planning 31 Commission did not operate under the understanding that the Council made that 32 request. This was a paid application. The staff report says it was a paid 33 application. The Planning Commission meeting said it was a paid application. 34 There was no illusion that this was docketed or sent to the commission by the 35 Council. It was clearly a private application. 36 37 Hoag stated that in terms of what the application says, and the testimony 38 from the BIA at the Planning Commission, they refer to site constraints. They 39 specifically addressed site constraints. She said that she wanted to make sure they 40 don't require this in an area where site constraints make it difficult. They wanted to 41 make sure that, if an owner could easily use an alternative service, the County 42 would require that rather than have the owner use asphalt. The Council did not 43 want more asphalt unnecessarily in the watershed. The recommendation came 44 originally from Kathy Sutter. There was a lot of discussion and thought went into 45 not placing an undue burden on homeowners in the area. When this was originally 46 adopted, Councilmember Sutter at the time suggested that they require impervious 47 surfaces because encouraging people would not be enough. They might damage 48 water quality in areas where there would be runoff. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 48 Emily Salka, Building Industry Association, stated she brought this forward on behalf of future residents of Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. Homeowners should have the flexibility of deciding between a smaller house and an impervious surface driveway, or a larger house with a pervious surface driveway. Driveway alternatives are costly. They limit affordable housing in the watershed. This does not ask for too much. A patio with the same surface as a driveway is allowed, but not a driveway connected to the street. If connected to the street, the stormwater will be treated. Hoag stated there is a false perception that the Council did this to determine how the impervious surfaces would be used. She didn't disagree with the basic perspective on that. However, the conclusion is that the Council is dictating how the amounts of impervious surfaces are allocated on a property. They are trying to minimize the impervious surfaces in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Crawford stated the Planning Commission changed the language to "encourage." He questioned whether the BIA was happy with that recommendation. There are real -life situations out there where this is causing a problem. Salka stated the BIA agreed with the staff and Planning Commission proposals. The major changes were the additions of the stormwater treatment for runoff on the driveways. The BIA supports treating water. Water should be treated. The BIA supports the encouragement language. Crawford stated the underlined section of the ordinance was added by staff after the BIA applied. The Planning Commission removed the requirement and instead asked for encouragement. It appears it went beyond what the BIA originally applied for. This issue is important enough that what is appropriate is worth some study and debate. This issue brought up a lot of other interesting things about this paragraph. The paragraph was written poorly from the beginning. His concern is to move forward with something that fixes the immediate problems for the individuals in the community. Ask for the Planning staff to review the entire section and propose a complete scrub of this in terms of what they want for the watershed. McShane stated staff submitted a comment, which is on Council packet page 177, regarding the nuts and bolts details of runoff. He agreed with Richard Duane's statement that many of these areas designed as pervious surfaces are acting as impervious surfaces. Richard Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, his recommendation included recommendations from the Engineering Division, the Water Resources Division, and the Fire Marshal. The basis for their recommendation is that alternative surfaces require correct construction on a surface of sandy soil, and it must be maintained. None of those things are happening in any of the alternative surfaces going down in the watershed. Alternative driveways are functioning as impervious driveways. There is no difference between pavement and gravel driveways. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, 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 McShane asked if areas accessed by fire trucks should be impervious. Duane stated pervious surfaces are designed for lightweight vehicles only, not fire trucks and ambulances. McShane asked if maintenance is difficult because they do not receive a lot of traffic. Duane stated it depends on the materials. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) McShane asked if staff ever considered a multiplier for various types of impervious surfaces, such as a roof versus a road. That might be something to explore. Duane stated thought has been given to a formula for various impervious surfaces. The Engineering Division was tasked with writing special district standards in the overlay protection areas. Staff completed the draft of the special district standards and brought them forward to the Technical Advisory Committee JAC). Staff decided to hold that issue in the TAC because there was a State Department of Ecology (DOE) manual due for the past year and a half. It came out about a week ago. Staff is comparing the special district standards to the DOE manual. Staff is working on the standards and will ensure that they meet the DOE standards. Roofs are treated differently and considered non - polluting impervious surfaces. Driveways are considered polluting, and are treated differently. They treat all the impervious area. The ordinance and special district standards will treat the house and the driveway differently. The addition of the swale to this language will not provide as much technical runoff cleanup as they want. It will provide other benefits, such as education. There is a limited benefit to the swale next to the driveway. Hoag asked if there is no difference at all between asphalt and gravel in the watershed. This was discussed at the committee level because the committee acknowledged that gravel, over time, disintegrates and becomes less pervious. However, she was surprised to hear that there is no difference. Duane stated the difference is very small, and is evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending on the area. There are areas where gravel is worse than pavement because people may maintain their gravel driveway by putting more gravel down. The gravel is not uniform in size, and will have an inordinate amount of fines. Those fines are what staff is concerned about getting into the watershed. Hoag stated that was one of the reasons the committee adopted the language that it did. She asked about the difference between other alternative surfaces, such as pervious concrete, and asphalt. Duane stated that if the pervious concrete is put down correctly on sand and a filter fabric, and maintained on a regular basis, it will be 50 percent less than asphalt. