Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01141999 Min Ag . ~-.- . Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM January 14, 1999 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS V~ NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Revisions to PTMC 19.05 (ESA) and 13.32 (Stormwater Management) - Open-Record Public Hearing (LUP98-81) 1. Staff report (Judy Surber) 2. Public testimony 3. Commission discussion and conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings January 28, 1999 February 11, 1999 February25, 1999 VII. ADJOURN . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting January 14, 1999 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lois Sherwood, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison and Len Mandelbaum. Karen Erickson was excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Colette Kostelec, and Tim McMahan. Mr. Stan McNutt, Interim City Administrator, was introduced and welcomed. Mr. McNutt invited Planning Commission members to a City Council retreat January 21st, 9:00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Building. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of December 17, 1998 as written and amended was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICA nONS: Current Mail (There was none.) IV. OLD BUSINESS (There was none.) V. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Revisions to PTMC 19.05 (ESA) and 13.32 (Stormwater Management) Open Record Public Hearing (LUP98-81) I. Staff Report -- Judy Surber, Staff Planner Ms. Surber referenced her memorandum of January 5, 1999 to the Planning Commission and pointed out: ~ Summa.¡y of Intent -- Revised ordinances (Exhibits A through E) to bridge some gaps between permits triggering City review and development proposals that fall short of the thresholds of a permit and do not require ESA or engineering design standard review, for example: I) clear cutting an acre of land (chopping down trees and not disturbing the soil layer -- not under the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for clearing and grading practices). · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 2 2) the impact of clearing a large area of native vegetation within a wetland buffer -- the City should be reviewing and assisting the applicant to be sensitive to that critical area; temporary erosion control standards, engineering design standards, requirements for drainage plans, etc. would not kick in; if clearing native vegetation off a slope and heavy rains come, you could be washing sediment into street rights-of-way, or to adjoining property owners. Without a permit, the City does not have enforcement authority. ~ History -- Staff and the Land Use Committee have been working on: 1) Clearing and Grading ordinance with the goal of developing a comprehensive ordinance that clearly set forth the standards, identified the reviewing department and bridged the "gaps" 2) revising the complex ESA ordinance with the goal of meeting the intent of the ordinance and to include the best available mitigation techniques which are not currently in the ESA ordinance, e.g. mitigation banking, density incentives for clustering developments outside of the ESA, and transfer development rights. -- Under the existing ordinance, there is a reasonable use exception. Because of Port Townsend's many platted lots of record, it is not unusual to own only one lot; if it is entirely within an ESA, such as a wetland, the City cannot deny a reasonable use of that property. On a 5,000 foot lot, if you build a house and provide two off-street parking spaces, it doesn't provide for the City to protect the wetland resource. There is no mitigation if an you own is a 5,000 foot strip and there is no adjoining city land that is available for mitigation. The original plan would have taken a significant amount of time to develop. Due to limited staff and impending changes to city council, the Land Use Committee agreed to narrow the scope of work: 1) bridging the "gaps" and trying to make sure they could employ Engineering Design Standards and ESA ordinances when the impact itself dictated review versus waiting for a triggering permit 2) strengthening the stormwater code enforcement provisions ~ Review Process - Staff worked with the Land Use Committee; a Determination ofNonsignificance was written for environmental review of the proposed revisions and one letter of comment was received from the Department of Ecology (Exhibit F) -- regarding Title 13 revisions. Ms. Surber noted the issues would be discussed as follows: PTMC 13.32 (Storm water Mana&ement) Ms. Colette Kostelec, Public Works The order of discussion of Exhibits A and B was reversed. · · · Planning Commission MÌnutes January 14, 1998 Page 3 EXHIBITS: ~ A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING SECTION 13.01.020, DEFINITIONS, OF CHAPTER 13.01, PROCEDURES FOR UTILITY DEVELOPMENT, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE" Contains revisions to two specific definitions included in the existing Stormwater Code, Section 13.01: ~ "Impervious Area" -- (Temporary changes to a site, as well as permanent.) Definition changed to indicate any change in property which results in a lessening of the ability of that property to