HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 10 2003 PM1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Special County Council
3
4 June 10, 2003
5
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane
8 in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Present: Absent:
11 Barbara Brenner None
12 Laurie Caskey-Schreiber
13 Sam Crawford
14 Seth Fleetwood
15 Sharon Roy
16 L. Ward Nelson
17
18 1. COUNCIL TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF AN AMENDMENT MADE TO THE
19 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
20 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE
21 PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 —
22 SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
23 CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
24 20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
?5 PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002-222B)
26
27 McShane stated an amended version of this ordinance would be introduced
28 on June 17, 2003. A public hearing will be held on July 8, 2003. He suggested
29 having this meeting, and councilmembers agreed to it, out of concern that the
30 gravel amendment needed clarifications. He'd hoped to meet during the day on
31 June 17 to come up with language in time for introduction at that night. However,
32 staff suggested spending time on it at a special meeting so they will have time to
33 make sure that the public gets to review whatever the Council's intent is on gravel
34 surfaces. When he took a look at the gravel language, he was confused by it.
35
36 Roy stated she's confused about why they are having a special meeting to
37 look over an amendment that they passed. She asked the process.
38
39 McShane stated he felt that what the Council introduced would be confusing.
40 If the Council changed the language, it would have to schedule yet another public
41 hearing. He thought getting together to clarify the language would be better. He
42 opposed the amendment, but is still interested in working with the Council to come
43 up with good language. He distributed a suggested amendment (on file).
44
45 Brenner stated there is nothing in Councilmember McShane's language that
46 would trigger a third public hearing. The only reason they would need another is if
47 the scope is beyond what was advertised. This does not. There was no need for a
48 special meeting.
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, Page 1
2 Crawford stated he talked to Roland Middleton about the administration of
3 the amendment that Councilmember Brenner proposed. On the first reading, Mr.
4 Middleton indicated that it would be easily enforceable, although he wanted to
5 study it more.
6
7 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
8 Government Affairs, submitted a letter (on file). A notice of this meeting never
9 appeared in the Bellingham Herald.
0
1 Kevin Korthuis, Ferndale Ready Mix, stated the soil in the watershed is
2 somewhat compacted naturally through time. If someone lays one and a quarter
.3 inch clear gravel down on soil, the water would run through it too fast, create a
.4 hazard, and possibly create erosion underneath the gravel.
16 Roy stated the issue is the gravel once it is compacted. Traffic compacts the
17 gravel. Korthuis stated the language proposed to offer 50 percent perviousness is
18 reasonable. The one and a quarter inch clear gravel is not a reasonable driveway
19 surface at depth. A car will not travel through it. In a heavily driven state, it does
20 become somewhat impervious.
21
22 Roy asked how impervious it becomes. Korthuis stated traditional concrete is
23 very impervious. That's why they've tried to come up with solutions to address
24 these issues. People in the community want a permanent driving surface and to
15 still meet the County specifications. There is no comparison between concrete and
26 a paver system.
27
28 Brenner stated some logging roads have one and a quarter or greater
29 fractured rock. They are a pleasure to drive on. She asked for clarification on Mr.
30 Korthuis's concern. Korthuis stated fractured rock is not the same as the one and a
31 quarter inch gravel. Fractured rock will meld together to a certain extent.
32
33 Brenner stated it stays in place and doesn't roll off.
34
35 Caskey-Schreiber stated her brother is a planner for King County, and says
36 that King County considers gravel impervious. Councilmember Brenner's logic is a
37 leap to say that it is considered pervious because they require gravel underneath
38 the pavers.
39
40 Brenner read the language from her motion, which specifies, "...over a
41 permeable base core such as gravel or sand." They call gravel or sand permeable.
42
43 Caskey-Schreiber stated that is taken out of context. King County considers
44 gravel impervious, by law.
45
46 McShane moved to amend section 20.71.302(9),
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, 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
?5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated the language in the motion covers almost the entire Lake
Whatcom watershed. She read from the information from King County that says
maintaining forest cover is more important than limiting impervious area
percentages. Getting this specific with gravel is amazing, since it's not as
important as maintaining forest cover. This is an end run around her amendment
that would prevent anyone from using that option.
McShane stated this language is more likely to be used for people who want
gravel driveways because one and a quarter inch gravel driveway is not something
that someone will want to drive on.
Nelson stated he is looking at cost and impact. He asked about soils of
hydrologic group A or B.
McShane stated they are well -draining soils. What is under the gravel
driveway will determine how well the driveway drains.
Nelson asked if staff knows where those soils are, or if a property owner has
to get a geologist to analyze the soil.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated a geographic information
system (GIS) map shows the soil locations, and it is also a basis for seasonal land
clearing. The property owners have to know that anyway.
Nelson asked if this is an increased cost to the property owner of the
driveway. Goodwin stated it is not an increased research cost because staff has the
data.
Nelson stated asked how to determine seasonal groundwater level. Goodwin
stated that is in the GIS system also. All information from Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) books is in the GIS system.
