Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2006 • Y 7' CITY OF .._.A«'-: . . a ' " ,. YWASHINGTON MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 The regular meeting of the Auburn Planning Commission was held on February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Renee Larsen, Ronald Douglass, Yvonne Ward, Kevin Chapman, Joan Mason and Judi Roland. STAFF: Development Services Coordinator Steve Pitcher, Community Development Administrator David Osaki, Planner Stacey Borland, Assistant Planning Secretary Laura Pierce, and Planning Secretary Carolyn Brown Work Session PUD Ordinance Steve Pitcher indicated that the City Council is looking for alternatives to the current PUD process because it is a lengthy process that takes months to get to council. There is a need to discuss the cases and speak with citizens earlier in the process. Eliminating the City's PUD provisions would allow for the adoption of alternative options that allow earlier input. The development agreement process would assist in more closely meeting expectations when the projects get to council. The current proposal is to do away with the PUD process and replace it with the development agreement process. No other process allows City Council to have earlier input aside from the development agreement process. The PUD process places certain legal constraints on the City Council, that do not exist for the development agreement process. Mr. Peace inquired about the difference between the PUD process and the development agreement process. Mr. Filcher explained that the PUD process consists of a pre-application meeting, an application for rezone and preliminary plat along with an environmental checklist application. These items are reviewed by staff, then they go to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and recommendation. Once this is complete, the City Council is permitted to conduct a closed record hearing if it wishes. City Council is not required to hold a closed record hearing; they can just adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. In contrast, the development agreement process holds upfront meetings with the developer and City Council. There is an opportunity to go over basic parameters, the SEPA process, and then straight to City Council for consideration of adoption. The development application would then be processed consistent with the parameters of the development agreement. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 The final result is essentially the same. The main difference is that issues and questions can be addressed by City Council earlier in the process with the development agreement process. Mr. Peace asked what most developers would prefer. Mr. Pilcher responded that there is less certainty in the development agreement process than in the PUD process. Mr. Peace commented that the developer would probably have a better sense of approval with the agreement process. Mr. Pilcher responded that the process length is about the same. Mr. Douglass asked if the opportunities for public comment are the same or different. Mr. Pilcher responded that the SEPA process is the same. There is still a public notice, but with the agreement process, the public actually have more opportunities to comment than they do in the PUD process. Ms. Roland inquired about the rezone aspect under the agreement process. She commented that the timeline is not clearly defined and wants to know where the guidelines are going to come from. Are the guidelines in the agreement process similar to PUD guidelines? Mr. Pilcher responded that the guidelines are not the same as far as lot size and set backs. Everything needs to be negotiated in the agreement. Mr. Chapman asked when the current PUD regulations were put into an ordinance. Staff responded in the late 1990's. He then wanted to know if the city is trying to make the PUD process null and void. Why don't the developers like it? Why aren't the guidelines working now that worked in past? It seems as though the Hearing Examiner and the Planning Department liked the guidelines and now one PUD project has changed everything. Ms. Larsen inquired about where this is coming from. What are other cities doing? Ms. Roland wants to know why we can't use both processes. Is it because of the Kersey III parks issue? Staff responded that there are some environmental issues as well as parks issues prompting this. Mr. Osaki noted that the development agreement process is already in state law. Under this process, we would be able to establish long-term agreements with developers. It allows for negotiation of a lot of aspects and requirements. As such, it provides more certainty for developers over a longer period of time. In addition, it allows the city to determine what we want to see in the agreements. Mr. Peace asked why we are considering this if it is already available in the state laws. Mr. Osaki replied that we want to remove the PUD provision because it is in the code. The city does not want to go through the PUD process any longer. A development agreement would also be an optional process; an applicant could just do straight- forward sub divisions based on zoning rather than pursue a development agreement. -2 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 Mr. Peace called the discussion to an end and inquired if it will be presented at a public hearing anytime soon. He noted that we need input from the public and developers, as well as those who have been through the process. This issue will be brought for public hearing next month. The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace at 7:07 p.m. REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the January 4, 2006 meeting be approved as mailed. PUBLIC COMMENT None PUBLIC HEARING • Amendments to Auburn City Code Title 17 Land Division Ordinance relating to the application and review process of Short Plats and Lot Line Adjustments. Mr. Pilcher explained the proposed amendments to Title 17. The goal is to bring the Short Plat process and the Lot Line Adjustment process up to the standards of the processes used by other jurisdictions. The main point is to create a more consistent format. In order to qualify for the short plat application, the property must be contiguous and unplatted. It is not permitted to take pieces off and use them as a way around going through the subdivision process. Similar adjustments would be made to the lot line adjustment code to use the same type of format. Several area surveyors were contacted for their comments on this matter. All of the surveyors that were contacted commented favorably and the proposed amendments were well received. Ms. Roland inquired as to whether there was a standard format that could be adopted or if the city will mandate the format. Mr. Pilcher responded that there is a standard, but we must to deal with two different counties, so some things will have to be different. The city does not want to put the specific format into