absorb moisture, e.g. cutting trees, building a structure, paving. It is the broad scope, almost everything you could do to a property. ~ "Developmental Coverage" -- (Changes to a site that are more permanent in nature.) That portion of impervious areas represented by structures, driveways, carports. Reference -- Section 13.32.020. ~ B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING SECTION 13.31.070, UNLAWFUL ACTS DEFINED, OF CHAPTER 13.31, WATER, SEWER AND STORMW ATER, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO SPECIFY PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY The Stormwater Code did not specify the enforcement authority for the City to take action against violations. The following changes are included. Additions to 13.3 1.070: ~ Director's authority to apply Chapter 20 PTMC Code Enforcement options ~ Immediate Stay Orders (Option for stop work orders) ~ Additional Authority ~ Public Nuisance (Violations) Language was taken from similar sections in other portions of the Municipal Code where the City wants to make clear their enforcement authority for violations. Most of this was done by Mary Winters and is quite legal in nature. ~ C. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING SECTION 13.32.020, DRAINAGE PLAN SUBMISSION, CHAPTER 13.32, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REQUIRE DRAINAGE PLANS AND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR IDENTIFIED ACTIVITIES · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 4 Section 13.32.020, Drainage plan -- Submission To close a loophole in the current code which doesn't permit the City to review projects which may result in stormwater impact, but which don't require another permit or review under another permitting authority: A. "All developers applying for any ofthe following permits and/or approvals may be required to submit for approval a drainage plan with their application and/or request:" ~ 1 - 11 (Part of the existing code.) ~ 12 (Intended to fill the gap.) Where someone creates impervious area identified in two thresholds: 1) 5,000 square feet; 2) 40 percent of the site having developmental coverage. Permanent structures for changes to a site which would trigger and require a drainage plan -- some sort of permanent stormwater facility for that site Ms. Kostelec showed an overhead transparency in which she suggested changes: AMEND - Paragraph A.12 to read: B. In addition. a drainage plan may be required for creation of impervious area, not covered by another permit. . . (To distinguish from items 1-11 that are clearly defined permits under other sections of the City's codes.) Renumber existing paragraphs B., C. and D. - to C., D. and E. Mr. Worden: Asked for illustrations of things that might happen that would not be covered by another permit and would fall under that requirement. Ms. Kostelec: Perhaps a site that someone wanted to pave over for a parking lot, which wouldn't trigger a building permit but which the City might want to require some detention onsite, instead of having it all run off Ms. Kostelec said it is rather a special case, and may not be used much, but is for specific special cases. New Paragraph E: would give clearer authority for requiring a person to comply with Chapter 5 of the Engineering Design Standards -- erosion and sediment control measures imposed when someone is changing a site, generally temporary in nature. ~ The control measures are put into a site so that silt and sediment does not run off the site until it is stabilized, at which time the erosion and sediment control measures are removed. These are commonly silt fences, construction access roads, straw bale barriers, etc. ~ Chapter 5 of the Engineering Design Standards states clearly that the City can impose these requirements, but the direct authority to require it is lacking in the Stormwater Code. ~ Paragraph E added that control measures may be required under that section of the Engineering Design Standards when someone is doing (1) site preparation or construction, or (2) where creating impervious areas. · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 5 AMEND - New Paragraph E to read: (2) ... creation ofimpervious area which exceeds either: a) 5.000 square foota&e. or b) 40 percent of the subject property thresholds New paragraph B relates specifically to developmental coverage -- the permanent structures on the site. What they are trying to get to with the temporary erosion and sediment control is those impacts to a site which may not be permanent structures. They may just be impacts to a site which lessens its ability to absorb moisture, e.g., someone wanting to chop all the trees down on their site, but not build anything. Cutting down those trees will affect the ability ofthe property to absorb moisture and may result in more sediment running off the site. In that case, the City may want to require some temporary erosion and sediment control measures until the site would be stabilized and the measures would be removed. Ms. Thayer asked if the DOE letter (Exhibit F) was addressed. Ms. Kostelec replied to: Issues Identified in Exhibit F: ~ Concern with only using a 40 ~rcent threshold for requiring drainage plans -- DOE may not have appreciated that is one of many thresholds the City