Nelson stated a regular gravel driveway is usually just punched in on a
property. He asked how subsection (f) applies to a property owner who chooses to
use Councilmember Brenner's amendment option.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated it has to be graded a small percent to be
drained toward a vegetated area, rather than toward the road.
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, Page 3
1
2 Nelson asked if subsection (b) covers that concern, and if subsection (f) is
3 necessary.
4
5 McShane stated he believed subsection (f) is necessary. If there is a slope,
6 they want to make sure the slope is to the side and doesn't go onto the street.
7
8 Crawford asked for the industry's response to the assertion that one and a
9 quarter inch gravel surface is not desirable to drive on. He asked if staff could put
10 together a map to show where in the A and B soils are and where the seasonal
11 groundwater is at least six feet. Last, he asked how much potential there is for
12 urban zoning.
13
14 Gary Reid, Building Industry Association President, stated Councilmember
15 McShane's amendment is a step in the right direction. The five percent limitation in
16 the watershed is stringent. The question is how they control the water. An
17 underground filtration should satisfy these criteria. He is not in favor of further
18 limiting the ability to put down a gravel driveway.
19
20 Korthuis stated a greater selection of gravel to be used as a driveway is
21 definitely more beneficial. The proposed language is quite unclear without being
22 able to see maps and what locations would be restricted.
23
24 Goodwin stated staff could provide maps. The SCS data is in the computer.
15 The urban zoning is limited to portions of Sudden Valley and all of Geneva and
26 Hillsdale.
27
28 Crawford asked if people are coming close to the 50 percent impervious
29 surface limitation now, and would they use this gravel criteria concept. Goodwin
30 stated a greater issue is 80 percent, which is the proposal. The sewer is going in,
31 and the lot size is smaller. There is going to be more of an issue.
32
33 Brenner stated she is not tied to her one and a quarter inch gravel
34 restriction. She doesn't want people to have to do a lot of technical study to
35 determine if they qualify. Also, most of the soil in the watershed will fall under
36 Councilmember McShane's criteria. King County called gravel permeable and said
37 maintaining forest cover is more important than limiting impervious surfaces.
38
39 (Clerks Note: End of tape one, side A.)
40
41 Brenner continued to state that she wants to allow some credit for low-grade
42 pervious materials.
43
44 Crawford stated he would like to see the maps before he votes on the item.
45
46 Roy stated she voted for the Brenner amendment because an Engineering
47 Division staff person told the Council that a gravel driveway would be more
48 pervious than a concrete driveway. She's still not sure if she's hearing anything
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, Page 4
1 different. That is the basic premise of all of this. She asked if gravel is more
2 pervious than concrete.
3
4 McShane stated the coefficient of runoff for paved surfaces is .95. For
5 gravel, the coefficient is .9. It is a very minor difference. The subsurface material
6 is critical. He has concerns about the process, which he will talk to Council staff
7 about. That's why he thought this meeting was important.
8
9 Caskey-Schreiber stated the Engineering Division staff member did not say
10 that gravel was pervious. The staff person said that gravel's perviousness relies on
11 the base underneath it, and that a large size clear may serve some of the same
12 functions as the drain layer under pervious pavers.
13
14 Roy stated the staff person said gravel was more pervious than concrete.
15
16 Caskey-Schreiber asked the perviousness of grass.
17
18 McShane stated grass has a coefficient of .8. It is a matter of the size of the
19 rainfall event and other factors.
20
21 Goodwin stated staff has done research on this issue, which she can
22 distribute to the councilmembers. Most areas treat gravel as an impervious
23 surface.
24
15 McShane withdrew his motion.
26
27 Roy stated the question is whether it is or is not impervious. If all the
28 science is saying that gravel is not pervious, then totally eliminate it as an option.
29 That is still the heart of the issue. If she gets enough information to satisfy her
30 that it is impervious, then she won't look for compromise.
31
32 Caskey-Schreiber stated Councilmember McShane's amendment is a big
33 compromise. Perviousness depends on the soils beneath it. If the drainage offsets
34 some of the imperviousness, then she's fine with Councilmember McShane's
35 amendment. She's happy to work out a compromise. However, she can't support
36 Councilmember Brenner's amendment.
37
38 Goodwin stated she would ask Chris Brueske, the engineer, to clarify his
39 comments in a memo to the Council.
40
41 McShane stated a memo about how civil engineers deal with stormwater
42 runoff on various surfaces, particularly with gravel sources, would be useful.
43 Reference stormwater manuals used by all civil engineers, who are the ones
44 charged with calculating stormwater flow runoffs. Goodwin stated Mr. Brueske
45 could do that by the next Council meeting.
46
47 Brenner stated she would like Mr. Brueske to address low-grade
48 perviousness, not just perviousness or imperviousness. The focus keeps going
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
away from the low-grade perviousness. She acknowledges that the gravel is not
super pervious, but Mr. Brueske should look at it in the context of low-grade
perviousness.
Crawford asked that Mr. Brueske also comment on Councilmember
McShane's proposed amendment.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.
%
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on July 8 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1 Z'
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 6/10/2003, Page 6