Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynnwood staff present Critical Areas Ordinance update, propose larger stream buffers to meet state guidance
Summary
City planning staff told the council they are updating Lynnwood's Critical Areas Ordinance to maintain Growth Management Act compliance and to align with Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance; staff proposed larger buffers for some streams (Type F and N increased to about 150 and 100 feet) and said adoption could be considered in August pending the public‑hearing outcome.
City planning staff presented a summary of proposed updates to Lynnwood's Critical Areas Ordinance during a public hearing on July 27, explaining the changes are required to remain compliant with the Growth Management Act and to reflect the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's updated best‑available science.
"We are required to update our critical areas ordinance, periodically, as required through the Growth Management Act," Principal Planner Rebecca Sammies told the council. She outlined proposed code relocations (moving regulations into new Title 8 chapters), recategorization updates for wetland typings and mitigation ratio tables, and revised stream buffer guidance. Sammies said the city would "bump up" buffers for Type F and N streams to roughly 150 and 100 feet respectively while retaining a 15‑foot setback from a critical area.
Community commenters urged caution and local discretion: Rajesh, a resident and landowner, recommended retaining practical local flexibility rather than strictly applying guidance that, he argued, suited Alaskan floodplain terrain. Planning Manager Carl Omgren explained reasonable‑use permits and said the revised code would provide clearer guidance and consistency for future constrained‑site applications and would preserve the city's eligibility for external grant funding if adopted.
Staff identified August as the next anticipated council action date for consideration of ordinance adoption, pending the outcome of the public hearing and any additional input.
The council asked clarifying questions about the reasonable‑use permit process and whether more frequent exemptions might be expected under the new buffers; staff said the process may become more routine but would also be clearer for applicants and staff.
