City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 22, 2002
6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Pierce, chair; Len Boscarine; Mickey Conlin; Jon Newton; Robert Simpson-Clark
Absent: Gerald Robison, Douglas Rahn, Kirsti Weaver, Bruce White
Others Present: Scott Greenberg, planning director; Diane Hennessey, Adolfson and Associates; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Chair Pierce called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Robinson, Rahn, Weaver and White.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
A. October 8, 2002
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
A. Zoning Code Amendment – Critical area review Process Changes: Public Hearing, Discussion and Possible Recommendation
Chair Pierce declared the public hearing open.
Scott Greenberg, planning director, distributed to the commissioners copies of letters received from John Cochran of 1417 SW 143rd Street, and Linda McClamrock who lives on Shorewood Drive SW.
Mr. Greenberg noted that the consultant, Diane Hennessey of Adolfson and Associates, had reviewed the draft and suggested several revisions that should be discussed by the commission.
Mr. Greenberg said the commission began its review of the critical area review process and regulations several months ago. He said the current regulations on the books were adopted in June 1999. Since that date some 25 projects have gone through the critical area review process; they have ranged from new houses on vacant lots to deck additions on existing homes. It was determined that in most instances the process was the wrong one for the projects, and all of the additional time proved to be a drain on staff resources. The real objective is safety for the homeowner and surrounding properties, and in some instances ecological protections.
Mr. Greenberg said in its review the commission developed a hierarchy, the first of which is an exemption from the ordinance if certain conditions are met. The next level is an exception process by which certain provisions of the critical area review code can be waived for modified. A good example would be a water district wishing to put in a water line to serve a house that is on or near a steep slope. The third level is called the administrative critical area review. The fourth level is the Type I review process that requires public notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the property, published notice in the newspaper and posting on the property. Type I review includes a 21-day public comment period, and a requirement to issue a decision within 120 days.
Under the proposal, only new development on vacant land would be required to go through the Type I review process, except for land that is only in a seismic hazard area where the focus is entirely on building safety, something that is fully addressed by the Building Code. Activities that are not exempt and that do not involve new construction would be eligible for the administrative critical area review, which is similar to the SEPA checklist process. A checklist would be filled out, and a determination would be issued indicating whether or not the proposed project meets the criteria. The determination would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Greenberg said state law requires all local ordinances to incorporate the best available science, a defined term under state law.
The expanded exemption list was based on the code on the books in Seattle. One new exemption would be additions to existing structures of less than 1,000 square feet of impervious coverage, or 7 percent of the lot area, whichever is greater. Those numbers were developed by averaging the numbers for additions projects over the past three years. Another exemption in the proposal involves man-made slopes such as street cuts.
Mr. Greenberg said the proposal clarifies and provides specific criteria for waiving the requirement for a critical area study. Such a study is prepared by a professional, outlines the impacts of a proposal on a critical area, and sets forth the necessary mitigation to minimize the impacts.
From the audience a question was asked about the timeframe for how long the revised critical area review would take. Mr. Greenberg said a maximum 60-day timeframe was recommended by the proposal. He allowed that no reviews have been conducted under the proposed guidelines so it cannot be said exactly how long it will take.
Mr. Alexander Sasonoff, 3701 SW Three Tree Point Lane, said the critical area review process in the past has been a miserable process for all concerned. Each review costs the property owner a great deal of money, as much as $5,000, and some have had to wait two years for final approval. Much of what needs to be done can be accomplished through administrative review. The proposal meets most needs and should be approved. The streamlined process also will help to build some economic vitality back into the community.
Mr. Mike Keenan, 13025 Standring Lane SW, said he was one who had to go through the critical area review process. He said once he made it through he had no inclination to ever do it again. The proposal would streamline the process and make things much easier and less expensive for developers and homeowners.
Mr. Greenberg noted that the map includes some areas that probably should not be included, and some areas not on the map probably should be. He said staff would be returning to the commission with a set of technical amendments having to do with setbacks, buffers and the like. One of those amendments will be a closer review of the map, and some changes may be made in order to make it more accurate.
Mr. Ronald Halsen, 2849 SW 171st Street, said he is a building contractor with experience in Burien. He said he has had to go through several of the critical area reviews. He voiced concern over the 100-foot survey radius around a project and pointed out that neighbors often register complaints simply because they do not want additional development nearby. The requirement for a survey of neighboring properties often cannot be done because permission will not be given. He said he was glad to see the proposed changes for additions to homes in critical areas. He agreed that the document as written is an improvement and would speed up the process. He further agreed that the map is incorrect in a number of areas.
