Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2019-04-25 Item 3 - Adoption of 4/11/191u111,1,1,11p11111111111111111,1,1M City of Tukwila Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MINUTES Date: April 11, 2019 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Council Chambers Present: Vice Chair Heidi Walters; Commissioners Mike Hansen, Louise Strander, Sharon Mann, Karen Simmons and Dixie Stark Absent: Chair Dennis Martinez Staff: Department of Community Development (DCD) Planning. Supervisor Minnie Dhaliwal, Urban Environmentalist Andrea Cummins; and Shana Markstrom for Planning Commission Secretary Wynetta Bivens Adopt Commissioner Hansen requested amendments to the March 28, Minutes: 2019 minutes, regarding his statement about public access He clarified that his comments related to public access were for access on public property and not private property. Commissioner Mann made a motion to adopt the March 28, 2019 minutes as amended. Commissioner Simmons seconded the motion. The motion passed with five in favor, Commissioner Stark opposed. Vice Chair Watters opened the public hearing and -swore in those wishing to provide testimony. CASE NUMBER: L18-0056 Critical Areas Code Update APPLICANT: The City of Tukwila Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, DCD, gave the presentation for staff. She provided an overview of the proposed changes to the Critical Areas Code (CAC). She stated since the purpose of the meeting was to hear from the public, she would be brief and quickly go over the process and the proposed changes. She noted that there are two code amendments going on presently. The hearing on the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) regarding the Green and Duwamish River was held on March 28th; and tonight, is the CAC update. The CAC update includes regulations pertaining to wetlands, streams, steep slopes, abandoned coal mines, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. This specifically involves Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.45 and 18.70. She stated the reason the code is being updated now is because the City is required to keep up with the State law and the last update was in 2010. She said the update will bring the City's wetland rating system in line with the State's system per the Department of Ecology's (DOE) guidance. PROPOSED CHANGES: • Wetland rating and widths are based on habitat score; buffer averaging replaces buffer reduction; interrupted buffer provisions added; fee in lieu provisions added. Also, included is a vegetation retention and tree replacement section. • Ms. Dhaliwal provided examples to help explain the changes regarding categories, habitat scores and how these impact buffer size. She compared the old methodology to the new methodology and explained that site condition, updated wetland category combined with habitat scores will impact the new buffers. She explained that while some current buffers will decrease others will increase. Page 2 Public Hearing Minutes April 11, 2019 • Classification of streams will be consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Buffer averaging will substitute for buffer reduction and interrupted buffer provisions will be added. • Steep slopes regulations will include when peer review of the geotechnical report is required; tree and vegetation retention on slopes will be required; and reference to mapping sources such as liquefaction and landslide hazards will be added. • Reference added to Special Hazard Flood Areas TMC Chapter 16.52; and floodplain habitat assessment requirements included. • Fish and wildlife conservation areas made consistent with Growth Management Act's (GMA) definition. A requirement for habitat assessment has also been added. • Housekeeping items included amending or adding the following sections: vesting; expiration of decisions related to critical areas; permitted "uses" changed to "activities"; vegetation protection section added; reorganization of mitigation sequencing section; penalties section added; non -conforming provisions amended and an inventory of critical areas update and maintenance section added. Ms. Dhaliwal briefed the Commissioners on the progress of the project, which was started in October 2018 and there have been two work sessions since then. After the public hearing tonight staff will come back to the PC with a summary of public comments including staff responses. After the PC deliberation and recommendation, this item will go before the City Council. The City Council will then have a public hearing and make the final decision. She entered into the record four comment letters from the public PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Scanlon, resident, said he thinks there is an error in regard to+the change in Section 18.45..110 where a section pertaining to upgrade to culverts was `taken out, he said it should be put back in. Storm water is different from ditch water and culverts that connect, small water bodies to streams. While people are talking about Orcaiand Salmon conservation these little ditches and streams are where water flow starts. Addressing the culvert issue is important for risk mitigation as there is currently a lawsuit regarding culverts between the State and the Tribes. Eventually this will be handled at the City level and this could hurt us in the future if we aren't prepared. Nancy Rogers, representing Segale Properties, stated she submitted a comment letter. She stated that the Tukwila South project is vested not only due to the development agreement but because we did a sensitive areas master plan (SAMP), now a critical areas master plan (CAMP). She said there are two areas that could be improved. 