Whatcom County Council s3

1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Planning and Development Committee 3 4 December 10, 2002 5 6 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan 7McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 8 9 Present: Absent: 10 Seth Fleetwood None 11 Laurie Caskey-Schreiber 12 13 14 Also Present: 15 Barbara Brenner 16 L. Ward Nelson 17 Sharon Roy 18 19 20COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21 221. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING 23 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 – WATER RESOURCE 24 PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 – 25 SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING), 26 CHAPTER 20.85 – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER 27 20.97 – DEFINITIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY 28 PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002-222B) 29 30 Amy Pederson, Planner I, submitted a memo suggesting alternate language 31to the proposed Planning Commission recommendations (on file). She read 32through the memo. 33 34 McShane stated the committee would begin working from Council packet 35page 262. 36 37 Nelson referenced section .153(2) on packet page 263 and asked what 38happens if the farm exists. Pederson stated that language applies to preexisting 39facilities that have to come into compliance. 40 41 Nelson stated they are asking everyone in the rural area to take down their 42fences. 43 44 McShane stated it exempts people who have completed and implemented a 45conservation plan that provides for smaller buffers. That is a significant part of the 46critical areas ordinance within the agricultural zones. 47

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 1 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 Nelson stated conservation plans are usually for large dairy farms. He asked 2the cost of getting a conservation plan. 3 4 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Conservation District 5does not charge a fee for conservation plans. The County Council has funded the 6Conservation District to provide that service. The Conservation District will work 7with these people. 8 9 Nelson asked about the definition of what becomes a nuisance as the term is 10referenced in section .153(4). Goodwin stated she suspects that language is 11standard throughout the code. It is the wording in the rural district. Since it 12applies also to kennels, the nuisance would be noise. Since it’s a conditional use 13permit, the Hearing Examiner would take a look at each instance and see what the 14issue is. A preexisting farm would not go through a conditional use permit process 15and would not have to deal with this issue. 16 17 Nelson stated he’s concerned about jeopardizing agricultural activities in the 18watershed by imposing an additional burden that may not be necessary. Goodwin 19stated that anyone who already exists could continue as is unless the code 20specifically says they have to change. Only section (3) regarding preexisting farms 21would be affected. Everyone else who is already there would be okay. New uses 22would have to go to the Hearing Examiner. 23 24 Brenner asked if a golf course using integrated pest management does not 25use chemicals. Pederson stated not necessarily. Chemicals are generally used as a 26last resort, but they can use chemicals. 27 28 Brenner asked if section .213 applies to existing golf courses. Pederson 29stated it applies only to new golf courses. 30 31 Brenner asked the reason for changing the exemption to aquaculture or 32mariculture, as referenced in section .204, and whether there are any problems 33they are trying to address. It’s more of a change than a clarification. Goodwin 34suggested language, “Aquaculture and mariculture projects other than provided 35that fish hatcheries and private non-commercial fish ponds approved by the 36Department of Fish and Wildlife.” 37 38 Nelson asked where the language in section .154(1) came from. Goodwin 39stated that came from a former councilmember. 40 41 Nelson stated they need to reword section .154(3) to not put an undue 42burden on the owner. 43 44 McShane referenced section .213. He moved to strike the double-lined 45portion. The language is about herbicides and pesticides being a problem. His 46concern is about nutrient loading. Golf courses will be a source of nutrient loading.

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 2 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1He’s not excited about adding another golf course to the Lake Whatcom watershed 2or having one in the Lake Samish watershed. 3 4 Nelson asked if there is a study that shows nutrient loading. Goodwin stated 5Sudden Valley and Semiahmoo have done reports on their pesticide use. She 6doesn’t know if there has been any downstream monitoring for nutrient loading. 7 8 Caskey-Schreiber stated Lake Padden might have information. It is a lake 9without homes and only with a golf course on it. 10 11 Roy asked if there are standards for nutrient control as well as pest 12management. 13 14 McShane stated there are a lot of work done on farmland that is driven by 15financial concerns, to minimize the amount of fertilizer used or avoid overloading 16fertilizer. To some extent, golf courses concern themselves about the amount of 17nutrients they add for cost benefit reasons. The amount of runoff from a golf 18course is significantly higher than a forestry area. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously. 21 22 Fleetwood stated he hoped they could demonstrate with evidence that 23nutrient loading is a concern. 24 25 Nelson referenced section .202. The intent was to address combustible 26engines. He asked if a boat repair would qualify. Goodwin stated another question 27to address would be the train that is near the Park Store. They would be allowed. 28 29 Brenner liked the change of language suggested by Ms. Goodwin to section . 30204. 31 32 McShane stated he likes the language in section .204. 33 34 (Clerk’s Note: End of tape one, side A.) 35 36 McShane continued to state that he questions the amount of nutrients are 37being added to Lake Whatcom and the fish hatchery program. Hatcheries are 38notorious for adding huge nutrient loads to water bodies. 39 40 Brenner stated that every little noncommercial fishpond should not have to 41come in for a permit. 42 43 McShane stated another reason they should be permitted is to prevent the 44introduction of fish species that they don’t want in a lake. That section states that 45aquaculture and mariculture projects are not permitted. Hatcheries and 46noncommercial fishponds that are approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife 47may be permitted. It’s not automatic that they are exempted.

