Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM III-CC ~ DRAFT PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE * ~HIG~"OI and PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 2010 JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Rich Wagner called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were: Planning & Community Development Committee Chair Lynn Norman, Planning & Community Development Committee Vice Chair Nancy Backus, Public Works Chair Rich Wagner, Public Works Committee Vice Chair Sue Singer and Public Works Committee Member Bill Peloza. Staff members present included: Mayor Pete Lewis, Interim Planning & Development Director Kevin Snyder, Environmental Protection Manager Chris Andersen, Environmental Planner Jennifer Shih, Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy, Assistant City Attorney Steve Gross, Storm Water Engineer Tim Carlaw, and Planning Secretary Renee Tobias. Other audience members present included: Wayne Osborne, Mara Heiman, Eric Turbak, Brittany Bernard, Shannon Thornton, Allison Montgomery, and Austin Phillips. II. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE A. Flood PlainlFlood Hazard Area Regulations Update This is a continuation of the February 3, 2010 special meeting held by the Planning and Community Development and Public Works Committees to discuss key issues, ideas and elements forthe revision of the City's current floodplain and flood hazard area regulations, specified in Chapter 15.68 (Flood Hazard Areas) of the Auburn City Code. The City of Auburn will be updating these regulations in response to rule- making efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that includes the issuance of a model ordinance for potential use by affected local governments. Assistant City Attorney Steve Gross reported that the Legal Department had previously advised that an ordinance within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission should be reviewed and approved by the Commission well before any detailed code language was presented to the Committee. However, in this case, Legal recommends that the complete package of code changes go to both the Planning Commission and the Committees according to the schedule previously reviewed. Environmental Protection Manager Andersen stated that staff would provide an overview of the alternative floodplain scenarios as requested by Committee members at the February 3, 2010 meeting. Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 8, 200 Storm Drainage Engineer Tim Carlaw and Environmental Planner Jennifer Shih reviewed three FEMA maps with the Committees. Firstly, the 1995 Existing FEMA Flood Zone (current} map, noting the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SERA), Channel Migration Zones, Floodways and Riparian Habitat Zones. Secondly, the 2007 FEMA proposed digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map. FEMA had hoped to adopt this map in 2008, but did not. Thirdly, the Appeal FEMA Flood Zone map that King County and the Valley Cities collaborated on as part of the appeal process. Mr. Andersen noted that while the FEMA revised floodplain mapping effort is a separate activity from the development and implementation of the proposed floodplain regulations, it affects the geographic jurisdiction of the proposed regulations. Mr. Gross pointed out that the Riparian Habitat Zones are not buffers in which no development is allowed, but rather that they are zones within which development proposals would need to assess potential habitat impacts, and mitigate any impacts that are identified. Appendix F -Biological Opinion Checklist Staff distributed Appendix F. Biological Opinion Checklist from the City of Auburn's NFIP-ESA Checklist. Mr. Gross reviewed Appendix F -Biological Opinion Checklist with the Committees. Jurisdictions must show where its regulations, processes and procedures meet the minimum criteria for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Endangered Species Act (as clarified by the Biological Opinion). Item 2: Part of the Mapping Criteria is new language. When FEMA prepares future flood plain maps, they will review any changes upstream, zoning changes in the urban area and look at new levees, higher levees or levee setbacks. Item 4: The Committee and staff discussed what constituted pre-development hydrologic conditions, which included forests and trees. Additionally, to assist with commercial businesses, wording has been added that would allow hazardous materials to be kept in approved containers above the base floodplain elevation or in a dry floodproofed non-residential building. Item 5: This is a new requirement to create Habitat Protection Standards, which includes a ten percent requirement for improvements or repairs to existing structures with a footprint requirement and plan to mitigate any adverse impacts. Removal of native vegetation shall not exceed 35% of the surface area of the site in the floodplain. Staff explained that that the NMFS Bi-Op language prohibits new road crossings over streams, but that the draft FEMA model ordinance allows such crossings as long as any floodplain impacts are mitigated. Staff will contact FEMA and confirm the City's interpretation of the draft model ordinance that new crossings are not prohibited, but that the applicant would need to analyze the impact on protected habitat and mitigate. Based on the FEMA language, staff also believes that the new requirements do not preclude replacing, repairing, or expanding current crossings provided the impacts on habitat are analyzed and mitigated. Page 2 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 8, 200 Chapter 14.03 -Types of Project Permit Decisions Mr. Andersen responded to Committee's question regarding Special Home Occupation permits, stating that there are a very limited number of types of business that require a Special Home Occupation Permit. For most types of business, if the applicant meets all of the code requirements for a home occupation, it is an administrative decision. If the proposed home occupation cannot meet the code requirements for a Home Occupation Permit, it would require a Special Home Occupation Permit. Chapter 15.68 -Flood Hazard Areas The Committees and staff reviewed the changes to Chapter 15.68 -Flood Hazard Areas. Assistant City Attorney Steve Gross identified areas of flexibility mostly related to the Community Rating System (CRS). The City's rating has a direct affect on how much the citizens pay forflood insurance. Section 15.68.060.B~3~: Where base flood elevation data are not available from other sources, applicants for new subdivisions and other proposed developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, shall include such data with their permit applications. Mr. Gross indicated that the City can be more restrictive and require all applicants to provide the data, not just those in the regulatory flood plain. Should the city to choose do this, FEMA will give extra Community Rating System credit. Storm Drainage Engineer Tim Carlaw stated that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides incentives in the form of insurance premium discounts for policy holderswithin the communities that go beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements. The discounts are based on the Community Rating System (CRS). Communities meeting the minimum standards enter the CRS with a Class 10 rating, which provides no discount. The City has achieved sufficient points that it is currently rated a Class 5; therefore denoting a 25% discount in premiums for policy holders. There is opportunity to acquire additional points which may help the City to achieve a lower class. Once the model ordinance and the scoring of the Community Rating System are completed, the City will discover if a lower class was achieved. Staff answered questions asked by the Committees regarding channel migration delineation. Section 15.68.060.N and 0: Mr. Gross pointed out several additional Community Rating System credit opportunities listed in Sections 15.68.060.N and 0, noting that each new requirement may come with some increased cost to the applicant. Section 15.68.060.GG: At the Committees' request, staff will review 15.68.060.GG regarding assessed versus appraised value for the cost of restoring substantial damage to a structure. By being more restrictive, the City would receive additional CRS credit but the property owner would be limited in repairing the structure. Section 15.68.125: A new provision that the Hearing Examiner shall hear and decide appeals. Page 3 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 8, 200 Section 15.68.135: Anew section addressing the requirements for a Floodplain Development permits application. Section 15.68.160.A~4~: The requirement for the lowest finished surface elevation design of all new streets is the 100-year flood elevation. The City receives additional Community Rating System credit for requiring one foot higherthan the 100-year flood elevation which staff recommends keeping. Section 15.68.170.A~7~: The intent of the language to keep people from being trapped in a flooded basement. Committee asked staff to revise the language to better identify the intent. Committee asked staff to include a recital clause indicating how these regulations came to be, including the Biological Opinion and associated Federal requirements. Staff will forward Sections 16, 17, and 18 to the Committee for their review and feedback. Mr. Gross will consolidate all feedback for discussion at the Committee's respective meeting. The Committee and staff reviewed the Work Plan for completion of the final model ordinance. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Co-Chair Wagner adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. Rich Wagner, Co-Chair Lynn Norman, Co-Chair Renee S. Tobias, Planning Secretary Page 4