the code. There were no public comments. -3 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 Ms. Ward recommended the adoption of the ordinance. All were in favor; no one opposed. The Planning Commission will make the recommendation to adopt to City Council. • Amendments to the City of Auburn Zoning Code (Title 18) adopting new regulations related to Off-Street Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zones. Ms. Borland covered the main points of the proposed amendments to Title 18 regarding off street parking and commercial vehicles. The current zoning code does not address commercial vehicles on residential property. For this reason, nothing can be done at this time to address complaints from the citizens of Auburn. Recent concerns have come due to the closure of the Flying J truck stop. It is proposed that a new definition for commercial vehicles to include tractor trailers and trailer cabs be added to the zoning code. Adding this new section to the code would restrict parking in residential zones unless the vehicle is parked in an enclosed structure or unless the vehicle is not visible to the public. This zoning code amendment would not apply to Rural Residential (RR) zones or RS zones. The larger parcels in these zones are not as greatly affected due to their size. There is also an option to expand the definition of commercial vehicles to include other larger vehicles that may also coincide with the home occupation ordinance. A handout of Federal Way's ordinance was provided. Mr. Osaki took a moment to explain the Planning Commission to the public. The Planning Commission members are appointed by the mayor and city council for the purpose of reviewing land use regulations. The Planning Commission then makes recommendations to the mayor and city council. Tonight, the commission is considering a change to the city's zoning code that would address the parking of large commercial vehicles on residential property. All of the members of the commission are volunteers. Mr. Peace solicited questions from the commissioners. Ms. Ward asked if a definition of commercial vehicles was to be included. Ms. Borland answered — yes, there has always been one in the proposal. Ms. Ward wanted to know if it had been made more specific. Mr. Osaki responded that it is much more specific than presented at the earlier work sessions. He added that Federal Way's ordinance gives another example of how to define commercial vehicles. Mr. Peace asked if under the proposed ordinance it would be permissible to park the semi truck cab without the trailer on the property. Ms. Borland responded that it would not be permissible to park either portion of the vehicle or the two portions together. She added that the wording may need to be modified, but that both portions of the vehicle are being targeted. Ms. Mason wanted to know if this included the large "box" trucks. -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 Ms. Borland stated that they are not as large as semi's and are not covered by the proposed definition, but they can still be considered depending on the definition that is adopted. Ms. Larsen expressed her concern that the public has not been notified that if other sizes of vehicles besides the standard tractor trailer cabs and tractor trailers are considered. She feels that we need to make a more specific notification prior to considering other size vehicles. Mr. Peace suggested that a decision be made on continuing the public hearing depending on the results of tonight's hearing. Public Comment: 1) Kelly Haggett of 929 23rd Place SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Ms. Haggett explained that the parcels in her area create a circle and that the parcel in the center of the circle has a very long driveway. The individual who resides in the home with the long driveway parks a variety of semi-truck cabs and tractor trailers on his property. This neighbor also conducts maintenance on these vehicles on his property. Ms. Haggett is concerned about these vehicles being parked in personal driveways for several reasons: 1) The effect that these commercial vehicles and their maintenance might have on property value: 2) Noise pollution and air pollution; the surrounding neighbors can't open their windows when they are in need of cooler air due to the amount of noise, odor, and fumes that come into their homes. Exhaust comes in through the bedroom and living room windows: 3) Health concerns due to the fumes, for example: asthma attacks: 4) Safety concerns; this home is located near two schools. At times, these vehicles are coming or going at the same time that children are going to school or coming home from school: and, 5) Potential property damage that could be caused by these large vehicles maneuvering in small residential areas; close to homes and fences. Non-Auburn residents are coming and going from this residence at all hours of the day and night. When they come into the neighborhood, they cause obstructions to traffic by parking on the streets and leaving their personal vehicles there for several days at a time. Ms. Haggett believes that there is a business being operated out of this residence. She feels that by implementing a code that would prohibit the parking of commercial vehicles on residential property, the problem will be eliminated. In general, she feels that it is inappropriate for these vehicles to be housed in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Haggett presented pictures to the Planning Commission to illustrate the situation that she is dealing with. 2) Janel Brutten of 2231 K Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Janel is a neighbor of Kelly's and also came to speak about the same resident that Kelly spoke about. Last spring and summer, it was very uncomfortable to be home due to the noise and pollution created by these commercial vehicles and their maintenance. She also has a variety of concerns regarding this issue: 1) -5 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 View; she feels as though she is living in the shadows of these trucks. It is an eye sore for the neighborhood. 2) Property value; she believes that these commercial vehicles have a negative impact on her property value due to the unpleasant view, the noise, and the fumes. The fumes are atrocious and she cannot open the windows in her home for this reason. She has no intention of moving just to get away from one neighbor. 3) Noise; these vehicles are running at all hours of the day with varying schedules. The trucks run for 20 minutes before leaving at midnight or 4 am. The noise is very disruptive for sleeping, watching television, listening to the radio, or having a conversation. 4) Safety; the residence is located across the street from Pioneer Elementary. She feels that there are concerns about child safety due to foot traffic to and from the school. There is also a play field across the street from the residence that is used for child sporting events and leisure play. With the varying schedules of these trucks, sometimes they are leaving when there are a lot of children out on the streets and sidewalks. Due to limited space, the trucks must back out of the area. In doing so, their visibility is limited. 