Laserfiche WebLink
City of Tukwila My WebLink |HelpSearch Tips |About |Sign Out
Page 3 <br />Public Hearing Minutes <br />April 11, 2019 <br />also has to pay charges for an arborist and these mounting charges are overwhelming. He felt he was <br />being singled out by code enforcement as a minority owner. <br />Ion Manea, resident, made several points and requested the following changes: <br />- Provide a definition of "sensitive" vs "critical" in the TMC. <br />- The difference between the new TMC 18.45.30 GI (new code) and G4 (old code) results in <br />some cases, in an unfair, unjust and illegal confiscation without compensation of property due <br />to the small size of the parcel. It also seems to conflict with other areas of the code and SMP. <br />He recommended reviewing the buffer percentages and how they are calculated. <br />- Maintain current 50% buffer reduction rather than new proposal of 75%. <br />- 18.45.110B2 regarding operations, remove "confine or floodplain" text. <br />- 18.45.110CD makes a double standard for public drainage vs other kinds of projects. <br />- 18.45.184.F all unavoidable impact is confusing. Exclude this provision. <br />- 18.45.194. D4 Instead of $1,000 per tree, should be market value for the tree(s) as defined by <br />an arborist. <br />There were no additional comments. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />DELIBERATION: <br />Staff answered questions from the commissioners regarding the difference between terms "critical" and <br />"sensitive", and how people can know in which area their property is located. There was extensive <br />discussion about culvert impact and vesting impact as well as how the permit application timing would <br />impact vesting. <br />QUESTIONS: <br />Commissioner Mann asked staff to state the reasoning for the change to "critical" from "sensitive". <br />Minnie Dhaliwal stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines critical areas so we are just <br />being consistent with the State law and other cities and it is only a naming convention. The meaning is <br />the same. <br />Commissioner. Mann -asked "several questions regarding the meaning and determination of special <br />hazard flood areas. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that TMC has Title 16 Special Hazard Flood Areas and <br />Public Works Department requestedthe verbiage for consistency with Title 16. Further, the proposed <br />amendments add habitat assessment requirement if you are in those areas. Commissioner Mann <br />requested a reference to Title 16 be included and Ms. Dhaliwal agreed. <br />CommissionerStranderasked staff to address discussion about alteration and mitigation, specifically <br />referring to the letter regarding the culverts. Ms. Dhaliwal read the item, which was crossed out. Ms. <br />Cummins said it wasn't the first time it had been brought up and that it should be put back in as written <br />in 2010 since it is still.. viable. <br />Commissioner Strander asked if the testimony heard tonight will be brought before the PC. Staff said <br />they would summarize the comments and staffs' responsive suggestions in a matrix; and return to the <br />PC on May 23rd. <br />Commissioner Strander asked staff to address the vesting issue and approval time period. Ms. <br />Dhaliwal said it is complicated and there are two parts to the comments from Nancy Rogers: <br />1) The first had to do with the utilization of an approved SAMP. For example, in the Tukwila <br />South property mentioned tonight, staff looked at the whole site comprehensively, some small <br />wetlands were allowed to be filled in exchange for mitigation in other areas such as an off - <br />channel habitat area. She gave examples and summarized that since there was overall net <br />3 <br />