Mr. Greenberg said the neighboring property survey is a part of the critical areas study. If permission cannot be obtained to access adjacent properties, the City must step in to assist in getting the necessary permission. If permission is still not forthcoming, the requirement can be waived. As the aerial photography and GIS information database is filled out, the adjacent property survey will become less of an issue.
Mr. Karl Kaseburg, 16319 Maplewild Avenue SW, said it took him a year and three months to get through the critical area review and gain permission to tear down an existing garage and build a new one. The value of the new building was only $25,000, and the costs associated with getting the permit totaled some $16,000. He said the proposal is definitely a step in the right direction and should be moved ahead. Each step of the overall process needs to be fully defined and clearly explained to those who will have to move through it. Each step should be measurable and include tests of reasonableness.
Commissioner Conlin asked Mr. Kaseburg if he thought it reasonable to require a City-hired engineer to review the reports of engineers hired by the applicants. Mr. Kaseburg said the City should have a list of engineering firms whose reports would be accepted without question or additional review by the City. Mr. Greenberg said other cities have taken that approach and established a list of pre-approved engineers.
Mr. Sasonoff said the process of the City hiring an engineer to review the work of another engineer simply shifts the responsibility to the City-hired engineer. The responsible party should be the City if something goes wrong. Engineers are responsible people and if they do their work wrong they stand to lose their license. It is insulting to engineers to have their work reviewed by someone else.
Answering the question of whether or not any of the 25 applications that passed through the critical area review over the past three years had had problems identified by the City’s engineer, Mr. Greenberg said there were one or two in which the city engineer asked questions that caused the original engineer to change one or two recommendations. There were a handful of instances in which the City-hired engineers questioned the work of a particular soils engineer.
Mr. Ken Harms, 2825 SW 170th Street, said he only recently received his building permit after a year of working through the process. The timelines given were always loose. What the applicants want as the process moves along is solid information about how much longer it will take. After the application is deemed complete, the qualification for the land hazards should be complete and it should be okay to build. It should not be necessary to wait another several months while another engineer reviews all of the reports. The process should be streamlined even for those projects that are not exempted. He said it cost him some $8,000 or $9,000 to get the permit to build.
Mr. Joseph Greif, address not given, said he is an architect who just finished a year-long process for a client. He said the site had a steep slope and a team of professionals was pulled together to be ready to take on anything. What they encountered in working with the City was a lack of anyone willing to take responsibility. There was no point of contact to call and ask where things stood in the process. Often staff would say they did not know where specific drawings were, only to find them later sitting on someone’s desk still unopened. Staff had to be pressured just to keep things moving forward. Having a single person to contact would be of great help. The process of double checking all of the engineering work evidenced a lack of trust.
Chair Pierce asked if it would be feasible for computerize the process and have all of the necessary information about where an application stands available for viewing online. Mr. Greenberg said that is feasible and in play on the Eastside. Burien is part of the group of cities participating in the program and has included a request for the 2003 budget for the purchase of a new permit tracking system. An internet interface will be part of the system as well.
Commissioner Conlin asked why it took a year to get the building permit. Mr. Greif allowed that the site was complicated and there had been some changes. There was also, however, a lot of passing the project on from staff to staff, with the new person needing time to get up to speed. Mr. Greenberg said the project identified the need for the Public Works and Planning departments to get together on a more regular basis; they now meet twice a month. The City receives application for some 50 permits per month, some for minor things that can be approved over the counter, and some that require far more process. Only a handful of the applications are complicated and get bogged down in the system. Mr. Greenberg said much of the time to get a permit involves the time it takes for the applicant to submit all necessary reports. The timeline for staff to review an application to see if it is complete is 28 days, and that deadline is generally met with time to spare. It takes more time when the scope of projects is changed and when additional information is required from the applicant.
Commissioner Newton asked about the possibility of getting developed a guide to the minefield that is the process of obtaining a building permit. He thought such a document should clearly spell out the responsibilities of all parties and project costs to some degree. Mr. Greenberg said such a document or booklet could be developed and would be a good idea. No handout is ever perfect because things change over time. Staff intends to begin the task of revising many of the forms once the new permit tracking system software is in use. People should be able to walk out of the pre-application meeting with solid information about the steps involved, copies of all applicable codes, and a memo identifying specific issues and concerns to be addressed.