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 13 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 asked about porous asphalt and paving blocks. Duane stated the porous asphalt has the same numbers. The paving blocks come in many shapes and sizes, and it depends on how much grass comes through the paving blocks. Hoag stated the bottom line is that asphalt has as much runoff as anything. The alternatives have different degrees of benefit. Duane stated that if properly installed and maintained on the correct soil type, the alternative surfaces would have a benefit. However, the staff doesn't regulate maintenance or installation. Hoag stated that if installation and maintenance was done totally wrong, the worst that would happen is the same as what would happen with an asphalt driveway. Duane agreed. Hoag stated the committee and Council did not wish to regulate to that degree. There was a general discussion. They wanted something staff could enforce and that was reasonable. The homeowner can't count the pervious driveway as open space. Goodwin stated 35 percent of open space could be pervious surfaces. The rest of it can't be. Crawford moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation. McShane stated he was opposed to the motion. The original proposal brought forward by the BIA is what he supports. There are problems with requiring the installation of the overflow parking, and fringe areas are problematic. They are not going to be used that much. Other approaches would not be harmful if they required them to be done with pervious surfaces. He is interested in considering assigning impervious values to driveways to discourage siting homes that would have long driveways. Driveways do have significant impacts. He concurred that gravel is not a very good surface to use. The final sentence that was added in is a good approach, particularly if they can come up with some good cookie cutter designs that could be readily approved as pre- approved engineering. Perhaps put more strength into the sentence about what would be required for design submittal. Any additions to homes within the stormwater special district require an engineering design, which is problematic. Get from the TAC some pre- approved designs that could be permitted. They may want to require it in the fringe and overflow parking. He is willing to have a public hearing on that in the future. Duane stated that if they go over 5,000 square feet of impervious area, the ordinance says that there must be an engineered design. If putting on an addition of up to 5,000 square feet, the homeowner doesn't need an engineering design. There is also a question of zoning. In specific zoning areas, one can only have a specific amount of impervious areas. There are natural safeguards for impervious areas to some extent. McShane asked if there is a minimum preferred criteria for a bioswale design. Middleton stated it depends on several factors, including type of soil, what will be the treatment, and the vegetation used, among others. His concern is administering the codes that have that direction. He has to let the public know Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 14 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 what is needed out there. Staff could have something it can go to for the public's information, from the TAC. That won't actually happen when it comes to the bio- swales. They are talking mostly about driveways that are 60 feet long to 30 feet long. It is not a problem with the majority of the driveways. Crawford questioned whether the driveways pending permitting are within the percentage of allotment for that limit of impervious surface. Middleton stated they are. The only violation is that it is a driveway. A couple of driveways are waiting to see the percentages. Hoag questioned why the pending applicants don't want to use pervious surfaces. Middleton stated a pervious surface is required if the site constraint would be detrimental to water quality. Gravel is detrimental to the lake, so the applicant has to pick another alternative surface that is not detrimental. That may not be the intent, but that is what the code states. Hoag asked what Mr. Middleton does with legislative intent when it is clear that what the code says is not what was intended. The committee made it clear that it should not be required where site constraints are going to make it not feasible or damage water quality. Middleton stated that if the code is unclear, they would look at legislative intent. He can read the code clearly. It says that if one of the alternatives doesn't work, an owner would have to pick from the other options. He didn't know if that was the intent, but that is what the code says. Hoag stated they should get back to what they intended, which was to not have asphalt where they don't need it. Goodwin stated another issue is Sudden Valley. Covenants require that the first six feet of the driveway be paved. The code requires that they not be paved. They have to deal with that issue. An administrative determination was made that if the driveway was within the public right -of -way, it was an apron that could be paved. It still creates a problem. Hoag stated that in trying to address the specific problem, they should not take away the intent to limit the impervious surfaces in the watershed. That is what this proposal does. The policy does not need to change. They just need to fix the problem that was presented. Crawford stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane that the it is a poorly written paragraph. There is a lot of confusion in the community. The proposal from Mr. Duane is worth looking at. However, they've got some people who need resolution on current building situations. He is willing to continue to work on this for better language. Adopt the ordinance based on the need of the individuals. Duane stated the committee has a good grasp of the difference between pervious and impervious surfaces. A good point is that houses already count the driveways for a total impervious area. Placing a swale next to a driveway hits the owner twice. The owner has requirements on the total impervious area, and also for the driveway. The driveway is counted as part of the total impervious area if it's Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 15 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 asphalt. If it's asphalt, the owner has to put a swale next to it. That is a secondary treatment, one for the house and one for the driveway. Hoag stated the cure is worse than the disease. Duane stated always treat driveways as impervious surfaces, but encourage owners to use alternative surfaces that work. Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor. McShane moved to hold in committee for two weeks. Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed. McShane stated this would be held in committee for two weeks. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS WITHIN SMALL TOWNS, RESORT/ RECREATIONAL SUBDIVISIONS AND THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (AB2001 -310G) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this would allow public water and sewer in gateway industrial areas, small towns, and resort recreational subdivisions. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. There was no testimony against it. McShane moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2001, Page 16