1) Add language clarifying that when a developer creates a master plan to enhance wetlands or mitigation areas, they are not penalized later by having a larger buffer imposed on their developable land. 2) Vesting provision in 18.45.190 should be amended to be more flexible. Commissioner. Mann asked a clarifying question about the vesting date. Ms. Rogers stated that she is suggesting that for five years following final plat approval you have the right to build on the plat according to the rules that were in affect at the time of plat approval Kevin Broderick, architect representing Vietnamese Martyr's Church, said applicants should be vested to the codes under which the application was started. Todd Smith, resident, said the process is hypocritical. He said the City owns a lot of property they don't take care of, but private people have to take care of their property. He further wanted to know what the "science" was upon which the stated changes were based. How are the buffer distances any different from 10 years ago? Is this update just a staff thing? He said, the City should have to take care of the property they manage just like the residents are required to. Joseph Ayala, property owner, said the City is forcing fraudulent charges on his property located at 13610 Macadam Rd. He said the City is charging them for drainage onto their property from city projects. He requested the City consider the surrounding projects when levying charges. He said he 2 Page 3 Public Hearing Minutes April 11, 2019 also has to pay charges for an arborist and these mounting charges are overwhelming. He felt he was being singled out by code enforcement as a minority owner. Ion Manea, resident, made several points and requested the following changes: - Provide a definition of "sensitive" vs "critical" in the TMC. - The difference between the new TMC 18.45.30 GI (new code) and G4 (old code) results in some cases, in an unfair, unjust and illegal confiscation without compensation of property due to the small size of the parcel. It also seems to conflict with other areas of the code and SMP. He recommended reviewing the buffer percentages and how they are calculated. - Maintain current 50% buffer reduction rather than new proposal of 75%. - 18.45.110B2 regarding operations, remove "confine or floodplain" text. - 18.45.110CD makes a double standard for public drainage vs other kinds of projects. - 18.45.184.F all unavoidable impact is confusing. Exclude this provision. - 18.45.194. D4 Instead of $1,000 per tree, should be market value for the tree(s) as defined by an arborist. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. DELIBERATION: Staff answered questions from the commissioners regarding the difference between terms "critical" and "sensitive", and how people can know in which area their property is located. There was extensive discussion about culvert impact and vesting impact as well as how the permit application timing would impact vesting. QUESTIONS: Commissioner Mann asked staff to state the reasoning for the change to "critical" from "sensitive". Minnie Dhaliwal stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines critical areas so we are just being consistent with the State law and other cities and it is only a naming convention. The meaning is the same. Commissioner. Mann -asked "several questions regarding the meaning and determination of special hazard flood areas. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that TMC has Title 16 Special Hazard Flood Areas and Public Works Department requestedthe verbiage for consistency with Title 16. Further, the proposed amendments add habitat assessment requirement if you are in those areas. Commissioner Mann requested a reference to Title 16 be included and Ms. Dhaliwal agreed. CommissionerStranderasked staff to address discussion about alteration and mitigation, specifically referring to the letter regarding the culverts. Ms. Dhaliwal read the item, which was crossed out. Ms. Cummins said it wasn't the first time it had been brought up and that it should be put back in as written in 2010 since it is still.. viable. Commissioner Strander asked if the testimony heard tonight will be brought before the PC. Staff said they would summarize the comments and staffs' responsive suggestions in a matrix; and return to the PC on May 23rd. Commissioner Strander asked staff to address the vesting issue and approval time period. Ms. Dhaliwal said it is complicated and there are two parts to the comments from Nancy Rogers: 1) The first had to do with the utilization of an approved SAMP. For example, in the Tukwila South property mentioned tonight, staff looked at the whole site comprehensively, some small wetlands were allowed to be filled in exchange for mitigation in other areas such as an off - channel habitat area. She gave examples and summarized that since there was overall net 3 Page 4 Public Hearing Minutes April 11, 2019 environmental gain, the proposal was approved under the SAMP provisions. The City attorney will review, but we understand the idea that if you do the mitigation on these larger projects you shouldn't get penalized by larger buffers. It seems that the DOE has not adequately dealt with some of these mitigation sites and their buffers. There is more guidance in the shoreline areas that we will try to research. 