Mr. Greenberg asked those in the audience who had gone through the process if they had found the pre-application meeting helpful. The answer from most was that the meeting was not helpful.
Motion to close the public hearing was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Newton suggested that paragraph 4(C) of Section 19.40.040 should be specific in the type of eagle referenced. Mr. Greenberg said the paragraph is in the draft only as a placeholder.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if any changes would be made to the draft as a result of the testimony received. Mr. Greenberg said he had no recommended changes to the ordinance that directly related to the testimony. He noted that there were several changes outlined in the draft that had been distributed prior to the public hearing.
Ms. Hennessey commented that the commission had discussed at its last meeting separating the functional and ecological aspects of the code from the health, safety and welfare aspects. She noted that to that end paragraph 2(A) of Section 19.40.020 had been revised.
Ms. Hennessey referred to paragraph 2(H) of the same section which had been included as a placeholder. She suggested that the commission might want to add a goal dealing with enforcement and mitigation.
Commissioner Newton said the proposed language was difficult to follow and understand. Ms. Hennessey said the paragraph was only a suggestion and could just as easily be left out. Mr. Greenberg proposed leaving it out and the commissioners concurred. He said he would work on language for a goal relative to enforcement.
According to Ms. Hennessey, the change to Section 19.40.040 was to combine paragraphs 2(A) and 2(C). She said that would bring together the critical areas map with any updates to that map. The commissioners concurred.
Ms. Hennessey said the language of paragraph 2(E) of the same section was taken from the OCD model ordinance. She cautioned the commission regarding use of the term “channel migration zone” because it can include where streams have jumped within the last 100 years. She said there are few if any channel migration zones on the streams that exist within Burien. It was recommended that the term not be used at all in the proposed code, and the commission concurred.
Referring to Section 19.40.070, paragraph 2(F), Ms. Hennessey said the phrase “…provided the construction is not on a stream, wetland or lake…” had been revised to read “…provided the construction is not within a stream, wetland or lake….” She further noted that the phrase “…and does not make the use more non-conforming to critical areas standards…” had been added to the paragraph as well.
Mr. Greenberg added that there still needs to be some clarification of the fact that the added new phrase would not apply on steep slope critical areas. It would apply adjacent to a stream or a wetland. In other words, where there is a structure or a house already in a wetlands buffer, the exemption cannot be used to take up more of the wetlands.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark asked how the location of a critical area would be determined without a critical area study. Mr. Greenberg said it would be based on the definition and the mapping.
Turning to paragraph 4(H) of section 19.40.120, Ms. Hennessey said the language remained unchanged from the original version. She said the section was highlighted to raise the question of whether or not there should be a definition for mitigation sequencing and have it be referenced in the paragraph. She said there was a staff discussion as to whether mitigation sequencing should even be applied to geologically hazardous areas.
Mr. Greenberg commented that eventually because of state law mitigation sequencing will have to be addressed in the technical amendments. Mitigation sequencing dictates that impacting a critical area must be avoided. Starting from that standpoint, one might assume that nothing can be built in a critical area, including on steep slopes. That is not, however, the intent of what the code is trying to achieve. He said the better approach would be to define mitigation sequencing in the technical piece. He allowed, however, that without a definition things are left open as to what must be addressed. He recommended leaving the section as originally written. The commissioners agreed.
The last revision was to paragraph 2 of Section 19.40.140. Ms. Hennessey agreed that the notion of having a goal of issuing the administrative decision within 60 days of submittal of a complete application was laudable but suggested checking with the City Attorney to see if including the word “goal” might cause some problems of interpretation.
Mr. Greenberg said he would talk with the City Attorney regarding how to word the sentence so as to protect the City but without allowing any wiggle room. Ms. Hennessey said the goal reference could more rightly belong in the administrative process of the ordinance.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Conlin, Mr. Greenberg said the 60-day clock begins running with the submittal of an application that is deemed to be complete. The application is then routed to the departments that must review it, such as Public Works, Building, and Planning. When their comments are returned, a code review is done to make sure everything complies with the code. Then a critical area determination is handed down, and that may include a list of conditions that must be met. All of that must be done within the 60-day time period.
Motion to recommend the Zoning Code Amendment as amended was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Greenberg said the November 12 Commission meeting may not be needed.
Adjournment
Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m.
Approved
/s/ Robert Pierce, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department