uses. They City is more stringent than the Stormwater Management Manual when it comes to requiring drainage plans. ~ Requiring a drainage plan when there is an illegal connection to the sanitary sewer -- That is very much considered an illegal situation in Port Townsend; would not be permitted, and the City would be in complete agreement with them. ~ Drainage Plan required for land clearing -- Paragraphs D and E of Exhibit C apply. Mr. Mandelbaum: In new Paragraph B do you mean "another permit" or '''permit?'' Ms. Kostelec: You can strike "another." FURTHER AMEND - New Paragraph B to remove the word "another" to read: B. In addition. a drainaie plan may be required for creation of impervious area. not covered by a permit. . . Mr. Mandelbaum: When all this passes, how do you communicate this change to property owners? Ms. Kostelec: An educational campaign to make people aware of what they are doing with these changes, that just going out and clearing your site is not acceptable without some review. We make these ordinance changes, and unless the public is educated about them, people may still think that is perfectly acceptable. We don't want to get into a situation where we are relying on enforcement authority we just added to 13.31 to handle after-the-fact situations. Ms. Thayer: It probably comes under the same situation as somebody that does something without a building permit and doesn't think it's necessary. You can't educate everybody in the community; many times the only way you find out about it is a neighbor. · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 6 Ms. Kostelec: Code enforcement is definitely not the way we want to educate people or impose our requirements. PTMC 19.05 (ESA) Ms. Surber Mr. Worden: Ms. Surber, in your cover letter, page 2, and in your presentation, you pointed out different ordinances and regulations and the different city agencies that are responsible for those. You commented on the confusion that creates for the citizens or the applicants. I am wondering how these changes address that problem. Ms. Surber: Replied they do not. Mr . Worden: That is something that is stìll on the docket for future work? Ms. Surber replied affirmatively. Mr. Worden said that being a relative newcomer to Port Townsend, reading what people write, and lìstening to neighbors, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the permitting processes in general. He said he was trying to see what it is about, that he does not see that our permitting processes are out of line with anywhere else, but that this kind of thing does trouble him, when he realizes he wouldn't know what to do. He wouldn't know whether to go to Public Works ifhe wanted to build a driveway and nothing else, or to the Building Department. Would he go to Public Works? Would he go to Planning? Ifhe went to one of those, would he know about regulations the others might have? Is somebody going to lead him through that? How would he interpret this very confusing legal tangle? Ms. Thayer: Some of these are state regulations. Mr. Worden replied that just makes it worse. Ms. Kostelec: Ideally, the Engineering Design Standards would be what people would use when it comes time to do something on their site. When they get to Public Works issues, right-of- way issues, they would not have to go to the Code, Title 13, or to another manual. Everything is pretty much right there to say these are the hours you can work in the right-of- way, this is what you are allowed to do in the right-of-way, these are the permits you need to get to work in the right-of-way. But, the City needs the Code, Title 13, Title 12, speaking from a Public Works point of view, to give them the authority to require the Engineering Design Standards and for them to be imposed. She said she does not think you are going to get away from that code and design standards manual situation, that they are fairly lucky to have recently adopted engineering design standards as they previously did have to go to the code to get an idea what they needed to do on their site. In terms of a stormwater management manual, DOE says every city and county needs to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as this manual. That is what the City has done; they have adopted it by references and have the Title 13 Stormwater Code and Engineering Design Standards that really mimic or exceed the requirements of that Stormwater Management Manual. Typically, they don't have direct people to the Stormwater Management Manual, to the Engineering Design Standards, to the Code; but just to the Engineering Design Standards. ..-; . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 7 The Public Works Department is rìght now in the process of finaIìzing a new Stormwater Masterplan fur the City which win even more thoroughly meld the requirements from the DOE Stormwater Management Manual and the City~ s Engineering Design Standards and code. You may in the not-too-distant future again see changes to Title i3 based on a new Stormwater Masterplan. From a Public Works point of view, they are trying to make it so people don>t have to go to an those different things to get answers to their questions. Mr. W~orden: I guess we are depending on the Staff to act as guides through this process, and so if I should walk into your office, or into the Building Department, either way someone should be able to ten me, "You need to fill out the following appIîcations," and those win ten you which rules to foIIow? Ms. Kostelec: The Public Works department here has a system called technical confèrences which most jurisdictions don't have, where people can get their requirements identified even befòre they purchase property. That is a really helpful thing for people that isn't often spoken of in letters in the paper. Ms. Surber: An incident brought to our attention that during the subdivision review process, we get the conceptual clearìng and grading and construction plans; we send them to Public Works for review, the Engineering Design Standards and Stormwater Management Manual, and give their conceptual approval to be able to go on with the subdivision. When the subdivision has been approved, and they are actually submitting fur the Clearing and Grading permit, they submit that to the Building Department, and they are typically looking at the Unifòrm Building Code (UBC). We realized that was a problem, and now the Building Department is coordinating with Public Works to make sure that Engineering Design Standards review is incorporated in the Clearing and Grading Permit. The authority to require a Clearing and Grading Permit comes from the UBC, and, therefore, has to stay in the Building Department. Mr. Worden: I would just encourage both of you to keep in mind for the future, that anything we can do to put these requirements in one place is going to be a great benefit to everyone and relieve some of the anger that is out there. EXHŒITS ~ D. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOW~SEND AMENDING SECTIONS 19.05.020, DEFINITIONS, .030 GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND .040, SENSITIVE AREA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, OF CHAPTER 19.05, ENVIRO~'MENTALL Y SENSITIVE AREAS, OF THE PORT TOW~SEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER, ESTABLISH A "MINOR ACTIVITIES" PERMIT AND WAIVER CRITERIA, AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 8 The narrow scope of the ESA revisions was to fill the gaps; it broaden~d the scope of the ESA permit process and caused some alarm. They wanted to be sure for minor activities in ESAs they had some options of less complicated permit processes to go through. Instead of a full- blown ESA permit with special studies, notice of application, etc. they would have a simplified process for those that didn't require that level of attention. Thus, minor ESA permits and waivers were added to the ordinance. SECTION 2 19.05.030 -- General provisions C. Applic.abilit) Development proposals. (Development proposals were agreed upon to close that gap.) 1. (page 3), This chapter potentially applies to development proposals Potentially., because in some cases they found in the ESA process where, although there was an ESA on the site, working with the applicant they couId move away from it and not have to apply the ESA permit process just because they happened to have a wetland buffer on a portion of their site. The standard definition of development proposal as originally written was a triggering permit of some kind, e.g., street development permit; clearing and grading permit. To close the gap they added a section: 2. The following activities mav also be considered a development proposal under this chapter. a, Alteration on any critical slope. A critical slope is 40 percent or more (shown on an overhead transparency). (A fairly steep slope -- they sometimes receive calls from people who want to clear slopes like this, because they intuitively know it could create some problems with a heavy rain storm, Most of our coastal bluffs would fall within the 40 percent slope provision, ) b, Alteration of the following mapped areas: Mapped are..as (the key term) ESA areas not listed are not c.overed, because if a person conforms to the UBC, there is no impact There is not enough staff time to investigate every case-by-case basis; it had to be narrowed to areas that have been previously mapped. ESA maps are based on best available, typical state mapping, (See Page 2 for definition of mapped .areas.) The best information is on hand, and even if the ESA maps were not yet updated, the City could still request review under the ESA ordinance. 1. Any alteration in such clos~ proximi1y to a re~Iated wetland or critical draina~e corridor, , . is generally within 150 feet of an area known asa true wetland or 50 tèet of a critic-al drainage corridor. Most of the remaining thresholds were taken from sample ordinances reviewed: ii. Alteration of 1 "000 square feet or more . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 9 iii. 50 cubic yards or more of material iv. Clearing and/or wading activities for installation of utilities or inftastructure. AMEND - Add: Definition of utility and infrastructure improvements. SECTION 3 19.05.040 - Sensitive area permit requirements B. Exemptions and waivers. .L Language was moved up, rather than repeating as previously, and added to: the activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with best management practices (BMPs) and the city> s engineering design standards. In many cases that would be enough to minimize the impact to the ESA. Exemption from an ESA permit does not want approval or authorization for any work to be done in any manner which may violate any laws or ordinances of the city of Port Townsend. Repetitive language on pages 5, 6, and 7 was crossed out and moved up. Exemptions Were Added: k. to 1l.. Came ftom reviewing other ordinances, ftom experience in implementing the ESA ordinance and finding these types of activities don>t typically necessitate review under the ESA permit review process. With the expanded scope, they came up with the minor ESA permit and waiver to handle those instances where the general ESA permit requirements and notice were not needed. Page 5 A. Permit Required. 2. Minor activities permit. - Minor activities when processed as Type I without notice for such activities as: (1) utilities crossings. minimal new landscaping which are minor in nature and have no off-site impacts. (2) restoration projects. e.g., for property owners who do want to enhance perhaps a wetland buffer that has been impacted and to encourage them to do restoration correctly. ~ E. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING SECTION 20.09.020, BUILDING, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT FEES, CHAPTER 20.09 LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AND APPEAL FEES, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERMIT COSTS: ESA Permit: Major -- $250 (as high as $500 when associated with a large subdivision, etc.); · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 10 approximately $180 noticing fees; and $501hour staff time over 10 hours Minor -- $50; no notÎcîng; and $501hour staff time over 2 hours ESA Waiver Requests under Chapter 19.05 $50 flat fee -- for very minor things (recording verbal commitments for plans) Ms. Surber noted staff recommendation for action, Page 3 of her January 5, 1999 memorandum: 1. Recommend to Council to adopt revisions to ordinances presented, and 2. Recommend that Council consider a new Clearing & Grading Ordinance and a revised ESA ordinance as priorities for 1999-2000. COMMISSION QUESTIONS: Mr. Harbison: By your example, if someone wanted to clear their lot, they would end up paying the full, not the minor permit fee? Is that correct, by the definition of what is minor? Ms. Surber: If you were in an ESA and exceeded the exemption threshold, the City would be looking to see whether a minor activities permit [applied]. Mr. Harbison: It is based on the City's decision on whether it would have an off-site impact or not? Ms. Surber: Concurred, and indicated whether or not they had existing codes and policies which could apply, without having, for instance, a wetlands consultant come in and make specific recommendations. Mr. Worden: The definition of mapped areas which you have added -- this is a pretty intensive catalog of maps. It seems it is impossible for even a very sophisticated developer to know ffom this list and your requirements what constitutes a permit requirement. I couldn't read it and tell whether or not I needed to do the permit, because I would have to hunt up every one of these maps, try to find the most current edition and decide whether or not my property was mapped. I think that is an unreasonable requirement to put onto a land developer. Ms. Surber: These maps would be available at BCD. Also, you need to rely on Staff They had the same discussion with the Land Use Committee and grappled with it for a long time, the fact the ESA maps are only a guide, and they can be way off base. They may have more recent plans that show there is an ESA there that has not been suitably mapped. They wanted a tool, so if there was a call, and it is not on the ESA map, they know because they just got a wetland inventory in that area and could say you still have to come in for an ESA permit. The ordinance is currently written -- if you meet the definition of an ESA, whether or not it is mapped. There was a problem with Staff having to go out on all minor activities to make a determination; in many cases, Staff is not qualified to do that, because it involves testing for soil stability or wetlands delineation. That is an extra expense to the applicant to prove that they are inside or outside an ESA · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Worden: It means that the applicant has to come in with a proposal of what they plan to do and ask you to evaluate it before they even know what to apply for, is that correct? Ms. Surber: Yes. They may fall under the exemption, and not have to get any permit, or they may need a minor activities permit, or maybe a full-blown ESA permit. Ms. Thayer: I would think they would want to go in. Mr. Worden: Sure, if in fact that service is available. But, of course, for the applicant, speed is always important and cost is also important; if you are billing for staff time, I would be concerned about that. Ms. Surber: We don't bill for inquiry to find out what kind of permit is required. Also, if you read through the exemptions, and it's clear that you are exempt. Mr. Worden: I appreciate that. I also appreciate your explanation of the word "potentially" on Page 3, paragraph I. I guess I am still concerned to some extent, because if! am reading this as a citizen, I have no