City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 8, 2003
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Pierce, chair; Gerald Robison; Len Boscarine; Jon Newton; Robert Simpson-Clark
Absent: Mickey Conlin; Douglas Rahn; Kirsti Weaver
Others Present: Patrick Smith, planner; Ann Root, Adolfson Associates; Amy Dearborn, Adolfson Associates; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Chair Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Conlin, Rahn and Weaver.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Boscarine and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
A. March 25, 2003
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Boscarine and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
Director’s Report
Patrick Smith, planner, reported that the City Council approved the ordinance reducing the number of planning commissioners from nine to seven and revising the appointment dates. The council did not act to appoint members to fill the vacancies.
A. Public Hearing: Amendment to the Wetlands Ordinance
Chair Pierce re-opened the public hearing, which had been continued from the March 25th meeting.
Mr. Smith noted that the proposed ordinance is largely consistent with the existing wetlands ordinance save for three major changes: 1) increasing the minimum size of exempt wetlands from 1000 square feet to 2500 square feet; 2) increasing the buffer widths around wetlands in keeping with best available science; and 3) revisions to the wetlands mitigation section to match the lower levels recommended by the Department of Ecology.
Mr. Smith reminded the commissioners that at the last meeting a concern was raised over the language of the proposed ordinance allowing the City to require increased buffer widths when necessary. He said staff agreed that the section was too vague and revised it to be more definable and to only require an increased buffer width when a wetland is located at the toe of a steep slope.
Mr. Smith said the ordinance language also had been revised since the last commission meeting to talk about buffer enhancement rather than buffer averaging. Buffer enhancement is better for all parties concerned in that the yield is more developable land and improved wetlands. Under the buffer averaging approach there is no net gain in developable land and the buffers are not enhanced.
The ordinance also was revised in the approach to wetlands associated with Lake Burien. The proposal is to treat them as Type IV wetlands with a 30-foot buffer. Mr. Smith noted that there is a sewer that rings Lake Burien that is about 30 feet from the lake, effectively prohibiting any type of development within that distance. In addition to the 30-foot buffer a 15-foot setback is recommended.
Commissioner Newton referred to 19.40.220(1)(E) and suggested the language prohibiting the introduction of plants or wildlife not indigenous to the city of Burien should be broadened somewhat. Ann Root, Adolfson Associates, said the language originally read “King County.” Amy Dearborn, also with Adolfson Associates, suggested the language could be revised to read “Western Washington” and her suggestion was adopted by the commissioners. She allowed that there is no comprehensive list of plant species native to Western Washington; the most complete list has been compiled by the Washington Native Plant Society.
Chair Pierce asked if Lake Burien would still be classified as a Class IV wetland if all development around Lake Burien were to be removed and the area returned to its native state. Ms. Dearborn said she has not walked around Lake Burien given that most of it is in private ownership. However, if in its native state, the areas around the lake would likely be a Class I wetland.
Commissioner Robison suggested that the proposed ordinance benefits those who own property around Lake Burien. Under the current approach each property faces the possibility of being regulated as a wetland based on its characteristics. Some areas are swampy, and others have relatively steep banks. The idea of making the entire area Class IV is an improvement.
Chair Pierce questioned whether or not it was fair to classify all Lake Burien properties as Class IV, reducing the required buffer from 50 feet to 30 feet, while increasing the buffer width for a Class II wetland on the eastern side of the city from 50 feet to 100 feet, taking away developable land, especially given that the two properties for all intents and purposes are the same. Commissioner Robison suggested that the same argument could be used in comparing property owners who developed before the regulations were in place and those who still have vacant properties that will have to be developed under the regulations.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if 19.40.220(1)(F) would mean the lawns around Lake Burien that extend into the 30-foot buffer cannot be mowed, and that plants such as roses cannot be planted in that area. Ms. Root allowed that the proposed regulations do not apply to existing uses, thus lawns already in a buffer area can still be maintained. If a property were to be redeveloped, the buffer area would be enforced.
Mr. Smith said the rationale for classifying the Lake Burien area as a Class IV wetland is based on the fact that the development around the lake has already degraded the wetland areas. Larger buffers are needed for more pristine wetlands in undeveloped areas.
Commissioner Robison asked if there is a reason to use the word “indigenous” instead of “native” in the ordinance language. He said his take on it is that “native” refers to plants that occur in the region naturally, whereas “indigenous” plants are those which grow basically without cultivation, which could include a lot of exotic species that have been around for a long time and are well established. Ms. Dearborn said her preference would be for “native” but allowed that it could be both in the code.
Commissioner Newton felt the code should be clear in referring to the planting of non-noxious plants only. It was agreed that 19.40.220(1)(E) should include a reference to the King County Weed Control District list of noxious plants.