2) The second part is the vesting. Vice Chair Watters asked about how long the provisions would last. Ms. Dhaliwal said Washington State has doctrine on this, but they were still trying to work out the details. She pointed out that the City was trying to add flexibility and that Ms. Rogers was suggesting instead of one year you get five years after final plat approval. She mentioned that shoreline will be somewhat different than critical areas and this will also be looked at by the City attorney. Vice Chair Watters asked for clarity on how often the code needs to be updated. Ms. Dhaliwal advised that the DOE requires updates at least once every eight years,. but that changes may be made more frequently than that. Commissioner Mann discussed how the building and utility permits can impact the timeline for platting process, saying that five years can goequickly. Ms. Dhaliwal clarified the platting process. Commissioner Mann wondered how that timeframe would work if the buffer ended up encompassing 50% of their property. Ms. Dhaliwal said this is exactly what staff is trying to fix. There was discussion about tying it to the size or value of the project. There was discussion about when the buffer expands into the building and how the non -conforming code woapply in these cases. Staff summarized that their goal was to loosen the non -conforming regululd ations. Commissioner Strander asked for clarification on the science behind the size of the buffers. Ms. Cummins discussed that it is calculated per the best available science utilizing state compilation of current projects. It is an on -going process, so it goes back every eight years and is a very extensive process by the DOE. Vice Chair Watters asked for clarification about comments received from a citizen regarding drainage onto his property making it a wetland. Ms. Dhaliwal pointed out that she had displayed the parcel on the map earlier and recalled it was stated that the wetland was created because of drainage coming onto his property. She explained that the map shows a stream so there is water flow. She further explained that in order to be classified as a regulated wetland it must have three things: hydric soil, vegetation and hydrology. Vice Chair Watters asked if there was anything staff would like to address regarding the letter from Karen Walters ofthe Muckleshoot Tribe. Ms. Dhaliwal summarized comments received from Karen Walters, which included keeping the inventory of streams current to reflect any changes in culverts; addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies on shade and temperature; and allowing offsite mitigation for stream impacts. Staff explained that the results of TMDL studies ultimately urged DOE to determine, that the Green River is too hot for the fish, so its banks need to be planted with trees to provide shade. Commissioner Wafters asked if the proposed buffers will help this. Staff clarified that at present, off -site stream banking program is not available. Vice Chair Waiters wondered if we could predict regulations. Staff said that prediction is hard, which is why we do updates in eight -year increments. This makes better data available, better mapping, etc. Commissioner Mann asked about fees for studies. Ms. Dhaliwal stated that Ms. Cummins currently reviews the studies and the service is included in the application fee. If the City hires an outside consultant to do peer review, then there is a charge associated with that. The applicant receives a quote prior to commencement of work. The applicant is charged for any peer review associated with geotechnical reports. Commissioner Mann then asked whether a paragraph that had been under procedures section had been moved someplace else? Ms. Dhaliwal said there were no procedures under that section, instead it was just a jumbled -up paragraph that was removed. 4 Page 5 Public Hearing Minutes April 11, 2019 Commissioner Mann asked if toxic runoff can run into the wetlands. Ms. Dhaliwal clarified no toxic runoff is allowed, clean storm water may be allowed, and it is handled by storm water regulations. The table in this area is straight from the DOE, but the verbiage will be polished to more accurately reflect this. Commissioner Mann asked about acreage requirements. Ms. Cummins responded that it is a ratio. The property would be assessed for impact (acreage or square footage) then apply the ratio due to the mitigation you are doing. For instance, enhancement has a different ratio than restoration. Commissioner Mann was suggested the word "acreage" be replaced with "square footage". Vice Chair Watters asked that fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides be addressed regarding wetlands. Staff agreed to work on verbiage. Vice Chair Watters asked about verbiage regarding public use and access. She is concerned about being restrictive with regards to education and balancing it with ecology as the buffers are huge. Staff asked some clarifying questions and discussed working on the verbiage. Commissioner Hansen requested discussion on the best wayto go through any additional comments from the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed and agreed to submit comments to DCD by Friday, April 19. Staff will incorporate the Commissioners recommendations in the matrix that will be provided for the May 23rd meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: • City Council is holding a public hearing on April 22nd on a development agreement for the Homestead project, which is for 18 affordable, homes on a vacantlot behind Riverton United Methodist Church. The design review, sub -division and platting process will come to the Planning Commission and will be a quasi-judicial matter. • The regular PC meeting is on April 25th, and the agenda includes Shoreline Code update. • The May 23rd meeting is on the Critical Areas Code update • In June the PC will hear the design review of Fire Station 52 Adjourned: 8:55 PM Submitted by Shana Markstrom, substitute for Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary 5