idea what that means. It makes it sound extremely discretionary. Ms. Surber: The ESA ordinance is one of the most difficult ordinances that we have on the books to make effective, the education process, etc. It is one of the reasons why we really want to focus on revising it. Ms. Thayer: It was a hard one to go through originally; it was a long process at that point. Mr. Worden: Your explanation here though was that this word potentially was put there primarily because of the possibility of exemptions. I wonder if you could clarifY in the language somehow that it really says, "This chapter applies to development proposals which contain environmentally sensitive areas, unless exempted under section. . . ." That would make it better. Mr. McMahan: Also had concern about the word "potentially." The chapter applies to all those -- whether or not it might qualifY as an exemption. Had also been concerned that "potentially" might weaken the chapter. He said Mr. Worden's suggestion is a good one, the idea of changing to say, "This chapter applies to all development proposals unless exempted under section. . . ." It is a really good way of solving that. AMEND -- SECTION 2. (19.05.030) C.1. to read: "This chapter applies to all development proposals unless exempted under section...." (Cite section reference.) Editorial Cban&es: Mr. Worden: (l) Page 3, paragraph 2.a. -- include: extend for ten "horizontal" feet, to make it clear that you are not measuring up the slope, vertically or some other way. (2) Page 5, paragraph B.l.a.-- Sounds like that is saying if there is an emergency repair to electric, liquid petroleum gas facilities, or communications facilities a permit is required. · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 12 Ms. Kostelec: An exemption from an exemption? Mr. McMahan commented there is lack of clarity. Ms. Thayer: Remembered discussing this with the original ESA permit. It was the fact that gas and electrical facilities had to be done immediately; the intent -- there wasn't time to do permits. Mr. Worden: But I think this language says they do require permits, because it is exempting everything except these particular things. Ms. Kostelec: I believe the thought here was emergency repairs would be exempt from permitting requirements always, but that other emergencies may require some approval after the fact. I think you could just make it: ". . . safety and welfare. Emergency repairs. . ." and leave in "will not require permits nor the approval or the director" Based on language on paragraph 1 above, it may be limited or conditioned. Ms. Thayer: Thought it was clear to reword as suggested by making it two sentences, when you take into the context of paragraph 1. Ms. Kostelec: It is not necessarily that you have to. Ms. Thayer: Concurred -- but it could be. Mr. Worden: (3) Page 6, new paragraph d -- If applying for a building permit on a development which has had an ESA study, e.g., the study was done 2 years ago, we did this next month and this ordinance has been passed. Ifthat study didn't necessarily meet the criteria you have established in this revision, then it would not qualify as a study to exempt me from doing another study. Ms. Surber: We haven't revised the requirements ofthe special studies. Mr. Worden: So there is no chance here that someone would be forced to go through a new study just because the conditions have changed since the study had been done. AMEND - SECTION 2. (19.05.030) C.2.a. sentence 2 to read: "The critical slope hazard areas includ~ the area of land that extends for ten horizontal feet from the top and toe of the slope. AMEND - SECTION 2. (19.05.030) B.1.a. to read:"... safety and welfare. Emergency . " repairs . . . EXHIBIT ~ F. State of Washington, Department of Ecology letter of December 9, 1998 from Mr. Scott Boettcher, Coordinator, Growth Management, to Ms. Judy Surber. (See Exhibit C above for comments.) · · · PlannÎng Commission MÎnutes January 14, 1998 Page 13 2. Public TestÎmony Chair Thayer opened publìc testimony. There being none Chair Thayer closed public testimony and moved to Commìssiondiscussion and conclusions. 3. Commissìon discussion and conclusions Mr. Mandelbaum: Exhibit A --We are excluding ftom impervious areas "all lawns and landscaped areas.» I can envision corporations, governments or others creating a campus and knocking down all trees and labeling the project "landscapìng." Ms. Kostelec: 1 wonder if that exclusion would be more appropriate under developmental coverage as opposed to impervious area. The distinction is between when someone has to do permanent stormwater control measures, and when they be will required to do just temporary control measures. If they cut down all the trees, and dig up the soil to do landscaping, the City many want to impose temporary control measures until that lawn is established and there is no risk of sediment runnìng off-site. Recommended striking out that exclusion. Mr. Worden: t don't see that you gain anythìng by specifically excludìng lawns. Ms. Sherwood: One other ìssue, some of the landscaped areas are impervious. Ms. Kostelec: 1'hat is a good point. AMEND - Exhibit A, Section 1, paragraph 2, Impervious area, Strike:"Excluded, however, are all lawns and landscaped areas." Chair Thayer asked ìÍthey