2005/08/10 Council Agenda Packet

Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2005 Page 4 - Mr. Laschever stated that the final piece that is addressed in the settlement is called the restoration element which addresses the Growth Board's decision that while the City had presented a lot of good analysis regarding restoration that there were things that the Board felt would be required such as: timelines, articulated goals about what the total effect of restoration would yield in terms of habitat improvement, and budget information. In essence, the capital facilities requirements under the growth management act were reviewed and the Board stated that if restoration was going to happen, it needed to have information regarding where the money was going to come from, when it was going to happen, and what the net result would be. The restoration element pulls together the information that was already in the shoreline master plan and added to it where possible the timelines and funding sources. The focus was public projects because the City does not have control over restoration timing and funding with regard to private property. Mary Cunningham circulated another figure in the SMP that needed to be updated (Figure 4.1) which showed the changed designation for the Marshland property, comments from Peggy Toepel on a couple minor clarifications on the staff report in terms of the chronology, and a letter submitted from Dagmar's Marina. Commissioner Dutton asked if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Ebert asked Mr. Laschever about the Baywood site which is designated urban industrial. He stated that immediately adjacent to that site is a property designated aquatic conservancy, and if a 200 foot buffer was applied to the Baywood site, that site because of its shape would completely render the property useless. The same applies to a couple other areas as well as indicated in Dagmar's letter. This situation can also occur along the northern portion of Smith Island along Steamboat Slough. He wondered if a 200 foot buffer (rather than the current 100 feet) with an opportunity to reduce or increase buffers based on a biological evaluation was adequate to meet the expansion needs of those properties. Mr. Laschever responded that was the biggest challenge; however in addition to having a biological evaluation, there is the City's reasonable use process that addresses what happens if an application of the buffer would deny a reasonable use of the property. So there is a mechanism in addition to the science that is based on the economic viability of the property. Ms. Cunningham referred Commissioners to Exhibit#1, page 61, the buffer regulation where it talks about the area where the minimum 200 foot buffer shall be required adjacent to the aquatic conservancy areas — it is only talking about the areas on Smith Island north of 12th Street NE and on North Spencer Island and did not apply to the Baywood site. Commissioner Trautman asked what process the City used to review a reasonable use application. Ms. Cunningham stated that a reasonable use application process required a very site specific analysis and assessment of what a specific project would be and what the impacts of that project would be. The Planning Director has the authority to make modifications to the development standards including building setbacks, building height, and landscaping standards, so the Planning Director can administratively modify those to allow a reasonable use. If a property owner still can't get a reasonable use of their property, the Planning Director can modify the buffers or can allow a transfer of development rights. Commissioner Ebert asked if he would be correct in saying that the buffer on Smith Island would be 200 feet unless you can prove otherwise. Mr. Laschever responded yes unless a biological evaluation can show not net loss with a different buffer.