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 3 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 2 Goodwin stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife do not permit hatcheries 3and fishponds anyway. They are not in that business. There would never be an 4instance where there would be a fishpond approved by the Department of Fisheries. 5This language is included on the insistence of a Planning Commission member. 6Staff will look into whether the Department of Fish and Wildlife permits fish 7hatcheries and fishponds to make sure. 8 9 McShane moved to amend language in section .204, “Aquaculture and 10mariculture projects, provided that fish hatchers and private non-commercial fish 11ponds approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.” 12 13 Brenner stated the noncommercial fishponds are not considered aquaculture 14and mariculture projects anyway. 15 16 Motion carried unanimously. 17 18 McShane moved to amend section .202, “…automotive combustion engine 19repair garages…” 20 21 Motion carried unanimously. 22 23 Nelson referenced section .206 regarding confinement feeding operations. 24Many horse farms confine the horses for feeding. Goodwin stated confinement 25feeding is defined as livestock or poultry where population exceeds two animal units 26per acre. More than ten horses on five acres would be a confinement feeding 27operation. Feeding animals in a confined area isn’t the definition of a confined 28feeding area. 29 30 Caskey-Schreiber asked the Planning Commission reason for adding 31language to section .216. Goodwin stated this was at the request of citizens who 32were concerned about extracting gravel in a forestry operation. Those are exempt 33from County rules, so they clarified it. It is still allowed. All forestry roads that 34meet this criterion are exempt. 35 36 Nelson referenced section 20.71.301(3). He asked if sports courts are 37considered open space. Goodwin stated they are impervious surfaces. Open space 38has to be landscaped, vegetative stuff. 39 40 Nelson asked if they even need to have that list in section .301(3). 41 42 McShane moved to amend section .301 (3), “Parking areas, driveways, 43patios and outdoor storage and loading areas that are constructed of iImpervious 44surfaces shall not be considered open space.” 45 46 Motion carried 2-0 with Fleetwood out of the room. 47

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 4 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 McShane referenced section .301(4). It is different if they have open spaces 2and landscaping that is protective of water quality. He could leave this language as 3long as they do a different job on their tree retention. He asked staff to think about 4it. 5 6 Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated the intent is to retain as much 7undisturbed vegetation as possible. To encourage that, it would be consistent with 8vegetation and tree retention. It would be beneficial to clarify it here. The 9landscaping in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.80.325 does not get to that intent. 10 11 Nelson stated they are trying to preserve open space in the watershed. 12However a lot that has been logged may have blackberries and Himalayas all over 13it. A person would not be able to remove that vegetation. Goodwin stated this 14section only applies to tourist commercial and resort commercial areas where 15landscaping and open space is required. One can get rid of noxious weeds. This is 16for the few commercial uses in tourist and resort areas. 17 18 Baumgarten stated they could change the language to require that someone 19use appropriate native vegetation when doing landscaping in these areas in the 20watershed. 21 22 Goodwin stated that would prohibit a business from planting tulips in front of 23the business, for example. She doesn’t think they want to be that restrictive. 24 25 McShane stated this only applies to a small area of tourist and neighborhood 26commercial areas. Maybe they shouldn’t be worried about it. 27 28 McShane referenced section .302. It seems problematic that people have to 29carefully measure their property and then come up with a percentage of impervious 30surfaces that are allowed. Baumgarten stated it hasn’t been problematic so far. 31People haven’t seemed to have a problem with it. Most folks are able to come up 32with an accurate enough representation of what their impervious areas are. 33 34 McShane stated he is also concerned about fairness between the zones. 35Some zones get hit harder than other zones. Baumgarten stated ten percent of 36impervious surfaces is the goal. In areas that are designated urban residential, 37they’ve written off that goal by allowing high density. In areas that it is still 38attainable in the rural zones, it is an important goal. A lot of folks with small lots in 39the rural areas are feeling unnecessarily burdened. One way to deal with that 40would be to look at the allotment for some of those smaller parcels. 41 42 McShane asked if section .302(4) applies to small lots in the rural zones. 43Baumgarten stated it also applies to the rural residential zones. This section 44provides that someone would get at least 2,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. 45 46 McShane suggested for maximum limits for impervious surfaces for 47discussion. A maximum impervious surface limit would be:

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 5 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1  50 percent of the lot size in the URM zone, 2  3,000 square feet in the UR-3 zone, 3  4,000 square feet in the RR zones, 4  6,000 square feet in the R2A zone, and 5  10,000 square feet in the R5A zone. 6 7 Fleetwood asked if those limits are more restrictive. 8 9 McShane stated it is more restrictive in some zones and less restrictive in 10other zones. 11 12 Brenner asked about limits for the R10A and Rural Forestry zones. 13 14 McShane stated they might want to add another couple thousand square 15feet. A 20-acre lot in the Rural Forestry zone would currently be allowed 88,000 16square feet of impervious surfaces. That’s two acres. 17 18 Brenner stated that would have to accommodate a road. 19 20 McShane stated he would do that calculation and come up with an estimate. 21The committee will discuss that at another time. 22 23 Brenner referenced section 20.71.350 regarding cluster subdivisions. 24Subsections (1) and (2) should be made equal under a subsection called “purpose.” 25Subsection (2) sounds like an afterthought. 26 27 Fleetwood agreed. There’s no rational basis for separating the two. 28 29 Caskey-Schreiber stated she did not put any value on whether the two 30sections are separate or together. 31 32 Brenner referenced section 20.71.351 regarding cluster design standards. 33There should be an additional subsection (8) that says vegetative buffers be 34included with neighboring properties, specifically in areas where the look of the 35area would be changed from rural to almost urban. She suggested language, “(8) 36Vegetative buffer with neighbors where necessary to retain neighborhood 37standards.” There should be a buffer between a cluster and a neighboring property 38outside the cluster. 39 40 Goodwin suggested, “vegetative buffers on exterior boundaries of cluster 41subdivisions.” 42 43 McShane stated they should instead require some distance between a cluster 44and an existing home outside the cluster. If they put a certain amount a distance 45between the existing home and cluster, they have to follow the open space 46requirements, which will automatically create that buffer. 47

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 6 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 Baumgarten stated the Planning Commission struck language that required 2at least 500 feet of separation between clusters. 3 4 Brenner stated she would come back to the committee with specific language 5to amend the exhibit regarding this issue. Goodwin suggested language. 6 7 8 McShane accepted Ms. Goodwin’s suggested language and moved to amend 9section 20.71.351, “(8) Vegetated buffer to screen home sites from adjacent 10residential lots.” 11 12 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include a distance 13requirement between cluster and existing homes of 25 feet. 14 15 (Clerk’s Note: End of tape one, side B.) 16 17 McShane accepted the friendly amendment and restated his motion to amend 18section 20.71.351, “(8) A 25-foot wide vegetated buffer to screen home sites from 19adjacent residential lots.” 20 21 Baumgarten stated a minimum of 50 feet would achieve the intended 22purpose of screening. 23 24 Goodwin stated this section applies to short plats also, so they are talking 25about cluster subdivisions of four properties. In an urban residential zone, those 26are 10,000 square foot lots. If they start putting in a 50 foot vegetated buffer, 27they’ve wiped out more than half of someone’s lot. 28 29 Caskey-Schreiber stated she supports the concept, but she would like 30Planning Division staff to figure out if this is going to cause any problems with 31someone’s view or some other problem. 32 33 Motion failed 1-2 with Fleetwood in favor. 34 35 Nelson referenced section 20.71.301(8) regarding impervious surface 36requirement regarding a three foot overhang. He asked if they are rewarding 37anyone for doing any type of roof runoff treatment. Baumgarten stated stormwater 38special district standards require those types of treatments. A roof overhang of 39over three feet should not be considered a penalty. When a roof overhang becomes 40a certain depth, they are not getting the rainwater underneath it, so it becomes in 41effect an impervious surface after a certain point. He’s not sure where the specific 42three-foot maximum came from. At a certain point, it becomes like a solid deck. 43They are not counting any overhang up to three feet. The additional square 44footages beyond three feet becomes part of the impervious surface calculation. 45 46 Pederson stated the structure calculation is based on footprint. Overhanging 47architectural features may include porticos and roofs over patios.

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 7 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 2 Brenner stated she preferred to see the original language in section 320.71.602(2) regarding parking requirements. Pederson stated the difficulty with 4the original language was that there were no specific criteria. That’s why they 5specifically stated 20 percent. 6 7 McShane moved to strike language in section 20.71.603 regarding 8alternative surfacing methods, “Alternative surfaces including, but not limited to:… 9gravel….” 10 11 Caskey-Schreiber asked if the science shows that gravel turns into 12impervious surfaces. Baumgarten stated gravel becomes essentially an impervious 13surface if it is driven on. It’s up to the County Council to decide if it is impervious 14enough to be considered an impervious surface. The runoff coefficient to asphalt 15is .95. 16 17 Brenner stated they should develop a middle standard for gravel so they 18don’t encourage people to use asphalt. Gravel is better than asphalt. Make 75 or 1980 percent of gravel count toward the impervious surface limit. 20 21 Roy asked if the issue is whether or not gravel is counted. If gravel is not 22counted as an impervious surface, then they are increasing the damage in the 23watershed. They are encouraging that use when gravel really is just as bad as 24asphalt, but won’t have to count it in the total calculation. 25 26 McShane stated someone could bring forward an amendment that includes 27coefficients. 28 29 Motion carried unanimously. 30 31 32OTHER BUSINESS 33 34 There was no other business. 35 36 37ADJOURN 38 39 The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 40 41 42______43Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 44 45 46ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 47 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 8 1DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee 2minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are 3not the final approved minutes. 4 1 2 3 4______5Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Committee Chair 6

5 6 Planning and Development Committee, 12/10/2002, Page 9