5) Potential property damage due to the limited visibility when the trucks are coming and going. Commercial vehicles are not a good fit in residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission / Staff Discussion: Ms. Ward inquired as to whether or not the photos that were presented would be retained in the records. Mr. Osaki advised that a copy would be retained in the file. Mr. Peace closed the public hearing as no one else wished to comment on the issue. Ms. Ward inquired as to how this new code would work in conjunction with a variance or conditional use permit for a home occupation that involves a semi-cab. Mr. Osaki responded that the vehicles would not be allowed on residential property. Ms. Ward clarified that the vehicles cannot be on the street or on private property. This was confirmed by Mr. Osaki. He added that there are provisions for these vehicles to be on residential property if they are screened or stored in building. However, fence height restrictions still apply. Mr. Peace inquired about the permits to build a garage big enough to house a commercial vehicle. He added that perhaps this provision should be eliminated since it is not feasible. Ms. Roland addressed the issue of this being a business that is being operated out of a home. This is a different situation and we need to talk about those individuals that are strictly parking their own personal vehicle on their own property. We need to be careful that we don't create an even bigger problem. Where are these people going to park their vehicles if this amendment is passed? Ms. Mason inquired about the number of complaints the city has received since the truck stop closed? Has there been an increase in Auburn and in Federal Way? Ms. Borland replied that this has always been an issue, but the problem has become -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 greater. We are unable to determine the exact number of complaints because case files are not assigned since there is not a code violation. Mr. Osaki guessed, based on the situation in Federal Way, that they will begin parking in the streets in commercial areas. If they are not allowed to park in residential areas, the logical place to park would be commercially zoned property or on the streets in commercial/industrial areas. Ms. Mason inquired about responses from truckers' associations. She believes that they have some responsibility to look after their folks. By closing the truck stop, they dumped this problem on the surrounding cities. Ms. Ward requested that the city "tighten up" the language and give more notice time for a response from the Washington State Truckers' Association. Mr. Peace commented that independent truckers that work for companies are typically able to park "their" trucks at the company's site. Other independent truckers work for themselves and don't have a place they can park. Ms. Roland questioned if we were creating a bigger problem. Mr. Peace replied that it may be a problem for some, but a line needs to be drawn. It is not fair to impose on neighbors by parking these vehicles in residential areas. It may be an inconvenience, but others live there too. Ms. Ward requested that the city provide formal notice to businesses and associations; being sure to include those that are affected the most. If we give more notice and they don't come to comment, then they can't complain. Mr. Peace clarified that proper notice was given to the public and to the trucking association. Ms. Borland noted that a mailing was sent out at the same time that notice was posted in the newspaper. Ms. Larsen stated that independent operators need to be notified as well as the association. Ms. Ward moved to continue the public hearing and give notice to independent trucking associations and any other identifiable interested parties. Motion was seconded Mr. Chapman suggested notifying individuals based on business licenses or permits and providing them with a lot of notice due to the duration of long-haul trips. Mr. Osaki advised that he didn't think we could pull a report of out business licenses with this criteria, but that we could put a notice in the Auburn Reporter. Ms. Mason would also like to address "box" trucks of similar size and other delivery trucks in this ordinance. Mr. Chapman mentioned putting the size in the definition; the definition needs to include length and width. Ms. Larsen stated that she feels there needs to be more research and better definitions of commercial vehicles. -7 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2006 Mr. Douglass assured those that came to participate in the public hearing that we will end up with an ordinance that will assist them the situations that they are dealing with. Mr. Peace asked for those in favor of continuing the public hearing. All were in favor; motion carries. This issue is on the agenda for the March 7, 2006 7:00 PM meeting here in the Council Chambers. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Mr. Osaki made the following comments: 1) Laura Pierce, the new Assistant Secretary in the Planning Department, is now assigned to take the minutes for the Planning Commission meetings. 2) The Kersey Ill project will be going before the Hearing Examiner on February 22, 2006. This project has generated community interest. 3) City Council adopted the new sign code amendment with minimal changes to the recommendations they received from the Planning Commission. The Council thanked the Planning Commission for all of their work on the sign code amendment. 4) A moratorium has been put in place for all industrial development in the Green Zone. Mr. Pitcher reminded the Planning Commission that there has been a special session scheduled for February 16, 2006 in the council conference room with Mark Hinshaw. This special session was scheduled to discuss design guidelines and code changes in regard to the urban center. Mr. Douglass inquired as to why the tent city issue was not addressed at this meeting. Mr. Osaki responded that the city is currently juggling a variety of code amendments. The city is trying to get a list of religious organizations to notify prior to holding a public hearing on the tent city issue. Once the list is ready for notification, the issue will go to hearing. He also advised that the Homeless Encampment moratorium has been extended. The PUD issue may be addressed first, but the tent city issue has not gone away. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Judi Roland was nominated as Chair. All were in favor. Kevin Chapman was nominated as Vice Chair. All were in favor. Dave Peace was thanked for all of his hard work as Chair over the past several years. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. -8-