wanted to take these exhibits one at a time. Mr. Mandelbaum replied he ìs comfortable wÌth a blanket motìon that would also include recommendatìons. MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Recommend Council adopt the revisions to Chapter 19.05 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) and Chapters 13.01,13.31, and 13.32 of Title 13 (Water, Sewer, and Stormwater), passing ordinances (Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E) and that Council consider adoption of a Clearing & Grading Ordinance and a revised ESA ordinance as priorities for 1999-2000. SECOND Ms. Sherwood FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Add that we recommend adopting the revisions". . . AS AMENDED IN THIS MEETING. . ." · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1998 Page 14 (requested by Mr. Worden and accepted by Mr. Mandelbaum) Discussion: Mr. Worden complimented Staff for struggling through the material; it was very difficult. Noted his concerns about how accessible and how usable this is for people who are actually out there doing the development, which is something we do really want to encourage in many cases. He thanked Staff and said he supports what they have done and thinks they have done exactly the right thing. He said he especially appreciates their recommending that we encourage the Council to go back and do more later. VOTE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED, SIN FAVOR BY ROLL CALL VOTE VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings January 28. 1999 February 1 L 1999 February 25. 1999 Chair Thayer pointed out there are no scheduled meetings. Ms. Thayer: Referred to Mr. Worden's comments that it is really difficult to get information out to everyone about ordinances and the development and building permit process. She noted there are several issues that have come up recently that have changed, where now you need a permit to replace windows, etc., and you never did. It is really hard to get that out for the the general public to know. Mr. Harbison: Noted that the Leader has some kind of home improvement tool box coming out. He said he assumes the City participates in getting out new information; it should be coming out soon -- he had read something about placing ads in it. Ms. Sherwood: That information is available with the vendors as well. Ms. Thayer: Said that their office gets stacks ofthem. It is a real good, useful tool. Mr. Worden: Asked Ms.. Thayer if she also finds it difficult to keep current. Mr. Thayer: Replied in the affirmative and said she no longer answers those questions, but sends people to the City. Mr. McMahan: Noted Snohomish County builder development breakfasts, and the great job they had done in briefing the building and development community of things that had been enacted, things in the pipeline, including a question and answer session. He said he has been interested in some kind of forum here and is wanting to get the attention of the new manager to do that. He said he thinks that would really help in getting the word out and having some interaction, that it would really help with the relationship they have with those people. -- .-..----...-- ~:I . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 15 Ms. Thayer: Complimented BCD and Public Works recently in two or three instances where she was involved in some projects as a realtor. She said it was handled very wen; she was working through an excavator who was able to meet with the City at certain times and get his work done as well. Mr. Worden: Said his experiences were that way too, that he had never been anyplace where he thought the City staff tried to do so much; usually it is much more up to the developer to try to figure it out. He said he understands why it is difficult for Staff to get other kinds of jobs done, because that consumes huge amounts of time. Ms. Kostelec: Added that given the Stormwater Management Draft Plan coming out again, she knows there will be public process associated with it and its recommendations for changes. There will be opportunities for public input. Mr. Worden: Regarding Mr. McMahan's comments, another thing that might help, is if all the development related codes were updated with effective dates of all these changes, and coordinated in such a way that people could count that it is, say January 1 st, and they need to look and see what is new for the year, as opposed to having one come every month, which means you are constantly behind. He said he realizes there is some loss of control in doing that, but thinks it might be worth doing; we can still go ahead and review these as we do, and the Council can pass them, but the effective date would always be as of next year, whatever date is appropriate to use. The UBC basically changes every three years, and then it doesn't really change until the municipality adopts it. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Ms. Sherwood. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. JtL~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker C/; l" , 4.Æ¿ / ,/:~'ì p ;i .. ~>j¿~ Cindy' ayer, Chair Guest List .. Meeting of:,} Purpose: ' Date: ( ,2,3-2 .. , I Name Ipl.u. prinll I Address I T~=timpn~? I S! 0 6ïA/lJ (Y)c/VUTr ~RT í/JoJA.)s¿;:/lJ.f) X ", I _-I Hul ., I