Commissioner Robison suggested that the prohibition against removing plants from wetlands buffer areas should not apply to noxious weeds and should not require a permit. Mr. Smith said the concern is not the removal of noxious weeds so much as the methods used for removing those plants. Hand removal of such plants causes little damage, whereas using a rototiller or bulldozer would wreak havoc on the buffer. If the latter approach is used the site would have to be revegetated, and a permit would be needed.
Chair Pierce asked how the City should approach the fact that the City of SeaTac will have a much more liberal code with reduced wetlands setbacks with regard to wetlands and that as a result Burien may not be able to remain economically competitive. Mr. Smith suggested that being economically competitive takes in more issues than just wetlands setbacks. He said the proposed buffers are based on the best available science. Ms. Root added that SeaTac is under the same requirements as Burien to review its critical areas ordinance and incorporate best available science by December 2004.
Commissioner Robison said he is bothered by the fact that the wetlands buffers always entail flat restrictions; there are never any allowances for creating a more restrictive buffer close to the wetlands in exchange for a less restrictive buffer away from the wetlands. For a Class II wetland with a 100-foot buffer it is possible to construct a parking lot right up to the edge of the buffer; it is not allowable to put the parking lot 200 feet away from the wetland and create a play area extending into the buffer. Ms. Root allowed that creative solutions are often difficult to administer. The proposed ordinance does, however, incorporate the notion of buffer enhancement over buffer averaging. Commissioner Robison noted that even then no uses are permitted within the buffer zone.
Commissioner Robison allowed that if certain conditions are met trails can be created through buffer zones, but no picnic tables would be permitted along the trail, and a rose garden or soccer field cannot extend partly into the buffer zone. There should be provision for allowing relatively less active uses in the buffers, especially in the portions furthest away from the wetland. Ms. Root said that would effectively cut the buffer in half. The buffer is part of the ecosystem itself and is not just a blank space between allowed activities and a protected area. The area may be degraded because of other conditions, but it is still a part of the ecosystem and serves a vital function.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if not allowing the removal of weeds and plants from wetlands areas will serve to increase problems with mosquitoes. Mr. Smith said mosquitoes breed in still water and whether or not there are plants has little impact. Ms. Dearborn said the recommendation of the Department of Ecology for controlling mosquitoes is to increase areas friendly to birds because they eat the mosquitoes, as do certain fish.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if the ordinance included any provision for constructing within wetlands. Mr. Smith said there would have to be a land use review, but the ordinance allows for the buffers to be altered in exchange for replacement elsewhere. However, the primary purpose is to have the wetlands and buffer areas remain intact and an applicant would have to have a very good reason for not being able to use a property as is. The days of allowing a building to be constructed out over a marsh area are gone.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark suggested that 19.40.220(4)(E) should include an encouragement for constructing elevated trails in wetland buffers. Mr. Smith agreed to revise the language accordingly.
Motion to close the public hearing was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
There was consensus in favor of reviewing the proposed ordinance revisions before making a recommendation to the City Council.
New Business
A. Introduction to Streams and Wildlife Conservation Areas
Mr. Smith informed the commission that staff and the consultants need an additional two weeks to summarize the information and to identify the streams for which the classifications are known before making the introductory presentation.
Chair Pierce suggested that Miller Creek will be an important part of the whole process. He said Miller Creek can be divided into three separate sections: the upper part that is in Burien, the center part that is in SeaTac under the Port of Seattle’s Seattle-Tacoma Airport, and the lower portion that is shared by Burien and Normandy Park. He said he would like to see the report by the Port regarding its portion and how proceeding with the third runway might change Miller Creek. He said it is his understanding that the Port considers its section to be a dead zone. In the 1970s when King County put the dam at First Avenue, salmon were precluded from migrating up the creek. There is virtually a dam where the creek goes under Des Moines Memorial Drive that was created in an attempt to handle storm water. He said a flow of water does not necessarily translate into a real ecosystem. Having the studies done by the Port would be very helpful.
Commissioner Newton suggested that anadromous fish do not necessarily need to make their way to the headwaters of a stream; they need only find areas suitable for breeding. Along coastal streams anadromous fish usually breed within a quarter mile of the outfall because of steep slopes further up.
Ms. Dearborn noted that the quality of the water in areas far upstream has a direct impact on downstream areas. Removing all of the vegetation in the upper headwater areas will have a negative effect on the downstream areas. There also are resident fish in some Burien streams that also will be a consideration even though they are not protected.
Commissioner Robison said he would like more information on the best available science for streams and wildlife conservation areas outlining the basis for having different types of stream corridors.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that the last plan developed by the Port included a comprehensive renovation of the bulk of Miller Creek. Its work was guided by best available science and was very costly to produce. Having that information in hand would be very helpful.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Simpson-Clark. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Pierce, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department